I agree with most of the things that you said. The problem is that he didn't provide any definition for the meaning of life, so we cannot discuss whether the concept is subjective or objective.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the information.

LOL, they changed the title! Am I the only person posting here?

System Of A Down - Chop Suey!



System Of A Down - Toxicity

So what is the meaning of life?

Think of it like having a favorite color. Everyone has one, and no one's favorite color is any more better or worse than that of another's. — Outlander

Yes, we all have different preferences.

He seems to be describing "life drive", what one wakes up for each morning. Everyone has something they favor over another thing, let that mean "meaning of life". — Outlander

Desires and emotions are life's forces, whereas thoughts are life's drive.

...and, cue renewing discussion!. Man, I love solving problems. — Outlander

I, too, love solving problems.

Do you mean this?: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell. — AmadeusD

I see and I agree.

But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information. — AmadeusD

However, in this video, Terence mentioned that he had conversations with entities he encountered. He clearly mentioned that entities answered questions as well.

Okay, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I'm saying people know what the meaning of life means. — Darkneos

And I am asking you for the third time if you could please provide a definition of the meaning of life or what the meaning of life refers to. This is your thread, and providing the definition of things that you use when people ask for them is necessary for any constructive discussion.

There is the possibility of misunderstanding. I, however, asked twice for a definition of the meaning of life, but he refused to provide one. Well, we cannot discuss the meaning of life if we don't know what it refers to.

I don't know. This is your thread, not mine. It is up to you to explain what meaning refers to in a couple of sentences, a paragraph, etc. Saying that there are books on this topic does not resolve the problem.

It does mean something, it means the meaning of life is our invention, we created the concept. — Darkneos

Yes, we created the concept, but we don't know what it refers to!

Correct. I think I should have said that animals are not as well-evolved as humans when it comes to thinking. Anyhow, this thread is about meaning rather than thinking, so my point about the meaning stands still.

It's not though, the meaning of life is both a thought and a feeling, that doesn't mean I can explain it as such. Plenty of books have also been written about the meaning of life so again you're just wrong.

Also it's not true the animals didn't evolve to have thoughts, plenty do. There is also nothing to suggest that the meaning of life is something we cannot experience because we are not cognitively evolved well.

The meaning of life is a human invention, nothing more. Hence why I said it's thoughts and feelings. — Darkneos

I really don't think I can add further, except commenting on your post. You mentioned that plenty of animals think. Could you please give me an example of an animal with the capacity to think? You also mentioned that the meaning of life is both a thought and a feeling, which, of course, does not mean anything at all.

We agree that AI lacks abstraction - on this we are saying the same thing. — Pieter R van Wyk

Cool.

I am not sure what "big IF' you are referring to, all I am saying is that if (or when) AI gains this capability then we humans will loose our place on the apex of evolution. You might agree or disagree with this conclusion. — Pieter R van Wyk

Given the fact that AI lacks abstraction, AI cannot come up with a new idea. Therefore, AI cannot replace us at the pinnacle of evolution. Creating new ideas is fundamental in the evolution of the human species. Humans will evolve further, most probably without an end. I, however, think that AI will reach a threshold in its advancement, so it would be extremely difficult to make an AI that is more intelligent than former AIs.

Five classes are identified by considering the interactions between a system and a collection of data — Pieter R van Wyk

I don't understand what the interactions between a system and a collection of data mean.

three classes are identified by considering the interactions between a system and its purpose. — Pieter R van Wyk

I don't understand what the interactions between a system and its purpose mean.

AI still lacks only two capabilities that humans have: survival and abstraction. If (or when) AI gains both these two capabilities we humans will loose our place on the apex of evolution. — Pieter R van Wyk

That is a big IF. As I argued in the OP, AI does not have access to ideas since it is mindless, so it lacks abstraction.

Ana Vidović plays J.S. Bach - Partita

I don't think that's true, that it's not thoughts or feelings since those things are where we get the notion of a meaning for life. There isn't anything saying it's something we are not able to experience. — Darkneos

It is correct. You cannot explain the meaning of life using thought and feeling. Otherwise, you need to explain it using thoughts and feelings to me. As I said, if there is such a thing as the meaning of life, then we are not able to experience it since we are not cognitively evolved well, similar to animals that didn't evolve in order to have thoughts, but feelings only.

Please recollect that there are two attributes of systems that could be used to understand different classes of systems: a classification based on the interaction between a system and a collection of data, and a classification based on the interaction between a system and its purpose. — Pieter R van Wyk

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by each classification?

It is my perception that artificial intelligence has progressed quite well in the classes that require interactions with collections of data. — Pieter R van Wyk

I cannot tell.

It is a very valid and open question if or when artificial intelligence will obtain the capability of abstract thought (Class 7 systems) and even surpass humans. — Pieter R van Wyk

AI cannot have abstract thought since it lacks access to the ideas necessary for imagination and abstraction.

The meaning of life, if it exists, is not thoughts or feelings. It must be something that we are not able to experience, perhaps because we are not cognitively well-developed. Life does not have any purpose per se. Any intelligent creature, however, is able to define a purpose for his/her/its life.

My point was that a sentence has more content than separate words that make up the sentence. We couldn't possibly communicate any new idea if a sentence does not have such a property. If you are looking for an absolutely new idea, then please consider the conclusion of the OP, namely, AI cannot think.

Could you give some examples of known ideas and new ideas? How does it work? — Corvus

When I say "cup", you immediately realize what I am talking about since the word refers to an idea. The sentence "the cup is on the table" contains many words; each word refers to an idea. The sentence, however, refers to a new idea, which in this case is a situation.

Thanks for the article. I will read it when I have time.

The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea.

Yes, it can. — T Clark

If you say so. But that means that you didn't pay attention to my argument.

This is not correct. — T Clark

It is correct. We can calculate the physical properties of atoms and molecules using Ab initio methods and the density functional theory. We can even predict protein folding using AI as well. You can find two publications on this topic here and here.

there is a tyrant within you...that in todays world is seen as despicable...but I say embrace who you are in all of your beauty and in all of your horror, accept yourself wholly. But obviously dont give in to the tyrant. But rather channel that mother effr into your passions. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think we need to understand why the subconscious mind could be so cruel in some individuals. It is partly genetic and partly due to the bad treatment of the conscious mind. We cannot fix the first part, yet we can suppress it according to the leatreatures. For the second part, we need to understand the trouble we have caused to the subconscious mind, trying to heal it.

Finally, the (metaphorical) tender and ignorant flesh is exposed. Now it can be graded properly. Ah, except I note one flaw. And I'm no professional by any means. There is no "we" in this abstract concept. A man can be born alone in the world and he will still think. But perhaps this is a simple habit of speech, a human flaw, like we all have to be ignored, so I shall. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt. :smile: — Outlander

Correct. I should have said "an intelligent creature" instead of "we".

But! Ah, yes, there's a but. Even still. One cannot "know an idea" without the auspices and foreprocesses of thought itself. So, this is defining a concept without explaining its forebearer. Your so called "thinking" is created by the process of involvement with "known ideas". yet how can an idea exist and be known unless thought of? — Outlander

I don't know the right word for playing with ideas, experiencing them, without any attempt to create a new idea. :wink: For sure, such an activity is different from thinking, given the definition of thinking.

Ok. So we have to differentiate between information and experience (Mary's room then). Because you're not seeing the experience, but rather a reconstruction in a monitor, in a flat screen. A few pixels, but the experience isn't made up of pixels. It is a translation from something to something totally different. — JuanZu

Very accurate!

Love your avatar BTW. Reminds me of my mood most of time sober. — Outlander

I am glad you like my avatar! :wink:

Well, it appears to be 'thinking' was my point. It cannot think. It would have been better of me to state that AI models do fool humans into thinking it can think. — I like sushi

Correct!

It simulates speech very effectively now. I do certainly not equate speech with thought though. I want to be explicit about that! — I like sushi

Correct again! An AI produces meaningful sentences only based on its database and infrastructure.

I was not sayign any such thing. I was stating that AI is far more capable of pattern recognition than us. It can sift through masses of data and find patterns it would take us a long, long time to come close to noticing. It is likley these kinds of features of AI are what people mistaken for 'thinking' as it seriously out performance us when it comes to this kind of process. — I like sushi

Correct again! :wink: An AI is just much faster than us in pattern recognition since it is silicon-based. It is specialized in certain tasks, though. Our brains are, however, huge compared to any neural net that is used in any AI, and it is multitasking. A neuron is just very slow.

So, what is thinking? You've, from what I've seen, yet to delineate a clear and concise formula (and resulting definition) for such. — Outlander

I define thinking as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea. This definition is inclined to processes such as abstracting and imagination.

Well, I mean, take the following sentence.

Ahaj scenap conopul seretif seyesen — Outlander

You are talking about language here. Of course, this sentence does not mean anything to me since I cannot relate any of the words you used to something that I know. The language is used to communicate new ideas, which are the result of thinking. We are working with known ideas when it comes to thinking, so there is no such miscommunication between the conscious and subconscious mind.

Spinoza's 'conception of substance' refutes this Cartesian (Aristotlean) error; instead, we attribute "mind" only to entities which exhibit 'purposeful behaviors'. — 180 Proof

He is definitely wrong. Purposeful behaviors are attributes of living creatures. Living creatures have at least a body and a mind.

Circular reasoning fallacy. You conclude only what you assume. — 180 Proof

No. You need to read things in order to see what I said follows, and it is not circular.

P1) AI is mindless.
P2) The mind is needed for the creation of an idea
C1) Therefore, AI cannot create an idea (from P1 and P2)
P3) The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea
C2) Therefore, AI cannot think (from C1 and P3)
C3) Therefore, AI cannot create a new idea (from P3 and C2)

I’m OK with that as edited. — T Clark

Given the definition you suggested, you either don't understand what objectively exists means, or you don't know what emergence is. I don't understand why you removed substance from my definition, but something that objectively exists is a substance, as opposed to something that subjectively exists, such as an experience. A neural process cannot give rise to the emergence of a substance, or something that objectively exists.

Moreover, the brain is subject to constant change due to the existence of the mind. So, the brain cannot produce the mind and be affected by the mind at the same time. That is true, since the neural processes are subject to change once the mind affects the brain. There is, however, no mind once neural processes change. So, you cannot have both changes in neural processes and the mind at the same time.

Of course it can. Life emerges out of chemistry. Chemistry emerges out of physics. Mind emerges out of neurology. Looks like you’re understanding of emergence is different from mine. — T Clark

Biology, chemistry, etc., are reducible to physics. That means that we are dealing with weak emergence in these cases. Emergence of the mind, if it is possible, is strong emergence, which I strongly disagree that it is possible because of the reasons mentioned in the previous comment.

But that’s what it means. As I’ve said before, if you want to make up definitions for words, it’s not really philosophy. You’re just playing a little game with yourself. — T Clark

To me, abstraction and imagination are examples of thinking. Remembering, free association, etc. are not.

What do you mean by "think"? What is your definition of "think"? — Corvus

I already defined thinking in the OP.

AI simply simulates thinking. — I like sushi

They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking.

It is built for pattern recognition and has no apparent nascent components to it. — I like sushi

Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so.

A car ran over the neighbor's dog.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? It (the idea via sentence) happened, it isn't any more or less than what it means. — Nils Loc

Each sentence refers to at least one idea, such as a relation, a situation, etc. In your example, we are dealing with a situation.

Compare:

A 2024 Rapid Red Mustang Mach E ran over our neighbor's 15 year old Chiweenie.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? — Nils Loc

We are dealing with a situation again, no matter how much detail you provide.

There are plenty of other mental events that come to mind that might be considered emergent. As we’ve discussed previously, as I see it, the mind itself is emergent from the neurological and physiological processes of the nervous system and body. — T Clark

What sort of emergent thing is the mind? To me, the mind is a substance; by the substance, I mean that something that objectively exists and has a set of abilities and properties, so it cannot be an emergent thing. Is the mind a substance to you as well? If not, what sort of thing is the mind?

No. Thinking is — T Clark

That is a very broad definition, which I don't agree with. For example, remembering is required for thinking, but it is not thinking. The same applies to free association.

What does it mean to 'think'? — Jack Cummins

I already defined thinking in the OP.

Is it a product of the nervous system or something more? — Jack Cummins

It is a product of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind working together. These minds, however, are interconnected in a complex way by the brain.

This area is complex because it involves the question as to what extent thought transcends the thinker. — Jack Cummins

I think that thinking transcends the thinker. You understand the meaning of a sentence right after you complete reading it. Each word in the sentence refers to an idea. The idea related to a word is registered in the memory of the conscious mind once the word is read. A new idea emerges magically once you complete reading a sentence!

This already seems to beg your conclusion, that something fundamentally separate from the components of a human is required for a thought to be designated as an 'idea'. — noAxioms

This is a premise that can be confirmed. But for that, we need to agree on what an idea is.

This also requires an implied premise that an AI has no similar access to this fundamentally separate thing, which you also state. — noAxioms

Correct. AI does not have access to any idea.

OK, but what exactly is an idea then? — noAxioms

We have been through this in another thread. I already defined the idea in the OP.

Arguably, the same can be said of you. — noAxioms

I can also produce a meaningful sentence that demonstrate an idea.