To do what with all that free time? Play videogames? Watch films, preferrably consisting of nothing but deep fakes? — baker

Some will get bored with the free time, but some will enjoy doing what they enjoy doing e.g. travelling, dating (online chatting with the robots?), reading, meditating, or thinking what to do with the free time :)

It seems to be in the interest of the stakeholders in the AI business that people consume and dumb down. What is more, it seems to be somehow evolutionarily advantageous to be an avid consumer and to dumb down, as this is the way to adapt to modern society, and adaptation is necessary if one is to survive. — baker

Yup, there will be some social problems stemming from the commercialism.

Logic is really only that by which our judgement is orderly, and adhere to the means for correcting itself. — Mww

I will come back the other points later, but for this, how would logic be able to correct itself, when it does not have any content in it? How would logic be able to correct the contentless content?

If we conceptualize the universe as a single process, as opposed to a set of discrete objects, — Count Timothy von Icarus

But would it be possible to conceptualise the universe as a single process? Can the universe even be conceived or defined? If yes, how and what would it be?

The only actual smart devices I use are to control lights and heating. All the cooking, cleaning and gardening is mine alone. — Wayfarer

I suppose there are jobs that AI can never do no matter how capable and intelligent they are. For instance, suppose AI could cook, but they cannot eat the meals for you for sure. You must eat it yourself. :D

As for meaning, logic in itself, as a function of understanding, has to do with establishment of non-contradictory judgements alone. As with the concrete pad, empirical meaning can never arise without the a priori elimination of contradictions. — Mww

1. Whether the contents of the thoughts came from the external world, or arose in the mind by thinking, intuiting, imagining, memorising ... etc, they are all the contents of thought.

2. I never said that it is "possible to think logically without logic being the form of the thinking system." Of course logic is the form of a thinking system, but it needs the contents. Do you notice you bringing up "a square concrete pad, if not for the construction of the very form required to receive the fluid concrete that subsequently solidifies into a square" ? in order to get your thought working? Without the content, how could you have demonstrated the logic?

3. I think that was what I have been saying. You cannot separate objects and contents from your thoughts. If you empty your thoughts, then there will be no logic. Thoughts cannot operate without the contents, hence logic will always operate with the contents in the thought.

Out of curiosity, what does that mean to you? — Mww

It means what it says "the world of reason", not "the world of confusion and muddle" :cool:

Also, you were going to tell me which type of logic has its content already contained in it. — Mww

I think I said it already. All logic must have the contents to operate. Without it, it is a pseudo logic or a shell with nothing in it.

You are circling around in the loop of the inputs and logic. I advise you to jump out of it immediately to the world of reason. :)

any meaning it has is a logical consequence of the inputs to the logic, and the inputs are not logic. — wonderer1

This is a circular statement. You input any meaning which is a logical consequence as the inputs to the logic?

Might that be because you equate "logic" with "thought"? — wonderer1

Not equate, but logic is a thinking process. It is different.

Yes, that is kind of the point. When you understand logic you understand that any meaning it has is a logical consequence of the inputs to the logic, and the inputs are not logic. It's good to be able to recognize the distinction. — wonderer1

That sounds like a circular statement.

Regarding Kantian general and transcendental logic, these are merely differences in the source of the representations contained in our cognitions. The former is with respect to the relations of a priori cognitions themselves to each other, regardless of the source of the representations contained therein, while the latter regards only those relations which have only to do with what makes a priori cognition possible. So while they technically are different types of logic, they still abide by the same rules of logic, which reduces to the congruency of relations of representations even in different types of cognition. — Mww

That seems different from my understanding of General and Transcendental logic in Kant. My understanding is that the general logic deals with how thoughts are related to the objects.
But transcendental logic deals with how thoughts fail to relate to objects in the correct way, such as in the case of illusion.

Anyhow, it proves that there are many different types of Logic in Philosophy, Science, Computing and A.I. Your claim Logic is contentless, and it is the only definition of Logic doesn't sound right to me. But if that is what you would go with, I won't stop you.

Exactly right. Logic, the critical method, is useless for knowing, but categorically necessary for making things known. — Mww

My thoughts on Logic is that, contents are the precondition of thoughts, and thoughts are the precondition of Logic.  Therefore, without content, Logic is impossible.  Contentless logic is a pseudo logic, or logic in just a shell with no meaning.

I can still agree that logic is contentless, under the presupposition that logic, as such, is only a methodological form in itself. — Mww

Thanks for your reply.  However, I don't agree with your view. One of the reason is that your view on logic is too narrow. I have read that definition of logic from the old logic books written in the 1800s. I didn't agree with it at all.

There are, as I said earlier, different types of logic.  You are well read in Kant, so you would know, even in Kant's Logic, there are two types of Logic i.e. General Logic, and Transcendental Logic.

I am not a Logic specialist, and my view comes from causal readings on my Logic books, but I know there are around 20+ types of different Logics in use today.  They can't all work under your abnormally narrow definition of Logic.

From my personal view of Logic, the contents are part of the Logic.  Without the contents, Logic is possible to be studied, but wouldn't be useful for the practical uses in the real world.

While there may indeed be different types of logic, I would still ask, which type of logic has its content already given? — Mww

Before that, could you please clarify what you meant by logic is "contentless"?  Contentless in what sense? What contents are you referring to in contentless logic?

Logical statements and propositions are always about something be it concepts, or things in the real world. What is your ground for claiming that logic is contentless?

My point was there are different types of logic, some contentless, some content given, or filled. They don't work all the same.

Anyhow, my real point was, be it contentless or content filled, logic is a useful method of thinking and reasoning. And whatever subject or methods they are, you make it useful by adopting them for your own purposes. Logic, Science or Metaphysics, they will not do things for you. You must do something with them to arrive at the truth.

More distortions...you're doubling down on your ignorance, clutching at straws...time wasting. — Janus

My point was that your claim that Logic is contentless, and incapable of describing the world doesn't make sense.  Maybe you have read it somewhere on the internet, and I have too.  But you cannot keep emphasizing on the point, when every device we use today is loaded with some type of logic.

I have already demonstrated how you fill in the contents into the logic you set up, and make use of them in the real world instead of keep shouting logic is contentless and incapable of describing the world.  You obviously haven't read any of them, or maybe you did read them, but still don't understand the points in the demonstrations. You definitely don't know all types of logic out there being used recently, but keep claiming on some opinion you read somewhere on the internet. 

That is not a good philosophical method. Why not have your own opinion on the subject after having read or studied more textbooks and see also the real world applications on the subject.

Whatever the case, resorting to the emotion-fueled comments such as "ignorance" and "waste of time" doesn't make you look or sound any better than any of your counterparts in terms of the integrity and context in the arguments.

If we get the AIs working for us cleaning, washing, writing, cooking, gardening ... etc etc, we will have plenty of free time for sure. :D

:ok: :up:

So what? Logic is about the form, not the content, but I haven't denied that thought processes and arguments, whether logically valid or not, have content. Try to address what I'm actually saying and not what you imagine I'm saying, and the conversation might improve — Janus

You have been talking in terms of some old classic logic point of view. There have been huge developments in Logic for many years, and now there are many types of logic. It is not really helping anyone just parroting what logic is about from the outdated point of view.

If you cannot present your own ideas in your own words, and address what I'm actually saying instead of strawman versions, instead of giving me unwanted reading advice and misinterpreting, whether deliberately or not, my words, then responding to you is a waste of time and energy. — Janus

Strawman versions? What was your arguments or points actually apart from keep saying Logic is contentless and useless methods because it cannot describe the world? My point was that we have limited space and time in writing up the most basics in the fields, hence why not go and do some readings before spewing out pointless criticisms, which are totally subjective and unsupported instead of demanding to explain the obvious.

I have been pessimistic on AI's humanisation par excellence, but having said that I was impressed by the progress of the technology in 2023 after watching some videos on the AI. It would be interesting how far they will advance as time progresses.

I recall some folks talking about transferring a human consciousness into AI, and the AI would operate as the transferred person mentally. I thought it was a Sci-Fi hypothesis, but then many Sci-Fi hypotheses came true in the real world. It seems likely that a lot more surprises will happen in the future AI industry.

Houston, we have a problem. A.I. has been catching us up. They are going to replace us soon. :(

Can AI ever be sentient? [url]http://https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0f73vlw/can-artificial-intelligence-ever-be-sentient-

AI Consciousness 2023 - 2030 Timeline of Sentient Machines

Seductive AI has no rules. It will change your life (or end it).

I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? — Gregory

Isn't being conscious or consciousness the pre-condition for all the other mental activities?

I have defined what consciousness is in living existence in the other thread.

Of course it would be naive to think that a computer / machine conscious state is just simply an ON-OFF state. It was just a quick answer to the OP's question with no elaboration whatsoever, because it is a common knowledge that it involves more than that.

As you may know, when computer is switched on, it doesn't just power on, but it goes on various steps from the ROM BIOS stored booting program to wake the machine, then loads up the Operating System program from the hard disk, and fill the RAM with the application processes and make the whole machine ready to stand-by any input from all the available peripherals such as keyboard, mouse, touch screen monitors, network adaptors, and sound chips, microphones, cameras etc etc.

Again, the detailed and more precise process could be referred from the experts explanations, but this is just the simplest summary of how the machine POWER ON event works in general.  Depending on what type of computer / machine or AI device they are, of course, the BOOT UP steps might be different, but in general they will be very similar.

No matter how clever a computer or AI device they are, they will not be able to operate without electric power source i.e. from the AC or DC type of electricity either from rechargeable or direct ON Board power source such as batteries, or solar energy.  Therefore it is likely all AI devices and computers will be totally reliant on humans to supply the electric energy and also powering ON-OFF as required.

I suspect any AI or computer device will be able to operate like real humans fully in a biological and mental way.  AI devices will be manufactured for certain types of tasks such as cleaning, sorting out mails, cooking, manufacturing ...etc.  

Consciousness of AI devices will not be able to be shared by other conscious beings such as humans and other AI devices due to the nature of consciousness itself.  The contents of the AI devices consciousness could be copied or cloned to the other AI devices, but humans will still not be able to know what they would be like.

It is likely that AI devices will take over many jobs carried out by humans in the future making much of the human workforce redundant creating economic problems for them.  However, AI devices will never be able to operate like humans do in terms of biological, social and mental life.

Cogito ergo verum.

I think, therefore I am real.

Could you elaborate with a formal proof? If you want, I can try to formalize my proof as well. — Ø implies everything

I didn't need to get into the symbolic formal proof for this elaboration.  Just the plain English reasoning was enough.

The proposition has implied premises.
Everything exists, exists. (True)
Something exists. (True)

Therefore (OP's proposition) Absolute nothingness is impossible. (False), but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. (true) = inconsistent

Therefore I conclude that the OP's proposition is invalid and inconsistent, because it denies the possibility of absolute nothingness, then it accepts the possibility of nothingness at the same time.  Remember something always exists.  Everything exists, exists.

This was a very useful exercise.  It isn't about whether Absolute nothingness exists or not in the real world.  It is about how we could reason on some abstract concepts, and analyse them logically. 

"What is an example of absolute non existence?
Ans.: It is the absolute non-existence between two things for all time. This absence is eternal. For example, hare's horn is the non-existent in the past, present, and will be in the future. This kind of absence has neither a beginning nor an end.

What is the state of absolute nothingness?
Is absolute nothingness possible?
Absolute Nothingness is a status with no details — no space, no time, no dimension, no features. For Hegel, this status is identical to the status of Pure Being. Pure Being also has no details, no space, no time, no dimension, no features." - Google

Absolute is actually an absolutely important quantifier in this thread. Let us suppose that "Absolute nothingness" was defined as a concept for the state of the universe before it was born.

In this instance, "Nothingness" alone would be inadequate to describe the prior state of the existence of the universe, because it would be the only existence in the pre-universe.

It only makes sense then, "Absolute nothingness" would be the very right concept as the only and pure state of nothingness.

Could you elaborate with a formal proof? If you want, I can try to formalize my proof as well. — Ø implies everything

Sure. I will make up my own analyses of the reasoning, and come back with it. Please forward your formal proof. Thanks.

think my argument can be simplified to this:

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

Anything that is not nothing. — Ø implies everything

I tried to analyse the statement further with logical reasoning, and the conclusion I got is, it is neither true nor false. Therefore it is not a valid proposition.

Thus, we are left without an answer to why there is something rather than nothing. Yet, I do not think this entails any paradoxes, nor does it allow for skepticism about whether something exists or not. All that is threatened is that there may be no ultimate reason for existence; it may be that reality is a brute fact. — Ø implies everything

For the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?",  I feel that we can get the answer for the reasons for the most existence by inductive and deductive reasoning.  For example, the book exists in my room, because I bought it, it had been written by the author, printed by the publisher, and sold by Amazon ... etc etc.

But there are some existences with their properties, which are out of the boundaries of our reasoning capability in finding out their reasons for the existence with conclusive certainty such as the earth, mountains, seas, sky, space, the planets, galaxies and Gods so on.

These entities are just too old, far in distance, massive in size, or abstract for our reason to manage to work out the possible answers.  The only answers we can get would be either from the scientific conjectures or religious myths, which don't convince our reasoning system with the conclusive assurance.

Therefore we are forced to go back to Kant's CPR written in  the mid 1700s, and nod our heads to "Thing-in-Itself", and the limitation of human reasoning as declared by him.

I think my argument can be simplified to this:

Absolute nothingness is impossible, but it would not be impossible if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

I feel part of the statement in the argument seems unclear.

"Absolute nothingness is impossible to x"?
x= exist, imagine, conceive, eat, see, smell, hear, manufacture, discard ... etc?

Can x in your simplified argument be specified and clarified?

if it were not for the existence of something. — Ø implies everything

What does "something" denote or indicate?

:cool: :ok:

I have a book called Metaphysics by Baumgarten, which Kant had studied. But I could not find any books by Wolf in English. There are some Wolf books available in German, but no one really seemed have translated Wolf's original works into English. Supposedly Wolf was a giant in Metaphysics at the time too. Wolf must have affected greatly the Kant's system, but probably in opposition way?

IE, we perceive something where in fact there is nothing. — RussellA

What would be the "something" that you perceive?

Perhaps she was a kindred spirit of Hume’s — Wayfarer

Maybe the monkey was a secret agent sent out to the Crown Prince by Hume?
Perhaps that would be the reason why it is so difficult to get hold of any of Wolff's books even today :( :)

There seems to be a family resemblance between Bracketing and Nominalism. — RussellA

An interesting point ! :up:

Mind can also perceive the process of changes and temporality of objects in the external world.  When an object changes from existence to non-existence (the book on the table),  the property of the object changes from extension to non-extension.  The property of extension to non-extension of material objects can be perceived as Absolute nothingness.

All existence is either absolute existing or absolute non-existing. There is no in-between or half existence.

A book at one moment in time can only exist in one location. For example, in the morning, it exists on the desk. But in order for it to exist on the desk, it cannot exist anywhere other than on the desk, for example, under the desk or ten metres to the right of the desk.

As I perceive the book existing on the desk, at the same time, I also perceive the book as not existing under the desk.

Generalising, to be able to perceive something somewhere, I must be able to perceive nothing somewhere else. — RussellA

You can perceive the essence of the Absolute Nothingness via Husserl's phenomenological method called Bracketing, which is to bracket the distracting details of the perception such as the book, existence, the table ...etc, and just concentrating on the subjective experience of Absolute Nothingness - i.e. {the non-existence} of the book at that moment of your perception.

Thanks for your reply on the counterpart words for those words.   This is a new way to view the words for me. I will mull them over.  

I think the abstract words are definitely in the world of language, but they can also be in one's mind i.e. as psychological states or events.

For example "absolute nothingness" can be described as a psychological state prior to someone's birth, if he believed in the existence of soul separate from his body.  The consciousness part of the soul of the person before birth would be "absolute nothingness".

  Or if one believed in one's own consciousness in the soul after one's death, then would be "absolute nothingness".

Or if there was a book on the desk this morning. You saw it there lying on the desk. But when you saw the desk when you returned home from the town after few hours of errands, it has gone. There is nothing on the desk.

Someone might have moved it to the other room, but you don't know which room, or if it had been actually moved by someone, or was it dropped into a box underneath the desk, or actually you don't recall what has been happened or done to it. Only thing you recall is that you saw the book on the desk this morning.

At that moment, in your mind, you have the feeling or perception of "absolute nothingness" about the existence of the book.

:lol: :ok: :fire:

If a word had no counterpart, it wouldn't be part of language in the first place. — RussellA

What are the counterpart words for "car", "book" and "Coca Cola"?

Interesting to note that the criticism also applies to his book. Not for nothing is Hume sometimes called 'the godfather of positivism'. — Wayfarer

Yes, interesting indeed. Do you have the quotes from Hume's works?

Having said that, it exists as you wrote it down.  It exists on its own as a concept without meaning or denotation. 

If it didn't exist, you couldn't have thought of it, or typed it up. And if you will, the meaning of "Absolute Nothing" is an abstract concept which has no meaning, and no denotation.  It could have other meanings, if a group of people agreed to give their own meanings to the concept.

Before the thread was made up, it didn't exist. When the thread was opened, and the word was typed, it exists on the screen in the thread - I can read it :) .  According to Wittgenstein, meanings are dead before use. When they get used, they get born and are alive ... something like that in the Blue Book.

It doesn't exist in the external world, but it does exist in one's mind, and on the paper, and computer screen, as you write it down. Is it the "Absolute Nothingness" you meant? or did you have something else in mind?

There seem to be too many religions already. The world doesn't need any more new religions.