There’s nothing better than heaven. But a ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than heaven? — Pfhorrest

I put that up in the school cafeteria once, they made me take it down because they thought it would cause unfair competition with the chapel next door. :lol:

Also, I’m not sure if Syamsu believes this, but if I were building a system like this, I would draw an analogy between the relationship between God and the material world, and between the human soul and body: God is the world-soul, and as human bodies are parts of the material world, human souls are part of God’s soul. — Pfhorrest

That seems familiar somehow, where did I hear it before? :chin:

Let's take the example of instantaneous distant communication, the old desire since the world:
Maximum goal: telepathic communication, maybe even at the level of senses and emotions. — Eugen

With the amount of research into quantum entanglement going on there is a possibility of this happening one day. But I doubt that many of us will be around to enjoy it. But them again our grandfathers never even imagined that they could have a little box in their pocket that would let them talk to anyone around the world. And quite a few of them are going just that.

Will technological evolution make us have new desires that our current brain cannot imagine? — Eugen

When you got a wireless phone for your house did you not wish for a phone that you could walk around anywhere with, when you got a cell did you not want to talk to it to instead of typing on those little keys, and then one that you could see the other person on. That is how innovation works.

For every boundary that humankind crosses the will be new ones further ahead. That means there will be need for new technology. Everywhere humans go they will make discoveries that will set in motion new ways of thinking thus leading to new inventions.

Well, my efforts at understanding have culminated in the discovery and embrace of a lot of highly "social" philosophies (like Mead, Marx, Habermas) which are oriented primarily around the notion of a communal good and a communal mind. And I am endeavouring to live my life according to principles conformant with those philosophies. And I feel that this is working, in my own life and in what I am able to give back to my community. — Pantagruel

Side stepping the question does not help. I asked what EFFORT you are making to improve the world, not which books you are reading.
Conforming to the principles of long dead philosophers, or even many living ones for that matter, is not going to make the world any better.
Thinking like or thinking about everyone else in the hood is not necessarily a good thing. Conformists are usually a bad thing in the end.

In the way that you just rejected meliorism, which I endorse. I think that is pretty straightforward. — Pantagruel

So yu doing that is going to improve the world. Endorsing meliorism is all fine and dandy, but saying that makes no difference to the world at all.

What effort are you going to make to improve the world?

I think that I can make a positive contribution, you think you cannot. — Pantagruel

In what way?

It's just the difference between optimism and pessimism really, isn't it? — Pantagruel

No actually it is a valid question. Do you have an answer?

"Forget" is a strong word; that implies not remembering something said. — InPitzotl

Sorry about that, definitely badly worded. I have been busy in classes all day and just skipped a few minute to drop in here at lunch. Let me rewrite that part.

But one thing that most people don't seem to realize when talking about the theoretical P zombie is that it is not written anywhere that it has to be a physical object, only that it has to be able to convince real people that it is a real person. A hologram would probably be able to do that.

Is that the only problem?

Speaking personally, I feel that global recognition of this fact is the key to a brighter future. — Pantagruel

And there is the key question. A brighter future for whom or what?

"You imply disparity where none exists" — Pantagruel

How so?

What is a wrong answer is to say that there would be a fact of what emotions were in his heart, which made the decision turn out the way it did. — Syamsu

So where are is emotions, more importantly what are emotions?

I think you're missing the point. Yes, the TT involves having a conversation; but the conversation is limited only to a text terminal... that is, you're exchanging symbols that comprise the language. But the TT involves being indistinguishable from a human to a (qualified) judge. — InPitzotl

The original game was to try to distinguish between a man and a women using only written text answers to questions, obviously speaking would have made it too easy.
I think that you missed the point of exactly what he said. Look it up.
Turing did not set any limit to how the test would be carried out with a computer, his vision of a computer that was capable of fooling a human was 50 years from his time. I doubt that he thought that computers would just stay as text terminals, even though they did not exist in his time. His statement was futuristic.

Mmm.... it's a little more complex than this. Fall back to the TT's inspiration... the imitation game. Your goal is to fool a qualified judge. So sure, if it takes you 10 minutes to figure out that a banana is a good response to an oblong yellow fruit, that's suspicious. If it takes you 10 seconds? Not so much. But if it takes you 5 seconds to tell me what sqrt(pi^(e/phi)) is to 80 decimal places, that, too, is suspicious. You're not necessarily going for speed here... you're going for faking a human. Speed where it's important, delay where it's important. — InPitzotl

You can program response time and delays into a computer quite easily, an AI would have a basic set of rules to follow for most of its operations. Just as it would need rules to follow when picking something up.

Technically, yes, but that's a vast oversimplification. It's analogous to describing the art of programming as pushing buttons (keys on a keyboard) in the correct sequence. Yeah, programming is pushing buttons in the right sequence, technically... but the entire problem is about how you push the buttons in what sequence to achieve what goal. — InPitzotl

So an AI would need trillions of lines of code instead of millions, which brings us back to the part of processing power. Sequences using IF/THEN/ELSE would decide which buttons were pressed and when, again trillions of them.

Think of this as skillsets. — InPitzotl

Computer learning has come a long way in the last few years. Some of them can and do recognize objects. Some of them can and do pick them up and manipulate them, with great competence. Put the two together and there is your machine.

While accomplishing this has not happened in the 50 years Turing predicted it is getting closer everyday.

But one thing that most people seem to forget about when talking about the theoretical P zombie is that it is not written anywhere that it has to be a physical object, only that it has to be able to convince real people that it is a real person. A hologram would probably be able to do that.
If someone throw a banana at you, would you try to catch it or dodge it. Fear of contact from a physical object would be just as convincing as actually catching it.

So a judge might ask something like, what's a good example of an oblong yellow shaped fruit? And if the response is "A banana", that's something a human could have said. Call that "level 1". — InPitzotl

I think that Turing meant that you could have a conversation as opposed to a question/answer session with it. It would be have to access vast amounts of data quickly and come up with the correct sentences, phrases to be able convince anyone that it was a human.

But here's the problem. If we take a "level 1" program and just shove it into a robot, what do you suppose we'd get? It'd be silly to presume you'd get anything other than this... a (hopefully) non-moving robot, — InPitzotl

I don't remember ever reading anything he wrote or that was written about him that could indicate that he thought AI would be judged by its use in robots. The test was actually based on a game.

when asked to pick out the banana from the bowl of fruit, that the robot would just reach out and either touch the banana or pick it up. So let's say it does that... then what more is it doing than level 1? Well, it's not just processing string data... now it's observing the environment, associating requests with an action, identifying the proper thing to do when asked to show me which is the banana, and being capable of moving its robot arm towards the banana based on its perception. — InPitzotl

The observation creates more strings of data for it to process, and make decisions about. Any artificial sense would produce data to be processed. A true AI would have to have a lot of processing power just for that. But for a robot to be able to move you need very little processing power. The two things are not equivalents, AI is not a robot and robots do not have to be AI

That's a bit more involved than just passing a Turing Test... the two aren't equivalent. — InPitzotl

If I just want to talk to the little black box on my desk because I am lonely, the test works fine. The test does not say that AI has to convince someone by being there in PERSON and convincing them that it is human. That would involve more that just AI, things like appearance, smell, body movement and lots of other human quirks.

As I said, the human race is as much a part of the universe as anything else, so your premise, or rather, your objection to my premise, is flawed. — Pantagruel

Yes we are a part of the universe, but if our atoms where rearranged into stones we would still be here but in a different form.

meliorism - The belief that the world can be made better by human effort

Mother Nature will take care of fixing herself, like she is doing now while the humans are locked up.
No matter how much effort humans make they cannot repair the damage that they have done.
The easiest way to make the world better would be to remove the humans.

Not counting try to repair damage, exactly what about the world could we actually improve?

The best we could do would be to make conditions better for humans, making the world more to our liking would be an improvement. But how much more damage would be done to others because of out efforts?

You are repeating yourself again and it still does not make any sense.

Speak plain English and give an example that is valid in everyday life, I do not know anyone that has to chose between A and B except in game shows. So either explain the process clearly or give up and read a book on human psychology.

And don't tell me that it cannot be done, because that would mean that your theory does not apply to reality.

Having either neither or both would be conservative and choosing one or the other would be progressive? — Outlander

Choices made can lead to positive or negative results, but the choice itself is neither. Do all changes have to be progressive or conservative.
I have seven shirts, one for each day of the week, how could it be counted as either progressive or conservative if I choose which one to wear randomly each day?

Help me out here, OP. :razz: — Outlander

Don't hold your breath there mate. It seems he thinks you need a dictionary, not an explanation.

Conservative is to leave things as they are, and progressive is to change things. — Syamsu

And he uses a rather deficiente one as well.:lol:

You are exploiting the complexity of people's decisionmaking processes to argue for ignorance on how decisionmaking works. — Syamsu

Not even you know how decision making really works.

I mean you don't offer a competing understanding, instead you just set out to make a conceptual mess. Probably in order to avoid dealing with emotions, because that is a common theme. — Syamsu

If you had read what I wrote, I asked for explanations of your theory to understand what you were talking about. Without understanding how can I propose a competing idea?

The spirit in this case are the emotions, the appreciation for eating the hotdog and burger. — Syamsu

So it is what I thought it was, the subconscious. I did say from the beginning that you were just adding fancy names to things.

Why would you eliminate humanity from the equation? — Pantagruel

The world universe does not need us to be here. Why would anyone think that anything we do would make the place better.

The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. — Pantagruel

Would you care to explain why we "deserve" anything? Is it a part of nature, a natural right? a universal rule maybe? Based on what do come to the conclusion that humans deserve to construct principals such as this?
I think that it is rather preposterous to think that humans can be anything more than humans and therefore they will always act like humans. Most of human improvement has been accidental, coincidental or genetic, while the world has just gone about it ways trying to ignore us.

We can through effort make the universe less shitty by looking after it better, but make it better how?

Unless you are an anti-meliorist. — Pantagruel

I don't wear labels, thank you. Stereotyping, name calling are lame ways to to make yourself feel better.

meliorist = A disputant who advocates reform

anti-meliorist = a non disputant who advocates reform

or

anti-meliorist = A disputant who advocates no reform

It seems that you might be operating in a framework of meliorism, which is definitely my own orientation. — Pantagruel

The world is getting along just fine, actually much better without us humans right now so I think that is sort of a nonsensical idea.

That is to say, that basically any choice is either conservative or progressive, to keep things as they are, or to actualize a possibility. — Syamsu

Wrong, all choice are between any available options. They do not have to be either conservative or progressive. I am going to eat a sandwich, do I want it with butter or mayo? How can either one of those be progressive or conservative when I usually have neither or both.

Having alternative futures available, making of them the present, and then what the agency of the choice is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

Having alternate futures is acceptable, making them today is ridiculous.You can decide to do something today that will change what tomorrow might be, but it is impossible to make that today.
So what led to today being today instead of an alternate today was the choice you made yesterday.

And what was that agency then?

One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. — Wiki

Where does your spirit fit into the picture?

The spiritual is defined as what did this job of making the choice turn out A.

It can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is, choose an opinion that a choice was made out of fear, joy, etc. — Syamsu

Ok, let's try this. I chose a hamburger for lunch instead of a hotdog, A instead of B. What exactly did the spiritual do? Did the job of making the decision not come about because of the workings of my unconscious/subconscious reasoning abilities processing the knowledge that I have acquired in my life?

You should focus on the logic of it. — Syamsu

Please point out where that part is.

It doesn't fucking matter what to call it, it's about the logic. — Syamsu

If it does not matter why are you ranting on about it?

You want to give the words supernatural and subconscious the logic that it is agency of choices, and it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, go ahead. — Syamsu

You are the one using spirit, not me. I only asked if it was super natural because from what you are saying the agency of choice is apparently not part of a human.

What are you even talking about? — Syamsu

That is why I asked,

Is this spirit supernatural? — Sir2u

to try and find out what the hell you are talking about. Shame you never bother to answer questions.

I exhaustively defined it.

Then there is the question "What was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

All subjective opinion, like an opinion that something is beautiful, or that a choice is made out of fear, is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. — Syamsu

How the fuck is the subconscious defined as being agency of choices, and a matter of chosen opinion what is in it? — Syamsu

I am pretty sure that you will find more of those professional philosophers that will agree that opinions, the choice of one thing over another, are made subconsciously. Most people decide that they are scared of something without really being able to explain why, or to explain why they decided that something is beautiful and not ugly.

And I never defined the subconscious as being agency of choices, but because I do not know what the fuck your spiritual realm might be I asked if that was what you meant. Lots of believers think that their soul is spiritual, while other people think that it is all in the brain which is mostly subconscious.

"One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. This ability is affected by the cognitive belief structure which one has formed through one's experiences, and the perceptions held by the society and the individual, of the structures and circumstances of the environment one is in and the position they are born into. Disagreement on the extent of one's agency often causes conflict between parties, e.g. parents and children. " — Wiki

It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. — Syamsu

Is this spirit supernatural? Or is it just your personal opinion of what the subconscious should be called.

That makes three of us, you and me too.

Maybe if I had written "the answer to this question is yes" it would have been correct.
But the mind boggles at such profound levels of thinking.

Re writing a book on philosophy

I have an idea for a Philosophy book I want to write. — Ross Campbell

First of all are you writing or re-writing a book on or about philosophy?

Unless you have some entirely new insight into what the great thinker thought, some completely new answers to the age old questions, brand new rebuttals of philosophical thought of from years gone by, or new ways of applying old ideas in today's world, forget it.

There is not a person from anywhen in history that has not been blathered about ad nauseam in thousands of unread books throughout history.

If you want an idea about how or what to write, read "Plato at the Googlplex"

Fear is not a fact, it is your opinion that you were frightened. — Syamsu

Picture if you will this guy, 2 meters tall, 170 kilos, arm spread of almost 2 meters, each arm of which is thicker than most people's leg. He has long shitty looking hair and beard and a big scar running from his waist up to his cheek. He is running straight at you with a bloody big machete screaming " you're gonna die mother fucker".

The substance of what makes a choice is called "spiritual". — Syamsu

And fear is then just your spiritual choice and you can change it if you want. Yeah, OK.

It is simply the truth of how it works, that opinions are in reference to a creator — Syamsu

An opinion might be, in the sense that someone created it by putting certain groups of facts together and creating an opinion. But, by adding the facts they either come out as an opinion or a fact. That might be blamed on illogical thinking or ignorance, not necessarily on truth value.

But does not one who creates make the creation, is that not what creators are for.
So according to your reasoning there is little difference between the two,

Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence — Syamsu

Creation - implies a creator, which you say is the maker of opinions

chosen - implies subjectivity, definitely not effective as fact proving

material - implies that facts can only be "material things" or about them maybe, where as most if not all facts are inmaterial because facts are language.

Existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence - is maybe circular reasoning or redundant or ad infinitum because you are saying that it is a fact because other facts make it so and they are facts because other facts make them so and so on into infinity.

But apart from all of this, you still have not addressed the earlier post I made properly.

Here you seem to be stating that all facts are about creations, could you please verify that this is so.

Creation would mean that things are made by someone/thing, what proof verifiable facts do you have that any facts were created by anything/one? — Sir2u

Perhaps by a 1 to 1 basis in the mind meaning said proposed fact ie. 'the water is hot' corresponds to one or more things that can be proven. The water is 150 degrees farenheit. Steam is beginning to rise from the water. I stick my hand in it for more than a few seconds it will be very uncomfortable. Etc? The statement 'the water is hot' is therefore a fact not an opinion. Whereas 'the water is too hot' or 'not hot enough' may be the opposite. — Outlander

So why the hell does he not just say that instead of blathering on about creation and creators?

Well, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of for instance "fear". Which is in category 1, the creator category. — Syamsu

So fear is a fact or not? I know for a fact that I have been in fear of many things in my life(scared shitless sometimes), would that serve as a model? Where can I download a copy of the table containing the categories you are talking about?

You can make a painting to express what fear is, but it's not a model. — Syamsu

So what exactly would serve as a model for a fact?

And as there doesn't seem to be any other categories besides creator and creation, it is proven that facts are only about creations. — Syamsu

Please gives us a link to this proof. They have to be somewhere right?

But why don't you present a fact which is not about a creation. — Syamsu

I don't want to interfere with the presentation of your hypothesis, theory, conjecture or whatever you want to call it. It would just muddy the waters.

And I have not made any bloody stupid comments that need to be defended, yet.

So you cannot prove that your other "fact" was a fact.

Got any facts which are not about creations? — Syamsu

Here you seem to be stating that all facts are about creations, could you please verify that this is so.

Creation would mean that things are made by someone/thing, what proof verifiable facts do you have that any facts were created by anything/one?

A fact is a model. The fact of people verifying facts, is a model of people verifying facts. So a picture. — Syamsu

You stated this as a fact and I asked you to verify it.

To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. — Syamsu

I think that my cats have a better chance of catching their tales than you do of verifying that anything you have said can be verified by anything that you have said.

Picture factcheckers comparing facts, and what the fact is about. — Syamsu

I did not ask you to tell me to use my imagination, I asked you to prove that what you said was true. On a one to one fact to what the fact is about sort of thing or whatever it was you said.

Picturing thing does not make them facts.

To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about. — Syamsu

If this is a fact, please verify using your own method.

“What is the answer to X?” — Pfhorrest

The only answer possible to this question is X itself.

“Y is the answer.” — Pfhorrest

How did you get X from Y?

X can only be equal to X and Y can only be equal to Y.

So again, explain your reasoning.

Nope, that’s not it. — Pfhorrest

Please explain you reasoning.

Told you that you could do it. :100: :party:

Spam spams spam

Yes.

What is wrong with (either) me or other people? — Shawn

If you do no harm to anyone and are content with your life, then just tell them to fuck off.

But if you make statements of unhappiness or other negative feelings then people will tend to give you advice.

Again, if you disagree with them you can still tell them to fuck off.

Try to live life without unnecessary complications is my motto. Unless of course something can be gained by a bit of extra complication of course.

Si, ma pourquoi ? — Amity

Multilingual?