It is not clear to me who the bad guys are in this case.
Who do you think ought to be held responsible?

Islam itself is not the problem as far as I am concerned.
The problem is the idea that society should be governed in accordance with religious beliefs as in theocracy.

I believe the west has the right idea about separation of church and state but sadly many middle eastern nations do not hold those values.

Here is why I believe these computers are being guinely creative but I will concede your point that it is not art in the traditional sense of what this term has come to mean.

In the first example I showed this was a program that learned what things were and is then instructed to produce an image of that thing based upon what it has learned.
I think it is fair to say that is an example of genuine creativity because there is some motive there to succeed at producing the thing in question as an image.
It does not simply copy and paste an image...it starts from nothing and eventually converges upon an image that resembles what it has learned is that thing.
In the first example the computer is trying to express what the word bird means to it based on what it has learned about how birds look through a visual sense in order to depict that thing visually.

The same is somewhat true of the poetry writing computer as well but I agree that it is quite a bit different from being creative the way a person is creative and/or artistic.
It was taught what a poem was and it is trying to express what it has learned when it composes a poem.
The difference in this case compared to the first one is that it has no attachment to the terms it only themselves in any sensory way.
The computer however has never sensed, touched, smelt, tasted, or heard anything and so the terms are just strings of symbols that it arranges artfully/creatively based on other strings of symbols it has learned about.

Now you might argue that in these examples there is no emotional attachment for the computers and that art requires emotional experiences to be truly art.
I would concede that point...but I would still argue that the computers are being truly creative even if what they creates is not art in the emotional sense of the term.
I will have to agree with you that these machines have no emotional experiences to portray with their creativity and that they do not hope to inspire any emotions in others so they are not making art in that sense of the word.
But even though these machines did not intend to inspire emotions they did succeed in my case.
I was quite impressed with how well they were able to perform.

I think it is fair to say that these program have learned to be creative in ways that humans can appreciate even if they do not do so that their creations may be appreciated.

lol

Can't argue with that.
>:O

That is the question I am probing.
Art is somewhat subjective in how it is interpreted by an audience.
So the normative is a dynamic and shifting thing that depends upon the eye of the beholder.

That is probably what I am most curious about is if the algorithm could be adapted to do just as you say. Learn emotions, think emotionally, and reflect upon it's own experiences in an emotional context. Right now, that appears to be quite a bit of a ways off in the future. It is certainly not a being in the sense that it is human, and I don't think it ever will be.

So I would have to say no, it can't recognize itself as a being deserving of dignity and rights not as of now. The question if it could or did is often viewed as troubling for many that speculate on the future of A.I. and is probably a topic for another thread.

I do think it is fair to say that it is a being in the sense that it does experience though, albeit at a very primitive level compared to human level identity of self.

But it does model itself as an agent that acts in an environment that will react to its actions. I think it can be argued quite reasonably that it does have some concept of self as an experiencing being because it can form these models of itself acting without taking those actions.
It can think about what it will do before it does something and it does have a sense of self as collection of past experiences and biases.

Here is some very import and relevant source material to the point I am hoping to make here.

In particular stochasticity is the randomness at work in biology.

A stochastic event or system is one that is unpredictable because of a random variable. The word stochastic comes from the Greek στόχος (stokhos, "aim"). It occurs in various professional and academic fields.

Researchers use the term stochastic systems to describe the physical systems in which the values of parameters, measurements, expected input, and disturbances are uncertain. In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined, having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. In this regard, it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") so that the subsequent state of the system is determined probabilistically. Any system or process that must be analyzed using probability theory is at least partly stochastic.[1][2] Stochastic systems and processes play a fundamental role in mathematical models of phenomena in many fields of science, engineering, finance, and economics.

In evolution when the term random is used it is often in reference to some chemical stochastic process.

Another distinction to make is regarding the term non-deterministic.
This term is somewhat agnostic as it does not imply that the laws governing the system are strictly truly random.
It simply means that there is no way to access the information that does determine outcomes if that information is in fact there.
It may well be that the information does exist and the universe is determined...or it may be that the universe is truly random at a fundamental level.

Again that is an unresolved question in science.

You may well be right to argue your point...but what I was hoping to impress upon is that you are arguing an interpretation of current understanding and not indisputable facts of reality as we currently understand it.

If the universe ultimately is random or deterministic may well be an unanswerable question in science.

I happen to believe randomness is very real and is fundamental to our universe, that would mean that evolution would be truly random as well, however I do realize that this is interpretation and not fact.
I cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is true.

I was hoping you might admit the same about your beliefs.

I don't know how to explain it it any better sorry.

You are saying that in order for something in the past to be different all of the past would have to be different.
That is not the modern view of physics because of probability.
The probability of something that occurred in the past does not change.
In the past you had a 50/50 shot of heads or tails and in the future this will also be true.
That does not change.

It seems to me you believe that probability only applies to some future event...that is not strictly true in modern physics.
You don't say that it was 100% tails or 100% heads in your model because both are physically possible outcomes even when we talk about the past, you still model the past event as a 50/50 chance for one or the other but not both.
The assumption in physics is that the laws of nature do not change over time so the same laws that apply now, applied in the past, and will apply in the future.
This is the modern principle of relativity.

Sorry but I cannot explain it any plainer than that.

There is plenty of source material you could review to get a better grasp of modern physics and the role probability plays.

From what I can tell by your posts you have a embraced a view of classical mechanics.

This is not how modern mechanics operates and one must contend with probability in the modern view of mechanics.

I don't see how I can further your understanding except to say that you are making classical arguments that do not lend themselves well to modern understanding of how physics work.

Well I think it is a cool idea...though I must admit that I would probably not contribute and make video.


I just thought if there was a youtube channel for TPF and people were submitting vids then those that viewed those vids would have a place to discuss the content and it could increase membership.

Exactly...I am asking if we have discovered the correct algorithm for what we mean by the term mind or if this is just one step in that direction.

I disagree...this example is helping define exactly what the term mind should mean in a very practical way.
A way that generates results.

I have made this argument before but I will do it again here.

Either we can decide what a mind is or the question of what a mind actually is will be an undecidable problem.

If the mind is an undecidable problem then we cannot answer the question of whether we have minds or not.
If we can answer that question it will mean that there is an effective procedure/algorithm to solve that problem.

What ever we mean by the terms mind and consciousness we must define these terms in a way which makes them decidable by an algorithm of some sort or we must conclude that they are undecidable problems and that we cannot be sure we have a mind or consciousness.

As far as I can tell, if we wish to have an intelligible definition of terms like mind and consciousness, then we are forced to formalize these terms in logic and math and when we do so we will be able to create effective procedures and algorithms that are able to think, that are intelligent, and that can learn.

The alternative is that we are saying that we cannot know if we are consciousness or if we have minds.

We could not claim to know if we had minds or consciousness...is that really what you believe?
What would the philosophical implications of that be?

If you believe that you can answer yes or no the question of whether you have a mind or consciousness then a consequence of that is fundamentally you believe the mind/consciousness is computable.

Oh cool thanks.
I thought this was put together from scratch so I was really impressed.

Well thanks everyone that had the foresight to start a new place for the community to migrate to then.
X-)

I did not know that...that sounds cool.

As far as I can tell it is working as intended I was just wondering if clearing the board was a feature and I simply could not find it.
I was basically asking the question if it was a feature.

Anyway great work on the site...I was reluctant to migrate over at first because I was already accustom to the PF layout.
But PF has pretty much crapped out these days constantly one problem after another with little maintenance it seems.

I am glad I made the move and now that I am used to it I really appreciate all the work put into this site.
Again great work and thank you so much for doing this for all those involved of the dev and maintenance.

IDK...I guess it just seems...cluttery to me?

I think this is a good idea and could probably lead traffic back to TPF

Is there any way to clear the mentions cache?

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate.

Boots on the ground will only serve to address the symptoms (and they would have to be left there indefinitely to do that) it would not cure the real issue.
The main problem is an ideological one and the people in certain areas of the world are fighting over theocratic differences.
For these people fighting each other for their very spiritual lives are at stake and they are committed absolutely to insuring they do not die spiritually.

Suggesting that you simply go in an kill the bad guys is a gross misunderstanding of the issue.
To truly effect change would take decades and would require a willingness to change on the part of the inhabitants of the areas we occupy.
Often that willingness to change exists in only a very small minority of the population.

This is why the idea of intervention is unappealing to many in the west...many realize there is not much that can be done and what little can be done requires great sacrifice of lives and is resource intensive.

Boots on the ground is a visceral response sure...it would be satisfying to punish the "bad guys" (often it is not clear just who that it is) but to believe it would fix the issue at hand is just folly.

When I heard Malala Yousafzai's story I was heartbroken.
She is a symbol of triumph too.

To summarize the debate so far.
I have claimed that having an opinion about what someone else ought to do is not, in any practical way, moral.
Thus most pro-lifers are not making moral claims they are expressing opinions about the morals others ought to have and not the morals that they ought to have.
Only pro-lifers that have actually adopted children have acted morally and thus can claim to have a moral position.

I have also pointed out that if having an opinion about the morals others ought to have is more than just an opinion and is in fact moral.
Then I am just as moral to claim that pro-lifers ought to adopt children.

Thorongil (a pro-lifer) insist that his claims are moral but mine are not...I pointed out that this is a logical contradiction because our claims are logically equivalent.

Rather than engage that point Thorongil tried to either change the subject or simply insult me implying that I was "incoherent" and/or that all I do is type "inarticulate blather."

I will not derail my point that Thorongil is not logically consistent in his views until Thorongil admits that our claims are equally valid or until Thorongil admits that he has done nothing moral what-so-ever from simply holding an opinion about how others ought to behave.

If Thorongil does this I will proceed to explain why we cannot enforce policy to prevent the termination of unwanted pregnancy.

The interesting thing to me is that this breakthrough was possible because the mind was modeled as though it were an algorithm.

In the deepmind example the machine learns from performing actions...it models itself as an agent that can act in the world in order to learn what to do next and becomes more proficient by a system of rewards and penalties meant to model the reward system of the brain.
Through trail and error in the actions it takes it will approach an optimum solution to real world tasks.
It forms a simulation of itself acting in the world that it experiences only as raw data (simply pixels in the case of deepmind) to create possible courses of action then executes what it predicts will be the most beneficial action.
.
These are all very interesting developments in the field of A.I. because before A.I. systems were model dependent and humans had to hand craft those models.
With deepmind system the models of reality are formed from scratch through trail and error actions within the world that the machine experiences.

I think you should reveiw the lectures link I posted...it is a detailed explanation of the exact algorithm.
There is no question that deepmind is an algorithmic process.
I don't understand the distinction you are making.
The "fuzziness" of neural networks and other computer learning techniques just refers to the probability methods being used.
Those probabilistic techniques are covered in depth in the lecture vids.

These methods are no less step by step format of an algorithm.
I assure you, from a computer science perspective, it is no equivocation to say that the deepmind general purpose ai is an algorithm.

by the way nice to meet up with you again apokrisis
:D

Is a neural net strictly speaking just an algorithm? Or does it do what it can do because an anticipation-creating learning rule acts as a constraint on material dynamics?

Here is a comprehensive lecture on how to configure the neural network so that you can capitalize on the reinforcement learning technique developed by deepmind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pWv7GOvuf0&list=PLweqsIcZJac7PfiyYMvYiHfOFPg9Um82B

Potentially there is a lot of equivocation in what is understood by "algorithm" here. The difference between neural nets and Turing Machines is a pretty deep one philosophically.

Not sure what specifically is your grievance...here is the wiki link describing neural turing machine.

From the deepmind link

The company has created a neural network that learns how to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans,[4] as well as a Neural Turing Machine, or a neural network that may be able to access an external memory like a conventional Turing machine, resulting in a computer that mimics the short-term memory of the human brain.

While it is true that neural network programming is quite a bit more advanced than typical programming...it is no the less reliant upon algorithms so I don't see equivocation being a problem here.
Perhaps I am missing something?

Let me get this straight. By "outcome", I infer effect, rather than cause. So are you saying that when a particular event occurred, in the past, the outcome (effect) of that event could have been other than it was? How could the outcome of an event be different than it was, without actually changing the event? In which case, it would not be the same event. So it would not be the case that the said event had a different outcome, it would have been a different event altogether. Therefore it appears to me, that to say that the outcome of a past event could have been different is incoherent. To have a different outcome would require a different event, such that there could not have been a different outcome from the same event. A different outcome would require a different event.

I am saying...like in the coin example.
That no laws of physics are violated and both outcomes are possible but only one outcome at a time can occur because the effect (head or tails) are mutually exclusive of each other.
You can't get heads and tails.
When more than one outcome is possible we have to use probability, randomness, chance to model things.
So to your point and with my coin example again.
If you find a coin on the street facing heads down...that violates no laws of physics.
If it had been heads up instead...that too would violate no laws.
Both outcomes are physically possible...just not at the same time.
Our models have to account for that fact and so we use randomness, probability, and chance to describe that phenomena.
So concerning the past the probability that an event occurs does not have to be different it will remain the same.
The only thing that would have to be different in the past for a different outcome is the outcome itself not the probability.

What you seem to be thinking of is something akin to Laplace's demon
In the link it shows the various arguments used as evidence against this type of model that you describe.

Could You elaborate on this? Is it a nice, rhetorical statement, or is it actually basic and fundamental? What I mean is that the very sane arguments You provided were about the ways in which access to such information could enable the government to attack other rights, namely the freedom of speech and freedom from harassment. Were You implying a philosophical perspective from which privacy is deemed a basic right rather than a way of protecting other rights? I'd love to hear more about it.

I am talking about illegal search and seizure.
Individuals are owed due processes.
The right to privacy is not rhetorical it is a legal right.
And that is exactly part of my concern with unregulated government internet programs.
We cannot be sure that other rights like the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not in danger of becoming violated or tampered with.

Are You referring to my log-on for Facebook or for TPF?...

I am making a point...you do value your private information.
Again the reason you are unwilling to share that information is because you realize it could be potentionally abused and used in ways that do not intend.
I simply make the same argument about the NSA.
These people are human and fallible the potential for them to abuse their power is there and they should not be able to operate without regulation.

Maybe that's a pretty thought, but it's almost impossible to apply on a practical level. Are we to vote on every choice that a government spying agency makes? I do agree that there should be immensely more transparency and that these government agencies should have more to answer about, but even the public won't always opt for freedom of expression. If it were the 50s, popular vote would probably determine that supporting socialist theories, even if passively, might constitute an act of terrorism. Likewise, today, with the immense power idiocy we have on our hands, it is not entirely unlikely that we might see popular decision suggesting that belief in or susceptibility to Muslim ideas might be acts or indicators of acts of terrorism (but maybe that's more about the folly of democracy, a theory created by intellectuals for non-intellectuals).

What I mean by this is we should be respecting due process and insuring that the accused have a trail in the court of law.
And that citizens should be voting on how to regulate these programs rather than secret courts.

Fair points bitter.
The NSA works with private companies and they collect quite a bit of data together.
What I would like to see is more transparency in how that data is collected to insure rights are not being violated.

By public I meant a court of law with due process intact.

No.
I make the same argument as you do...and I claim that you do have a responsibility because you are the one the believes the fetus has rights.

Any integrity you have I also have because my argument is the logical equivalent of yours.

You also failed to answer the question again.

Does it make me moral to claim that someone beside myself must be responsible for an unwanted fetus?
That is all you are doing...claiming that someone else ought to be responsible for an unwanted fetus.

You want to claim that is moral...well then I am just as moral in my point as you are in yours.

I will be happy to explain to you why I believe your opinion is mistaken as soon as you admit that that is all you have...an opinion.
Until you admit this I will continue to point out that my argument is the exact same as yours and therefor just as moral as yours.

My judgment is based on reasoning and I am not in doubt about it, so it is not a mere opinion. Even if it were, saying "you're just expressing an opinion" is an utterly asinine remark. What is it you think you're doing, sweetheart?

I pointed out that my argument is the logical equivalent of yours you still have not addressed that point.
I have no more reason to doubt my argument than you have to doubt yours because they are logically equivalent.

Again you did not answer my question.

Does it make me moral to claim that someone beside myself must be responsible for an unwanted fetus?
Either it does or does not make me moral.
You keep avoiding this question.

It is a simple yes or no.

If the answer is yes...then my point is just as moral as yours and your claim that you have no moral responsibility for unwanted fetuses is incorrect.

If the answer is no then you are not moral either for making the exact same claim.

You can ignore these points if you want...that does not mean I will simply let them go by the wayside.

Perhaps I did not make this clear...the particular causal chain may be unknown.
Therefor we must us probability models to make predictions.

When we say an event occurred in the past and we are dealing with probability we are saying the outcome could have been any number of things all with equal chance to occur just because only one of these occurrences happens does not mean it is not random it only means that any given occurrence is mutually exclusive of the other occurrences.
It also does not mean that we can know why (other than probability) that one occurrence happened rather than another occurrence.
So yes...probability has a causal effect...and just because some events are mutually exclusive of each other does not mean that those events cannot occur...sometimes you get a heads sometimes you get a tails.
These options are mutually exclusive...but if they are the only two possibilities we must make a model that allows for the occurrence for both.
So if happen upon a coin in the street that is facing heads up...it does not change the fact that it was equally possible in reality that it could have settled face down.
That is to say no laws of nature would have been broken if the coin you found was face down instead.

It is not clear within science as to whether or not the universe is determined and so we must use probability as a tool to model reality and account for all the outcomes that are possible.

You did not answer my question.

Does it make me moral to insist that someone else should be responsible for an unwanted fetus?
This is pretty much a yes or no question and you simply ignored it.

Again you are simply expressing an opinion here..."the pregnant woman is responsible" is what you claim.
Well...I claim no she isn't you are because you believe that the fetus has rights...she might not share that belief so she is not responsible for that belief.

Just answer the question?

Does it make me moral if I hold the opinion that someone else besides me (you) should be responsible for an unwanted fetus?

I was not trying to be patronizing I just felt like you are skirting my point but were trying to save face.
It should be easy to follow what I am saying.

You claim that because you believe someone else beside you should be responsible for a living fetus that makes you pro-life.
I make the exact same claim as you...I claim that someone else (you) should be responsible.

You claim I have no basis to claim that you are morally obligated to any fetus or child.
This creates a logical contradiction.

Either I do have a moral point in my argument (because it is the logical equivalent of yours).
Or I don't (and neither does yours because these arguments are the logical equivalent of each other).

This is not complicated and I still believe you are trying to save face by pretending as though my point is not clear when in fact is is rather straight forward and easy to understand.
If anyone else agrees with you that my discourse is too incoherent then I will concede that I am not communicating clearly...until then I stand by the accusation that you are just avoiding the point and attempting to save face by pretending to be confused.

Sure you do.

I am saying if you don't have to do anything except hold an opinion about what someone else ought to do...then that does not make you moral...it just means you are opinionated.

Again if you don't have to do anything to actually prove you're pro-life except hold an opinion...then I am pro-life too...because I believe you should personally be responsible for any fetus you think ought to be saved from abortion.

I am just as pro-life as you are because I don't have to do anything practical to prove I am pro-life (by your own logic here that is).

If you insist that I am not pro-life...then by the same logic you should not be pro-life either...because you are asking the logical equivalent of someone else (my argument is the logical equivalent of yours...not me...but you should be responsible for the fetus).

Don't pretend to be dumb just to avoid this point...just answer this question.

Does it make me moral if I hold the opinion that someone else besides me (you) should be responsible for an unwanted fetus?

If it does make moral then my argument is just as moral as your is.

If it does not make me moral then you are no more moral for holding your opinion about what someone else should do with an unwanted fetus.

See what I have done here...is I have taken your actual argument and used it against you.
So either you must concede that my argument is just as moral as yours...or you must concede that you are not actually making a moral argument but expressing an opinion about what someone else ought to do.

Again.
If you are pro-life because you hold an opinion about what someone else should do...then so am I.

You should be responsible for a fetus...that makes me pro-life.

The reason randomness is necessary is because many causes may have the same probability of occurrence such that any particular cause is therefor unknown.

I do not agree that the scientific community "deceives" about this information.
There is plenty of technical dissemination of information surrounding how randomness and chance play a role in causation within the context of evolution.

The reason it is so common in evolution is because randomness is how variation occurs.
Without a stochastic process life would not evolve at all, instead all it would do is replicate...if it could come into existence at all.

I did not realize that about the placenta...thanks for teaching me something new.
I under estimated how easy it would be to do a fetus transplant and I retract the statement that it was "probably technologically possible."
Thanks for correcting that error bitter.

. However, that doesn't mean I have a personal responsibility to adopt a child. You have simply created said responsibility out of thin air.

Then you have an opinion...not morals.
A moral compels one to do, to act in someway in support of that value...some indication to prove you actually do care about the life in question and not just the idea.

If all you have to do is hold a belief about what others ought to do...that does not make you moral it makes you opinionated.

Am I pro-life if I believe you should be held responsible for a fetus?

If I am not...then by the same logic you are not pro-life for demanding the exact same thing of someone else.

No.
The point is you are not pro-life...you actually believe that someone other than yourself ought to be pro-life by force of law.

You have not demonstrated any pro-life morals only expressed an opinion about what you believe someone else ought to do.

I can say"I like trucks" but then someone says "why don't you buy one" and I reply "I don't want that responsibility" then I do not actually value trucks practically...I just like the idea of trucks.
Same thing applies here.

You are not buying what you are selling.
You just want others to buy it.

I am just pointing that out.

What you say is not practically possible, so no conclusion as to the practicability of pro-lifers can be averred based thereon.

Actually it probably is technologically possible...but there is no demand for it...because people are not pro-life...they are pro-tell others how to live.
I also pointed out that adoption is an option...most pro-lifers don't do that either...again they are not pro-life so much as pro-tell others what they ought to be doing.

No, it's quite meaningful to say I am pro-life if I am in fact pro-life, which I am. That has nothing to do with adoption.

It is not meaningful in any practical sense because you refuse any responsibility for this value.
What you really mean is that you believe someone else ought to be forced to be pro-life.

Good for you. I don't.

At least here you admit that you want to force your beliefs on someone else rather than assume responsibility for those beliefs yourself.

Again that has nothing to do with whether you are pro-life...but whether or not a woman ought to be forced to be pro-life.
What you really mean by "pro-life" is that you believe that women (and not yourself) ought to be pro-life by force of law.
Until you see that point I will not proceed further with the why I believe this view is mistaken.