The coverage is so wildly different. — Jeremy Murray
And deserves to be taken seriously, provided it is logical. — Outlander
I see you have also wasted some time on Youtube with some philosophical ramblings. — Pieter R van Wyk
Quite so, but then there is absolutely no utility in arguing with a person that believe an AI story on face value and then try to sell it as fact. — Pieter R van Wyk
Yes, you are right (I am wrong); but then, anything can be proved from an absurd statement. — Pieter R van Wyk
I deduce that you have read the AI assessment of "If Neptune disappeared". Since AI is incapable of abstract thought I would regard this assessment as highly suspect. This is apart from the fact that your example is still absurd — Pieter R van Wyk
Am I the only person alive that want to read something and discuss it leisurely rather than in search of the Truth and in order to display superior intelligence? — Ansiktsburk
As for the "nice old man" ... that would depend on whom you ask: my grandchildren might agree, ↪I like sushi might not. — Pieter R van Wyk
Our solar system is a finely balanced many-body problem, quite difficult to solve mathematically. A two-body problem can be solved analytically but a many-body problem can only be solved numerically. However, please consider the gravitational force exerted on system earth by the following celestial bodies and by system earth on these bodies:
F(sun) = 3.52E22 newton
F(moon) = 1.98E20 newton
F(Neptune) = 2.21E15 newton
In comparison, the worlds total population exerts a force of 4.86E12 newton on system earth.
If any of these celestial bodies would be "removed" from the solar system this fine balance would be catastrophically disrupted and the expected environmental disaster would not be a political talking point, it would be de facto. Or if our solar system evolved sans Neptune, our system earth would have evolved completely different to what it did. — Pieter R van Wyk
By the way, if Neptune is removed from our solar system, all life on earth will cease to exist - we would not know whether the solar system would still exist or not. — Pieter R van Wyk
Perhaps an interesting argument but, surely, a valid definition of a system must answer the question that is implied by your argument, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk
They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking. — MoK
Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so. — MoK
There has been some talk about the technological singularity in recent years and some futurists have suggested that it is imminent. The question here is: has it already happened? — Nemo2124
As for causation, we spend a lot of time trying to understand physical-to-physical causation, and trying to make a case for mental-to-physical causation, and its reverse. Mental-to-mental causation is assumed to be either the same thing as logic, when it happens at all, or explainable by redescribing thoughts (in the psychological sense) as physical brain-events, thus giving them a foot in the causal world. I don't think any of that is obvious and possibly not even coherent. — J
I am not promoting these views, nor rejecting them. I’m merely describing what I increasingly see and hear—what I believe many people outside the West are beginning to think and feel. — Astorre
Is the West prepared to coexist with ideological and civilizational alternatives that do not necessarily aspire to Western liberalism? — Astorre