:roll: Strawman. I never claimed or implied anything about "childhood trauma".The nature of childhood trauma and development of AGI are different. — Jack Cummins
Only to conspiracy paranoids who are terrified of a robo-apocalypse (e.g. The Terminator). Nonsense non sequitur.It signifies the idea replacing human beings with the non-human.
I don't have this "problem", Jack :sweat:Do you not see this as being problematic at all?
Yes. 'Intelligence' is an emergent feature of sufficiently complex living systems.Are you saying the universe is non-intelligent irrespective if there is intelligent life in it ? — kindred
Wtf :roll: Now a genetic fallacy. They are not "intelligent", the physicists are. Physical laws are only invariant features – artifacts – of physical theories.intelligent laws of physics
Since "a clock" presupposes the universe, an analogy of "clock" to "universe" does not work.It’s like looking at the mechanism of a clock ...
Compositional fallacy. :roll:... because the universe contains intelligence it would make it an intelligent universe — kindred
:100:Energy and mass aren't existents (per se), they are properties of things that exist, and they can be converted to each other (that's entailed by E=MC^2). — Relativist
I would not ever do anything and be eternally at peace with that.So, supposing you were a deity, what would you do and why? — Benj96
Blissful contentment.What would be your characteristics?
I wouldn't define myself or anything else ever.As in how would you define yourself?
To be.And what would be your motives?
Neither. My eternal bliss would be complete (or sufficient enough) for me to be forever oblivious of everything including myself.Would you be an active force in the world/reality or merely a passive observer?
:roll:energy are massless (not physical) eg a photon, — Benj96
Lots of "somethings": fields, excitations, density patterns, nucleogenesis, black holes ... you & I, etc. This universe has dynamic contents whereas (possibly) most other universes do not.What else is there besides vacuum fluctuations? — Fire Ologist
It only "explains" the planck era of the universe which excludes "intelligence" (re: @kindred's OP).the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.
— 180 Proof
Would you say that explains everything? — Fire Ologist
You are mistaken (hasty generalization).Seems to me that is an explanation for everything.
Non-life =/= "nothing". Also, vacuum is not-a-thing (i.e. not-something aka "nothing") =/= nothing-ness (i.e. im-possibility aka "an impossible world"); "some-thing" is just a fluctuation / phase-state of not-a-thing (i.e. not-something) like order is a phase-state – dissipative structure – of disorder (i.e. chaos). Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.somethingcan’t come fromnothing — kindred
No, I surmise that they are independent, discrete properties which rarely overlap.Then you could equate life with intelligence ... — kindred
Yes.... and you’d be saying that intelligence is a rare property of non-life
How do you/we "know" this?we do know that something has always existed
This phrase is nonsense. "World" (i.e. universe) is an effect of the Big Bang. "Pre-big bang" cannot be a "world".pre big bang world
Spinoza's Deus, sive natura is conceptually coherent enough for me (& Einstein).How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? — ENOAH
No. "Life" is, as best we can tell, merely a very rare property of non-life.Would you then agree that non-life has the potential to give rise to life and intelligence? — kindred
No, it's actually manifest. "Intelligence" is, in its most basic form, the capability of adapting to change inherent in complex agent systems – both living and artificial.Would you also then agree that at the very least intelligence is a potential in the universe?
Nonsense – "non-life" is not "nothing". :roll:you can’t get something from nothing just like you can’t get life from non-life — kindred
No, I minimize judgments based on my anthropomorphic bias as much as possible.So you don’t believe that these processes exhibit intelligence from an anthropic perspective? — kindred
There is no "why" for "non-life" processes.If so then why would non-life lead to life? (Abiogenesis)
We do not know how yet. Scientists are still working to crack that nut.or put more simply how do you get intelligence from non-intelligence?
How do you/we know this?You can’t.
In other words, does it make sense to conceive of 'inteligence in the universe without the universe existing' (i.e. disembodied agency)? :roll:Was intelligence in the universe pre-existing? — kindred
With all due respect, I suspect a less superficial (non-technical) gloss on the topic of 'nonhuman intelligence' is popularist Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus (2016). YMMV.'The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, from Animals to Aliens', Philip Ball (2022). — Jack Cummins
Please explain what you mean by this phrase. Also why are you anthropomorphizing prospective AGI's metacognition (i.e. why assume that 'nonbiological thinking' is to think like humans)?truly free thinking — Jack Cummins
:100:Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes. — Benkei
Maybe for you ... a stipulative definition suffices, however, for a subject matter-informed, speculative discussion: consciousness = pain-awareness (i.e. what bodily activity-feedback feels like, not just PNS reflexes).It partly comes down to the question of whatis[do we mean by] consciousness? — Jack Cummins
AGI =/= "artificial simulations" (whatever those are). As for "programming": same as neonatal pair-bonding + socialization in humans but with powerful neural nets instead: training metacognitive systems to self-learn within enabling-constraints. IMO, 'intelligence' = outside-the-box thinking that surpasses – repurposes – "programming" (i.e. not just "bot automatons").It also depends on what do the artificial simulations serve, and in accordance with whose will?
I don't – it's only a reductionist appeal to ignorance (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) and/or compositional fallacy.If one has any sympathy with panpsychism ...
E.g. such as ...... beings with free will.
Speaking only for myself ...Who would you name asthe 10[13]mostimportant philosophers born after 1900? — Joshs
How very charitable of you, Sir. :smirk:It might just be that the word god was the name given to anything that was unexplainable and originally meant "I don't know". — Sir2u
:100: :fire:[It] would be logical to assume ... god(s) came about from the initial belief of animism¹, which likely came about due to pareidolia². — Outlander
:up: :up:Antinatalism is the poster boy for playing with Big Important Ideas not always leading to wisdom or insight. At least the minutia-mongerers among us aren't so foolish as to think there could be such a thing as an argument against life. — Srap Tasmaner
:up: :up:It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime(s) apologist. — Benkei
No doubt. \\//_ :nerd:Are they overly influenced by watching science fiction? — Relativist
As well the zionfascist (Likud) regime also "must be" "completely replaced". :mask:Which is why the victory must be complete and Hamas completely replaced. — BitconnectCarlos
:yikes:You could be possessed. You don't know — frank
