Self Reliance. — Antony Nickles

A quote from "Self Reliance" gets a thumbs up from me.

It's supposed to be a gross play on 'black flag.' — plaque flag

"Black flag" can mean a number of things. Are you aware it is a brand of bug spray in the US?

Language models very often do that when they don't know or don't remember. They make things up. That's because they lack reflexive or meta-cognitive abilities to assess the reliability of their own claims. Furthermore, they are basically generative predictive models that output one at a time the most likely word in a text. This is a process that always generates a plausible sounding answer regardless of the reliability of the data that grounds this statistical prediction. — Pierre-Normand

Ok, but that's a really bad thing. "Oh, that's just what language models do" is not a very good excuse and it strikes me as very unlikely it will protect AI companies from the consequences of the mistakes.

On account of OpenAI's disclaimers regarding the well know propensity of language models to hallucinate, generate fiction, and provide inaccurate information about topics that are sparsely represented in their training data, I don't see this mayor to have much of a legal claim. I don't think ChatGPT's "false claims" are indicative of negligence or malice from OpenAI. The broader issue of language models being misused, intentionally or not, by their users to spread misinformation remains a concern. — Pierre-Normand

It seems unlikely to me that OpenAI will get off the hook if this kind of thing continues. The mayor didn't use Chat GPT, someone else did.

An Australian mayor is threatening to sue OpenAI for defamation over false claims made by its artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT saying he was jailed for his criminal participation in a foreign bribery scandal he blew the whistle on. — Crikey Daily

Yes, I was going to post that. The really amazing thing is that the program provided fake references for its accusations. The links to references in The Guardian and other sources went nowhere.

Now that's pretty alarming.

Dumb post. Cognitive Neuroscience has A LOT to offer various questions about consciousness and if you ate particularly interested in consciousness (from a philosophical perspective) it is about time you read up about this. Vice versa, for clarities sake, there are clearly some particular uses from more philosophical areas here … ie. Phenomenology (an area I actually got into through reading university level textbooks on the Cognitive Sciences (put together by Gazzaniga - I mention because older editions have free pdf online). — I like sushi

It doesn't look like you looked at any of the other posts in the thread before you called @bert1's post "dumb." If you had, you would see that your response isn't really relevant or responsive to the things he, and others, have said.

Politicians and commentators on behalf of political parties rely on demeaning and degrading their opponents to attract attention and gain support. While this has been normalized and even expected in the realm of politics, that does not make it okay. We should not support or enable any politicians from any party resulting to insults and petty attacks to achieve their goals. — AntonioP

Speaking about the US, and at the risk of being called a rabid partisan, I'll quote from a 2012 Brookings Institution report:

Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans are the Problem — Brookings Institution

This has become even more true in the ensuing 11 years.

So, what everyone is searching for to either know by science or explain through philosophy is a bogey created by our need for (mathematical-like) certainty or ownership of something that makes us special by default. — Antony Nickles

The self is not different than any other thing in the world. If what you say is true then what you've written is also true of the rest of reality, not just of our selves.

I will always prefer your ire over your silence, when I have posted to you. — universeness

I'll keep that in mind.

I have no significant issue with you. — universeness

I think you are a valuable voice here on the forum. I've tried to lower the volume on my responses to you, because we can definitely strike sparks when we get going.

I apologise — universeness

I don't think I've ever seen any post of yours that I thought you should apologize for.

And what is a "fact" verses "belief". I believe facts. That belief is a fact. See what I did there? So there is a connection and interplay. — Benj96

As I noted in the post you quoted, I consider non-physicalist, and physicalist for that matter, approaches to reality to be metaphysical. [irony]Perhaps you haven't read my metaphysics lecture before.[/irony] Very long story, very short - metaphysical propositions are not facts. They are not true or false. They are not to be believed, they are to be used to provide a foundation for our understanding of the world. I am a big fan of R.G. Collingwoods "An Essay on Metaphysics." But let's not go into that here.

If everyone unanimously believed in something objectively untestable. — Benj96

As I see it, assertions that are objectively untestable, even in theory, are not facts, they are either metaphysics or meaningless. Example - the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So you like to misquote AI systems, as well as favour misquotes of Churchill.
I begin to understand why you defend those who love biblical satire.
You prefer the ridiculous to the accurate. :roll: — universeness

You seem to be taking this very personally. I don't understand why. You should know me well enough by now to recognize my sense of humor.

John Fowles, The Aristos — Wayfarer

Love John Fowles. Is "The Aristos" worth reading. It's not available electronically. It's been so long I can't remember how to turn pages. I keep getting cuts.

I am becoming less impressed with chat GBT, :lol: It certainly would not pass my Turing style test! — universeness

I don't know, it told you to go fry ice. That's a pretty human thing to do.

I accept your description of your personal experience in that I trust you're being honest about it. But are you not of the persuasion that there are often unconscious drives that cause us to do or pursue certain things? — Noble Dust

I certainly have drives, both conscious and unconscious motivations, that push me in particular directions and influence my actions. But a drive is not the same thing as a purpose. This is certainly partially a difference in language between us, but it is also a substantive difference in both our experience of how and our understanding of why we behave the way we do.

...neurotypical and autistic people are having different experiences and it is a failure of communication.

I don't know if feeling comfortable around other people means you are sharing experiences. I am not convinced it overcomes a barrier in true knowledge of someone else's subjective life. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know to what extent our differences in experience are caused by the fact that I am neurotypical and you are autistic or are just the regular differences that all people have. Many people here on the forum see the world differently than I do. Just before I read your post I was writing another on the "Pop Philosophy and Its Usefulness" thread. In that discussion, @Mikie and I are having a very similar difference in how we experience the world as the one you and I are having. It happens to me pretty often.

I agree. It brings up the psychology of philosophical investigation and self-examination, which, ironically, seems often unexamined. With respect T Clark, it might not "feel inside" as if you're doing philosophy for any purpose, but that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying purpose or goal. — Noble Dust

I can't think of anything else I can say if you won't accept my description of my personal experience. We can leave it at that.

You wouldn’t say that your philosophizing is an uncaused action, right? It has its causes and reasons. I would say it has even (non-theoretical) goals— like everything else. Despite how it may feel. Its a but teleological, but nevertheless true — in my view. — Mikie

You and I see this whole subject so differently I don't think we'll be able to come to any agreement. Yes, I do think there are uncaused actions, both in the world at large and in my personal behavior. In Taoism, the philosophy I feel most at home in, the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. Actions arise spontaneously from within without reflection. This is not something theoretical I've learned about, it's something I experience on a regular basis. Do I behave that way all the time, no, but for my writing here on the forum I usually do.

I don't expect you to buy this. Many people on the forum and in the world in general don't. But I do. As I said, it's something I experience personally. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other.

If two people have headaches there is no way of comparing whether both of them are having the same type of pain.

This is a basic problem first of even knowing whether similar/the same phenomena are experienced the same way because the experience is private and only accessible first-person.

Following on from this problem, there are many things that people experience first-person where we don't know if they are referring to the same phenomena such as:

Memory. Belief. Desire. Thought. Dreams. Just any experience that is rich and detailed including historical recollections of an event. Values. And so on. — Andrew4Handel

I don't see this as a problem. The act of seeing other people as people requires we make a metaphorical connection with them. We intuitively, empathetically recognize they experience the world in ways very similar to the way we do. Without that recognition we could not even communicate. So, is my headache the same as theirs? Are my memories, beliefs, desires, thought, and dreams the same? Maybe. We can ask questions to figure that out.

Does this mean we are closed off from others in some kind of profound way? — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. I like people and wish them well. I like to hang around with them, live with them, and work with them. I try to understand the way they think and how thy feel. I try to treat them with fairness, kindness, and respect. I feel a connection with them.

Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. — Mikie

That's not how I see it and it's not how it feels from the inside. The fact that I may learn something while doing it doesn't mean that was my purpose for doing it.

I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though. — Mikie

I'm not pushing into the future. I'm being dragged, or maybe riding along. I think saying there is a purpose for everything we do is a linguistic trick. As if every time I find myself someplace that was my planned destination.

to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory. — Mikie

It's not contradictory and it's not wrong, not for me at least.

I think we have fundamentally different structures of experience. — Noble Dust

I doubt that.

maybe you're just more well-adjusted while my neuroses dictate my philosophical thinking more than you. — Noble Dust

I've spent a significant amount of my life fairly fucked up, but my intellect is the healthiest thing about me.

Which is interesting, actually. I wonder to what extent people's interest in self-help correlates to their psychological states or conditions. And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

I've always thought that people's philosophical leanings are heavily influenced by their temperament.

And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

Based on the evidence we see here, definitely not.

He did not respond with the infantile phrases Mr O'Donaghue suggests on the website you cited. — universeness

I don't think Churchill's reputation needs to be protected against obvious satire.

Consciousness (the process), seems more like a post hoc storytelling of self-identity, it's a way of bringing together otherwise disparate and often contradictory mental processes into a coherent whole by re-telling what just happened seconds ago with this single character as the protagonist. — Isaac

That seems plausible to me, although I don't think it answers the question of experience that bother some people any better than other theories. As I said, the question of experience is not one that I worry about.

I'm something of a (slightly reformed) behaviourist, so I'm also in agreement with you in that it is our behaviours which reveal to us mental processes. Later on in my career, however, I was lucky enough to work with some excellent neuroscientists on issues around visual perception and they changed a lot of the way I think about cognitive processes. Now I consider it to be a bit more OK to talk about a mere cognitive state (sans behaviour) as being a real state of affairs, but I'm still not as comfortable with it as I am with behaviour. — Isaac

Maybe I overstated my case. I'm not a behaviorist and I think there's more to mind than just behavior. But I do think a person's behavior, including language, is a valid way to know aspects of their mental life we don't have direct access to. And I also think it makes sense to talk about cognitive states without behavior.

philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose? — Noble Dust

For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel.

Otherwise, this is an interesting thread because I find myself agreeing with what T Clark and @Michael have said, which has never happened before. — Jamal

That's silly; you, @Michael, and I agree on many things. Some examples:

• I'm really smart
• I'm really funny
• I'm kind of an asshole

Thanks for interesting post. — bert1

I would say the same to you. Interesting and thorough. I appreciate it.

This perhaps is related to arguments from ignorance. I've been told that's what I'm doing several times, and that might be right. Maybe I just haven't read enough neuroscience. Maybe I lack faith in the scientific method which, after all, is easily the best method we have had so far in our history at arriving at reliable/true/useful theories about the world. — bert1

I wasn't accusing you of this, I was just identifying my understanding of why people might reject neuroscientific explanations of phenomenal consciousness.

Having said all that, the issues seem to me to be conceptual rather than empirical. Sometimes scientists need philosophers to help them out a bit with the concepts (yeah that's patronising, I don't care. — bert1

This comes back to a question I asked @Isaac:

I classify phenomenal consciousness as a mental process. That's the kind of a thing I say it is. The category I say it belongs in. One of the characteristics of a mental processes is that they are behaviors or at least that they manifest themselves to us as behaviors.

If it's not a mental process, what kind of a thing is it? What category does it fit in? — T Clark

What's your answer to that question?

That may be true of some, but I don't think it's true of many philosophers. People like Brian Cox and Dawkins make much of this point - going on and on about how the wonders of the natural world are not diminished by their physical basis. I think it basically a straw man, no serious woo-mongers actually make this point. — bert1

As you indicate, that is true of some, including some posting on this thread. I noted two reasons for rejecting a neuroscience explanation for phenomenal consciousness. Those were the only ones I could think of. You've added a new one - inconsistency in the neurological explanation:

One example of an important conceptual matter is the idea that consciousness does not, conceptually, seem to admit of borderline cases. — bert1

OK, so you're a non-reductionist about the mind. That's obviously fine but it creates a problem. If mind isn't just the operation of a nervous system, what is it? A simple unsophisticalted identification (the simplest way to be a physicalist) between neural activity and consciousness is no longer an option. One option is to take a hierarchical systems approach, saying that whole systems and sub-systems have properties unique to each 'level' and these have upward and downward causation powers, and that various components of mind, including consciousness, is somehow captured with these concepts. I think apokrisis thinks something along these lines (no doubt I have got it wrong somewhat wrong). — bert1

I think you've got it right. Yes, discussions with @apokrisis and others about the hierarchical nature of science has had a strong influence on my opinions on this subject.

As a panpsychist I go much further, and assert that any behaviour at all, including the behaviour of atoms, is valuable for the mind of the atom. Everything happens because of consciousness. I've been toying with the idea that all causation is actually psychological. — bert1

I would class this understanding along with such other non-physicalist explanations of reality as Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis. They are metaphysical approaches and, so, there is no empirical way of testing them. They are not facts, they are ways of thinking about something. As I see it, they are not useful ways of thinking, but that is certainly opinion, not fact.

The joke I don't get tired of repeating is taken from Churchill: "Panpsychism is the worst theory of consciousness apart from all the others." — bert1

Here's the joke about Churchill I don't get tired of:

At an elegant dinner party, Lady Astor once leaned across the table to remark, “If you were my husband, Winston, I’d poison your coffee.”
“And if you were my wife, I’d beat the shit out of you,” came Churchill’s unhesitating retort. — Michael O'Donaghue - The Churchill Wit

Again, thanks for the work out.

In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly— the difference being I’m more “elitist” now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose. — Mikie

In my experience, pop philosophy/psychology sources, and even serious secondary sources, often leave out important aspects of the primary authors ideas that people aren't aware of, examples - Einstein didn't prove the speed of light is a constant, he assumed it; Darwin included Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) as one of the mechanisms of evolution; Heisenberg's justification for the uncertainty principle is no longer accepted by quantum physicists. Thinker's descriptions of their ideas are usually more detailed, more nuanced, and more interesting than someone else's.

Why examine oneself if not to improve oneself? — Noble Dust

You previously were surprised to hear I spent time on Reddit. One of the reasons I go there is that they have some good discussions on their r/Taoism page. One very common kind of post from people who are new to Taoism is "How can I use Taoism to solve my problems." The answer is, of course, you can't. Taoism, philosophy in general, can help open your eyes so you can see your life more clearly. That may lead to problem solutions you wouldn't have found otherwise, but practicing Taoism to do so is a very un-Taoist thing to do. A very unphilosophical thing to do. And, in my experience, it doesn't work well.

Science's paradigm states that we don't observe Advance Properties "floating" free in Nature. We constantly verify the need of Physical Structures with functions for such properties to emerge.
This is how we demarcate Supernatural from scientific claims, When Kastrup or Sheldrake or Hoffmann etc project high level features in nature independent of physical low level mechanisms we quickly understand that we deal with a pseudo scientific story. — Nickolasgaspar

This is a really good point. I hadn't thought of it in this way before.

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general? — Mikie

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination.

Fair enough. But what is this deep curiosity ? Do you have any thoughts on it ? On its source ? Is it good for the species ? Is it innate in us ? — green flag

When I think of my curiosity, I get an image of a cat moving around a dark room. Looking behind every object, into every nook. Following sounds and smells. Climbing on top of everything to get a better view. Then lying down for a while before getting back up and doing it all again. It's a drive, something pushing, pulling. Seems like it's probably innate. Babies are curious. Being curious certainly has value - A curious animal is one that is familiar with it's surroundings.

Why would a person seek to be more rational, more educated, if this wasn't understood as an improvement, a development, an enrichment ? — green flag

For me, philosophy isn't about being more rational or educated, it's about being more self-aware. I'm not interested in being more self-aware in order to improve or enrich myself, I'm just curious. Not off-hand curious; real, deep, intense, urgent curious.

19:15 for those of us living in the One True Timezone. — Michael

Yes. Sorry for the parochialism.

Donald Trumps arraignment is scheduled to take place at 2:15 today. Events around the arraignment will be broadcast and streamed live by a number of sources. There will be a live press conference by the prosecutor at 3:30.

Donald Trump is being arraigned in New York city. — Mikie

Events around the arraignment will be broadcast live. It's scheduled for 2:15. There will be a live press conference by the prosecutor at 3:30.

But it doesn't follow from that that consciousness is behaviour. — Michael

As I noted:

One of the characteristics of a mental processes is that they are behaviors or at least that they manifest themselves to us as behaviors. — T Clark

As you even say yourself "much of our behavior, I would say most, is not driven by consciousness" and so clearly they are two different things. — Michael

If I say that all apples are fruits, the fact that all fruits are not apples does not prove I'm wrong.

Then it is only fair that Kappa gets some attention. — Caerulea-Lawrence

See, I've already started using it.

What I don’t get is the hatred for sock puppets.
— 0 thru 9

Yeah, me either. I'm actually a sock puppet for @Baden. As a moderator I don't want to overwhelm people with my wisdom, sophistication, and wit, so I created T Clark to represent my better self. [Edit] Kappa. — T Clark

That's one theory. I wouldn't take it as a given. — Michael

This goes back to @Isaac's previous question:

... What would an answer look like? Give me an example answer. It's doesn't have to be the right answer, just an example of what sort of thing would satisfy you. — Isaac

I classify phenomenal consciousness as a mental process. That's the kind of a thing I say it is. The category I say it belongs in. One of the characteristics of a mental processes is that they are behaviors or at least that they manifest themselves to us as behaviors.

If it's not a mental process, what kind of a thing is it? What category does it fit in?

I can think things and yet not tell you or anyone else what I am thinking. There's more to consciousness than just public behaviour. — Michael

Consciousness doesn't just manifest itself as language, it also shows itself in our other behavior. We know by analogy. We know what our experience feels like, how it makes us act. It would be silly for us not to interpret other people's similar behavior as something other than the same type of experience we have.

That consciousness drives behaviour isn't that consciousness is behaviour. — Michael

Much of our behavior, I would say most, is not driven by consciousness.

I suggest trying to ask it to pay special attention to the ambiguity of language, and justify the translation of each ambiguous word. You get excellent translations that way. I tried this with the first chapter of the Daodejing, and got a footnoted translation. Each footnote justified the translation for each footnoted word, and provided alternative meanings of the translated ideograms. — Ying

Thanks. Sounds interesting. I'll try it on a few verses. My general strategy for figuring out what Lao Tzu is trying to show us is to read a bunch of translations and then try to get an impressionistic understanding of the intricacies.

I hope you don't mind if I keep posting my own explorations.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Tao Te Ching. I asked Chat GPT to give me a one line summary of each verse. I really liked what it provided. I think it echoed some of the poetry of the original. Here it is. Again, I've hidden the text because it's long.