I checked the links you mentioned. They both lead to https://chat.openai.com — Alkis Piskas

I thought I had created links to specific interactions. I didn’t realize you would need to log in to review them, sorry. I’ll look into that, it’s a definite down-mark if that is so.

I agree with your point about the fact that this technology does not support physicalism. It is able to infer images on the basis of huge amounts of processing power and computer memory. I wonder how it could interpret a simple idea such as ‘greater than’?

I may be opening a new can of worms neurons here. But, I wonder if AI mechanisms --- emulating brain states --- can reason*1 (infer novel ideas), or do they just compute (add & subtract via parallel processing) — Gnomon

I would say the latter. Reasoning requires something else - like motive, for a start. Curiosity would be one. Distress might be another, or seeking advantage. Note the connection between reason and purpose, which was implicit in earlier philosophy, now called into question in everything, hence the nihilism of much of modern thought.

And he’s coming back! https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/tech/openai-altman-returns-hnk-intl?cid=ios_app

Well, yeah, as I already said, the Sam Altmann sacking seems like something right out of streaming media, billions of dollars and many big players. Meanwhle Elon Musk self-immolates on a funeral pyre of his own adolescent silliness.

The 1946 computers couldn't sing — BC

I might have meant 1945....ENIAC wasn't built until 46....

Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump — Christoffer

Responding to trolls is counter-productive. Best to ignore.

Metaphysical axioms are not empirically provable, they're nearer to the realm of the a priori.

I'm of the view that mathematics, for example, is fundamental to the success of science but that number is not material existent. The imagination incorporates and relies on factors which are not materially real but which can be used to great effect in the physical domain. Hence the interminable arguments about Platonism in mathematics (and I'm with the platonists in that regard).

Notice that sentence of Schopenhauer's:

It (materialism) then lays hold of the law of causality as a guiding principle or clue, regarding it as a self-existent order (or arrangement) of things, veritas aeterna, and so fails to take account of the understanding, in which and for which alone causality is. — Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and Idea

The point about materialism is precisely that it regards some material existent as being ultimately real. But even there, the whole current model of physics is that - a mathematical model. So we consistently assign reality to the objective domain, as if its reality is self-evident at least in principle, without taking into account the role of the mind in constructing what we take to be independently real. You will notice that there has been no such thing as a truly existent fundamental particle ever discovered, the nearer you get to them, the more ambiguous their nature becomes. Nowadays materialism usually just amounts to appeal to the scientific method, never mind all the paradoxes and conundrums it has thrown up.

That technology does nothing to prove materialist philosophy of mind. The technology is completely dependent on human ingenuity and the ability to interpret data. It did not invent itself.

The Jesuits, by the way, were adept at adopting native traditions as part of their conversion efforts. — Ciceronianus

It was a two-way street in at least some cases. Desediri Ippolito made it to Lhasa in the 17th Century and stayed for many years. He of course regarded many elements of Tibetan tantrism as paganism, but he also recognised the kinds of universal moral maxims that they shared with Christianity. The illustrious Matteo Ricci stayed many decades in old Peking, becoming fluent in the language and earning the admiration of the Mandarins. Then there's Raimundo Pannikar, a kind of 'multi-faith' Jesuit who spent a large part of his life in India; Bede Griffith, another Catholic monk who adopted India has homeland and lived on an Ashram. There is a strand of universalism in Catholicism (although it's by no means universal ;-) )

As far as AI is concerned, I'm in AI as a programmer since 2018 — Alkis Piskas

Is that so? I'm impressed! I've never learned to program, although I do work in information technology (as a technical writer). I was immediately won over by ChatGPT the day it came out and often bounce ideas off it (see for instance this and this.) I envision the day when it's fully integrated with voice technologies and you can simply ask questions, get advice and use it for all kinds of day-to-day purposes.

What are your thoughts, on the fact that these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking that you are constantly crusading against? — wonderer1

That science is capable of amazing achievements and discoveries, but science is also a human endeavour. The mistake of physicalism is to treat humans as objects and to forget (or even claim to eliminate :lol: ) the subject to whom the objective domain occurs.

Of all systems of philosophy which start from the object, the most consistent, and that which may be carried furthest, is simple materialism. It regards matter, and with it time and space, as existing absolutely, and ignores the relation to the subject in which alone all this really exists. It then lays hold of the law of causality as a guiding principle or clue, regarding it as a self-existent order (or arrangement) of things, veritas aeterna, and so fails to take account of the understanding, in which and for which alone causality is. It seeks the primary and most simple state of matter, and then tries to develop all the others from it; ascending from mere mechanism, to chemistry, to polarity, to the vegetable and to the animal kingdom. And if we suppose this to have been done, the last link in the chain would be animal sensibility—that is knowledge—which would consequently now appear as a mere modification or state of matter produced by causality. Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final result—knowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it. — Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and Idea

Is that anything like a hangover?

Bishop Fulton Sheen said that truth is like a circle of 360 degrees; Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism all contribute to the fullness of truth found in Christ. Therefore, we should use these great Asian traditions (this would include certain ideas from Hinduism and Jainism as well which I have no proper understanding of) so long as we understand them in terms of grace. We cannot, from the biblical point of view, save ourselves from ourselves by ourselves. We need, to reference one wise Buddhist, tariki, "other power." To paraphrase something Alan Watts wrote in his early years, the coming of Christ is a satori, an awakening, upon human history. — Dermot Griffin

:100: Wish there were more of a similar mind. :clap:

I see philosophy as primarily concerned with the problems of meaning - and that in an existential, rather than a semantic, sense. Philosophy attempts to grapple with the perennial problem of 'what it means to be', and it's not an academic concern, as we are, in fact, beings. This is why I think Chalmer's paper is important - it is grappling with the problem of what it is like to be. It's pointing out that no matter how much we know about objective facts-of-the-matter, the problems of being are at once urgent and pressing, and somehow intractable to objective solution.

One thing I am dropping from my view is that reality - in whatever way you want to metaphysically theorize about it - is not like a set of objects that just permanently exist at one scale and can be arranged in different ways like marbles in a box.

Theoretical physics, from what I have read, seems to characterize particles and forces at the most fundamental level in terms of symmetries and invariances that possibly emerge and dissolve depending on the situation (maybe a good example in physics is that it is thought that during the development of the universe you had symmetry breaking where new forces, particles and even mass emerged where they did not exist before).

So maybe symmetries / invariances are fundamental. — Apustimelogist

Totally with you on that - I think that is an insight that is coming through a number of different people. But don't loose sight of the role which the mind plays in establishing relationships - by identifying them, by seeing how this relates to that in ways that would never be otherwise perceptible.

Is Consciousness purely a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, or a function of both Mind and Matter? — Gnomon

Recall that in Vedanta, consciousness (citta) is never a 'that'. It is never an object, or for that matter a phenomenon. The phenomenon is 'that which appears'; consciousness is 'to whom it appears'.

I turned 70 this year, and again I’m thinking what an amazing time it is to be alive. Even despite the perils and obvious doomsday scenarios. I think this augmented intelligence technology - that’s what I like to call it - is an amazing phenomenon to witness first hand. Hey my grandkids don’t even know what currency looks like - when I was a kid my grandparents cooked on a woodfire oven and our milk was delivered in a pail. In the old Stone Age, it took half a million years to slightly improve a flint ax. The rate of change is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying. Even my adult son is a bit daunted by AI - he finds it threatening - but I’ve been engaging with ChatGPT since the day it came out. It’s truly an amazing time to be alive.

I feel somwhat bad — Alkis Piskas

No need to!

I run against your enthusiam — Alkis Piskas

Not so much enthusiasm as curiosity.

And when I restricted the period to "Last week" --which just covers the date of the video, which was posted 1-2 days ago-- no such articles appeared. (You can verify that yourself.)
Don't you find that a little strange? — Alkis Piskas

It's cutting edge. All of those reports have only just begun to circulate, but as I said, I have reason to believe that Cold Fusion TV is a reliable source. I've watched many of their documentaries on other aspects of technology. I know what they're saying seems incredible but they're claiming to be able to generate images based on pictures that subjects are viewing with no other prompts.

Meanwhile the Sam Altman story keeps getting more far-out. Altman and Brockman have been hired by Microsoft, and practically the whole staff of OpenAI have threatened to resign and join him. It's like an episode of Billions or Succession!

That’s what the youtube video is claiming. I’m not saying you have to believe it.

Incidentally the channel, Cold Fusion TV, produces generally pretty good quality mini-documentaries on a variety of tech and business products.

And since this can be done from text, it must also be done from speech, using a speech-to-text converter — Alkis Piskas

Nope. Brainwaves. I know, hard to believe, but there it is.

It is of interest, and I think Rovelli's persona is appealing. But I'm dubious about his philosophical stance.

The question as to the subjective element of perception reminds me of this figure from John Wheeler's article Law without Law:



My argument is that empirical observation has an irreducibly subjective constituent, which is not itself disclosed in empirical observation. Put another way, a subject is always implicit in every judgement, even if the object in question is apparently 'mind-independent'.

Yes, I saw that. It is what AI art-generators do based on text prompts — Alkis Piskas

You don't understand it, then. The rendered images were not from text prompts, they were from brain scans. There was no other input than a subject with electrodes attached to their cranium.

:up: Is there a word for ‘sleepwalking into a nightmare?’ ‘Cause that’s what a lot of people seem to be doing.

Trump will be the Republican nominee. — Mikie

There’s going to be a godawful s***fight at the Republican Convention if he is. They almost derailed him first time around.

He’s talking about Donald Hoffman…. does he get to Kastrup? I’m a bit dubious about Hoffman’s use of the term ‘reality’. I think his book should be called ‘The Case Against Realism’.

I don’t know if I agree with Rovelli’s argument that the subject is also a construct. The ego may be a construct but the subject is not only ego.

Interesting discussion, thanks…Curt’s channel has a lot of great content.

Ah yes so I did… :yikes:

Yet, since potentiality can't be observed…., — Count Timothy von Icarus

You think? Read this. The wave function describes potentialities, according to Heisenberg. The wave function is not ‘in’ space time - that’s why the rate of electron discharge doesn’t affect the distribution pattern.

My understanding is that he’s passed some major deadline for nominations. That’s the last I heard.

That is, a subject thinking of something --just an image, as the apple we've seen-- and the FMRI system recognizing and naming or reproducing that image. Well, I saw nothing of the sort. — Alkis Piskas

Watch again. There is a sequence about exactly that at around 12:14 with about 3-4 examples (cat, train, surfer, etc.)

Thoughts are not physical in nature — Alkis Piskas

I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning.

I'm very saddened by the reports of shelters, hospitals and schools (such as they are) being blown up in Gaza with mass casualties. I've always been supportive of Israel's claim to statehood and its right to defend its borders and its citizens, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to retain that sentiment in light of what is happening on the ground. I fear that the sophisticated video-renderered presentation of the so-called Hamas control centre tunnels under the hospital will turn out to be something like George W Bush's 'weapons of mass destruction', that is, non-existent; and that those appalling scenes the world has witnessed the last few weeks, with maimed children and premature babies screaming on blood-stained floors, will not have served any legitimate military purpose in the end. They have, so far, found a couple of rough hand-dug tunnels and small caches of Kalashnikovs, nothing like the 'Dr No' scenarios that they had depicted as grounds for their assault. Netanyahu, asked about this, said of course Israel doesn't wish to harm civilians, but if it does, they're 'collateral' (and that's a direct quote.) It is all horrible beyond words, and immensely disheartening for the future.

Have you signed up and actually used ChatGPT yet? It must be a year since it came out….quick google….Nov 30th 2022…and I’ve been bouncing ideas of it since Day 1. It’s really quite incredible - not all knowing, not perfect, but still totally amazing.

As for quantum computers, that’s another matter altogether, and one I’m highly sceptical about, but that’s for another thread.

A common thread in all of these positions is the idea that knowledge is not merely cerebral and abstract (e.g. the Hebrew, Indian, Platonic, and Christian traditions — Leontiskos

I don't know if it's true of those traditions, but what has been handed down. The sapiential and practical sides of the disciplines have been ignored or treated as secondary, whereas in reality, that is the way that the ideas 'come to life'. Have a read of Karen Armstrong's metaphysical mistake.

There's about a couple of dozen plausible movie plots right there, sci-fi, espionage and end-of-world scenarios, writers will be able to take their pick.

we can never get outside our language, experience, or methods to assess how well they correspond to a transcendent reality.

That discounts philosophical or noetic intuition probably on the grounds that it is too near to religious revelation. But that is why postmodern philosophy falls into relativism.

On a more serious note, I think the video does a fairly balanced job of conveying concerns about what exploitations of this kind of technology could do. I suppose one way of thinking about it is asking whether the risks involved in such technologies are exacerbated by seeking to exploit them for commercial gain. As is well known, the kinds of multiplier effects that have been witnessed with the growth of social media and internet search have given rise to vast fortunes for companies including Alphabet and Meta, and many others. But on the other hand the pursuit of profit may not be a particularly sound motivation when it comes to researching this kind of technology - as the producer suggests. He says that the research and possible scientific applications are one thing, but that 'productizing' it is another matter entirely.

On a side note, both the founders of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, were both sacked by the board, out of the blue, last Friday. It seems to have taken everyone by surprise (gift link to NY Times analysis.) The conflict inside OpenAI also seems to be, at least in part, about the dangers of commercialisation.

As to the philosophical implications, they are indeed fascinating, but I want to resist the inevitable suggestion that we've 'figured out how the mind operates'. As noted already, the system requires extensive sychronisation with a specific subject in order to be effective. (I also picked up a way in which the predictive power of the algorithm to complete sentences is modelled on Shannon's theory.) And last but not least, the system is imbued with whatever power it has by scientific expertise and insights.

Thank you for the response, helps me to understand your viewpoint a little better.

The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. — Outlander

I read not long ago that there is more computing power in a singing christmas card than existed in the world in 1946.

Without the AI having been trained to form correct associations, between a specific individual's brain activity and what the individual was thinking about, the system can't decode thoughts. — wonderer1

:up: Important point. I hadn't picked up the specificity on first listening.

I suppose ‘demonizing’ is a fair criticism of that passage, but that is not the main point. If you’d like a ref to the article which it was taken from, which provides more context. let me know. And it’s not a criticism of any individual but a broad cultural theme.

In the case of final causation, it is more a matter of 'having no need of that hypothesis', and Ockham's razor, than it is a matter of rejection. — wonderer1

In reality, something of momentous importance was rejected. And it's a matter in intellectual history that Ockham has a lot to do with this, as his principle was grounded in a misunderstanding of the nature of teleological explanation. But it's beyond the scope of a forum post to spell out the details of that momentous event.

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence. — Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences

Why not say that ‘objective’ is the view with biases more or less shared among a normative community? — Joshs

Here is where I think post-modernism falls into the trap of relativism. What is bias?

noun BIAS: inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants"

...
2. STATISTICS: a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation.

verb
1. cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"the search results are biased by the specific queries used"
Similar:
prejudice
influence
colour
sway
....
2. STATISTICS
distort (a statistical result); introduce bias into (a method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc.)

If I agree with the post-modern analysis that there is no *ultimate* or *absolute* objectivity, it's because I agree that there is no ultimately-existing object in the sense presumed by modern science. This is not to say there is no philosophical or noetic absolute, but that the nature of such, were it to be real, is such that it can't be apprehended empirically, but requires a specific kind of insight which has been generally deprecated in Western culture and which is more associated with philosophical mysticism and non-dualism. You find analogies for such an understanding in for instance the German idealists, but much less in most current schools of philosophy.

(Early Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy accomodates this quandary with the 'doctrine of two truths'.)

The most common argument against the existence of objective morality and moral facts besides moral differences between societies is that they aren’t tangible objects found in the universe and can’t be measured scientifically. — Captain Homicide

Same goes for number. Science of course relies on mathematics, but the question of the nature of number is a metaphysical, not a scientific, one.

There's an interesting entry in Wikipedia, on the biological term (a neologism), teleonomy. It was coined in 1958 by a biologist to describe the 'apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms' (my bolds). Teleonomy was introduced because it was found impossible to avoid the concept of goal-directedness in discussions of biology (as all kinds of organisms engage in purposeful, goal-directed actions). But Aristotle's 'teleology' had been generally rejected by science since the publication of Francis Bacon's 'Novum Organum' in the early 17th century (per the Wikipedia entry on teleology.) This was reinforced by the advent of Galilean science and the rejection of Aristotelian physics which was shot through with teleological concepts (indeed, Aristotle's scientific reasoning is teleological in presuming that things generally happen for a reason). Not surprisingly, the article on teleonomy is replete with hair-splitting distinctions between 'apparent' and 'actual' purposes, so as to allow scientific biologists to avoid the cardinal sin of attributing purpose to nature.

But this all becomes, in my view, the ultimate case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The antagonism (which becomes a prohibition) against the idea of telos as final cause, is baked in to the modern scientific outlook as a consequence of these developments. And more than science - it spills over into culture generally, and is behind the anguished expressions of the 'purposeless universe' that are found everywhere in today's society.




Edward Feser gives an in-depth analysis of this in his book Aristotle's Revenge. The key feature of the modern worldview is the mechanistic model which, because it has rejected the Aristotelian principles of final causation and substantial form, also looses sight of the distinction between the artificial and the natural. This is because in natural beings - organisms - have an intrinsic nature ('substantial form') by which all of their separate functions are ordered, whereas artificial devices (machines) have extrinsic form, imposed on them by their artificers (humans) and no purpose other than to perform the functions assigned to them by their designers. Here in one fell swoop, any idea of purpose in nature - hence, I would argue, purpose in any sense other than the instrumental - is laid waste. (See this recent thread for examples.)