To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity... — Hallucinogen

For my part, it is merely a matter of being skeptical towards the idea that the theist that I happen to be talking to knows what he is talking about in matters theistic. Is there some reason to think that you are in a position to speak for what all people mean by "deny theism"?

It's a good framework for a start. I (kinda) wish I had more time to respond.

4.2 **High-risk AI systems**
High-risk applications for AI systems are defined in the AI Act as: — Benkei

I would want to see carve outs for, psychological and medical research overseen by human research subjects Institutional Review Boards.

Thanks! :grin:

Imperfect DNA replication. Which rarely happens. That's why the very very slow increments. I think single mutations aren't noticable. One base pair changes? That's nothing. But, in a million years, they've added up, and something is noticable. — Patterner

There is strong evidence that the single mutation which resulted in the human genome containing ARHGAP11B played a particularly major role in humans having the intelligence we do.

ARHGAP11B is a human-specific gene that amplifies basal progenitors, controls neural progenitor proliferation, and contributes to neocortex folding. It is capable of causing neocortex folding in mice. This likely reflects a role for ARHGAP11B in development and evolutionary expansion of the human neocortex, a conclusion consistent with the finding that the gene duplication that created ARHGAP11B occurred on the human lineage after the divergence from the chimpanzee lineage but before the divergence from Neanderthals.[3]

Changes in ARHGAP11B are one of several key genetic factors of recent brain evolution and difference of modern humans to (other) apes and Neanderthals.[6] A 2016 study suggests, one mutation, a "single nucleotide substitution underlies the specific properties of ARHGAP11B that likely contributed to the evolutionary expansion of the human neocortex".[7]

A 2020 study found that when ARHGAP11B was introduced into the primate common marmoset, it increased radial glial cells, upper layer neurons, and brain wrinkles (gyral and sulcus structures), leading to the expansion of the neocortex.[8] This revealed that ARHGAP11B is the gene responsible for the development of the neocortex during human evolution.

[Emphasis added.]

Even if it's a quick side-track of the thread, let's, for the fun of it, check how far the current system handles it. — Christoffer

I had no idea that any currently existing AI was capable of doing all of that. I had simply searched Google Images for "schematic diagram artificial neuron" to find an example schematic to answer your question, and picked the first schematic listed. I didn't bother looking at the article from which the schematic was pulled.

So after seeing your post I took a look at the article to see if it included any detailed theory of operation for the circuit. It does not. I can't say that there isn't some detailed written theory of operation for the circuit that was part of ChatGPT4's training. But it at least appears that ChatGPT4 was able to develop a decent working theory of operation from analysis of the schematic diagram, and image analysis has progressed substantially farther than I realized.

then ask the AI to suggest a variation which matches some criteria that the input design cannot achieve. E.g. higher accuracy, higher power, more compact. (With the specific components needed for the alternate design specified in detail.)
— wonderer1

Tried to ask for higher accuracy. — Christoffer

The things I listed as criteria for a new design were more relevant to the things I design than, to the artificial neuron in the schematic. For the artificial neuron more relevant criteria for improvement would be finding an optimal point balancing the 'contradictory' criteria of minimization of power consumption and maximization of speed of operation. Although any truly useful neuromorphic hardware design these is going to be a matter of integrated circuit design and not something built up out of discrete transistors, diodes, etc. as depicted by the input schematic.

Still, ChatGPT4's suggestions as to how make improvements in terms of discrete components were respectable. Furthermore, ChatGPT4 did point to integrated circuit implementations of neuromorphic hardware.

Overall, I have to say that ChatGPT4's responses were very impressive. I would expect good electrical engineers being handed that schematic 'cold', to spend at least eight hours analyzing things, in order to respond with an equivalent level of analysis and detail to that provided by ChatGPT'4. On the other hand, the good engineers would have recognized immediately that spending time analyzing how to improve that design in terms of an assembly of discrete components (vs IC design) is fairly pointless for practical engineering purposes.

Now think of such a new AI running on your phone. It continually registers its environment and acts on it when needed — Carlo Roosen

The average cell phone battery has a capacity of 10 Watt-hours. A single query to ChatGPT uses 2.9 Watt-hours.

How soon do you expect the hardware technology, needed to support your project, to be available? And why do you think that expectation is realistic?

And what is it that you would like an AI to do with such schematics? — Christoffer

I'd like to be able to do something like provide a schematic as input, check that the AI understands the way the input design functions, and then ask the AI to suggest a variation which matches some criteria that the input design cannot achieve. E.g. higher accuracy, higher power, more compact. (With the specific components needed for the alternate design specified in detail.)

I'm skeptical such an AI will exist before I retire, and I wouldn't trust such an AI to any great extent, but such an AI might do a lot to eliminate some of the more tedious parts of my job, like tracking down specific parts to be used in a new design.

What is love?

Something I've recently fallen into, that makes me feel young again, and makes me think philosophy is awfully boring.

:razz:

What types of schematic diagrams do you mean? — Christoffer

Electronic schematics, so something like:

At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C). — Agree-to-Disagree

Amphibians evolved about 360 million years ago. So aside from the earliest insects there was no animal life on land 485 MYA.

Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? (It is paywalled, so I haven't looked at the article itself.)

I've thought about how I might have used it if it was around while I was still working. — T Clark

I never think to use LLMs for work, though I have coworkers in marketing that do. I'd want an AI that can take schematic diagrams as input, and produce schematics as output, before I could see an AI as highly useful for my work.

I'm not making any judgement about whether phenomenology yields valid or reliable knowledge. — Janus

I would think phenomenology would necessarily be rather poor at yielding reliable knowledge about the experience of people in general, given the neurodiversity of people. I haven't looked into phenomenology much, but I'd think it a poor basis for understanding the experience of someone with schizophrenia of someone with bipolar disorder who is in a manic state.

However, those with more knowledge of phenomenology are welcome to enlighten me.

Researchers combine the power of AI and the connectome to predict brain cell activity

Fruit fly brains, but indicative of the synergy between neuroscience and AI that is going to be transformative.

A response to my discussion of Voltage as Potential (not yet real) current, elicited, not a counterargument, but an ad hominem accusation of heresy : "pseudophilosophy is defined by a lack of epistemic conscientiousness" — Gnomon

I was just pointing out a fact, that you are once again demonstrating.

You don't care enough about knowing what you are talking about, to investigate what you are talking about to the point that you do know what you are talking about. How long did it take you to realize what a bit is?

If you had wanted to understand you could ask me. I think I've said on TPF enough times, that I'm an electrical engineer. Maybe I could have conveyed to you a way of thinking about the subject that is not nearly as nonsenical as what you are presenting. But you don't want to be seen as a student. You want to be seen as a teacher. Right?

Strangely enough, the confusion reminded me of Tobias captivating story.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13745/the-hairpin-by-tobias/p1 — Amity

I loved that.

And it made me wonder as to the Mum. She might have been like her daughter but she was brainwashed and wasn't in a position to leave her husband.
Who may well have been the man in Part 1...
Overthinking :chin: — Amity

Overthinking maybe, but interesting to consider.

In the case of my mom, there was fear related to bipolar disorder in her family, and she has told me that she is afraid she would go crazy without her religious beliefs. That's only one among many factors, but I understand it really is a deep seated fear for her, and knowing that in particular, I'm not much inclined to challenge her views.

The second, a loving mother showing religious concern for her daughter's soul. And losing control of the situation. — Amity

Ah, I see now that I read the second part as being between a mother and son, simply because it was easy for me to relate to it that way even though, on rereading' I couldn't find anything that makes clear the sex of the child.

Yes, it is excellent as two halves of a whole. — Vera Mont

Glad to see that you see it that way as well.

Can't you just see/hear it ? The male narcissistic bully pushing it to the limits and then dismissing her opinion/arguments as emotional! — Amity

I've been leaning towards interpreting both parts as conversations between a narcissistic parent and a child. The first part a grandiose narcissist father and his daughter. The second part a covert/vulnerable narcissist mother and her son.

Of course I might be projecting a sort of 'symmetry' that doesn't belong.

Makes me think maybe Darwin was right. — T Clark

Yeah, that clearly came from something about me that was built in deep! It makes a lot of sense, when you think about the time it takes human children to be able to fend for themselves.

I like Erich Fromm's theory of love in The Art of Loving because he casts it as an art that one can learn. — Moliere

:up:

It came to me as a force of nature — T Clark

Yeah. Before my first child was born, I knew that I would love her, but I didn't come close to anticipating how intense the emotional reaction would be when I first saw her.

We still live with the reasoning that some people are less than human. — Athena

I don't see that in most cases as a matter of reasoning so much as a matter of tribalistic instinct. I think we are naturally biased towards see US as human and THEM as less so. It takes reasoning to get beyond tribalistic thinking.

Your mother knows the earth’s a plane.

:lol:

I can relate to that one. A couple of days ago my mom told me she would be praying for me. If she knew about this guy wonderer on the internet, she would probably consider him the antichrist. :wink:

A synopsis would be preferable. — Wayfarer

Ok.

Causality in brains is very complex, with all sorts of feedback loops, and if you are thinking about it in terms of a top down vs bottom up dichotomy you aren't thinking about it very seriously.

I may well be wrong. The last thing I read by him was an interview with Dennett in which he insisted that first-person subject experience is real - not an illusion. — Ludwig V

I might disagree with Dennett similarly. I consider Dennett's views a mixed bag. Some good stuff as well as bad stuff.

Is there any chance you can give any guidance on that? You must know it fairly well to have recommend it multiple times as having found a solution. I find it very difficult. Likely my lack of education in most areas ever discussed here. But maybe you can give me some kind of summary? Or handholds to look for along the way? Anything to keep my head above water. — Patterner

Yeah, I had a 35 year head start in thinking about such things with a background in electrical engineering. I can't really imagine what it must be like to try to understand what Tse is saying without that background. I understand many won't find it an easy read.

An analogy to what Tse refers to as "criterial causation", that occurred to me before Tse's book came out, is that of locks and keys. Different locks have different criteria for what will be effective as a key that opens them.

So if you can mentally translate between locks and keys, and neural networks having different criterai for inputs/keys that will open the lock (activate a neural network output having intentionality) maybe that could help?

See The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation by Peter Tse.

Physicalism says it must be bottom-up... — Wayfarer

Not really.

We can't do that any more, though some people (Nagel, Searle) seem to think that's an option. — Ludwig V

I haven't looked into much by Searle, aside from The Chinese Room, but my impression is that Searle isn't so resistant to physicalism per se, but to a naive computationalist physicalism which he is well justified in resisting. [FWIW, some writer on Wikipedia seems to agree saying, "Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain. (A view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.)]

Words help poets “say the unsayable”:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/between-cultures/202303/saying-the-unsayable-the-psychology-of-poetry — Amity

Nice find!

The sentence, "Poetry can stir the memory of words that reside in our bodies in different ways." took me back to this, which I have been thinking about off and on:

It is so interesting and mysterious, the effect that poetic elements seem to have on us.
— wonderer1

I guess some might ask the question: "what are 'poetic elements?'' How do they show in expression? — Amity

By poetic elements, I had in mind things like rhyme, rhythm, alliteration, assonance, etc. My speculation is that whether we consciously recognize such poetic elements, our subconscious is excited by patterns in detecting such elements, and that can literally result in an altered state of mind in which we can see things from a different perspective.

My own worry is the damage to humanity resulting from censorship. Are you capable of caring about that? — NOS4A2

Sure.

But you are being disingenuous.

Much more likely seems an egocentric fear on your part of you being 'censored' in the sense of being banned for low post quality, though of course that wouldn't actually be censorship. I suppose it is likely that your victim mentality would make it censorship in your mind.

It seems to me to be an odd mix of individualism and universalism. An overestimation of the reliability of intuition. — Fooloso4

:up:

No, it was the question about why you're doing this. You haven't stopped writing about me yet, telling someone you have never met that they lack empathy and are psychopathic. I'm just curious as to why. — NOS4A2

Because I think there is something more useful to consider than the thread's title question, "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Regardless of any matter of "should" there is the simple matter that some people do care about the damage to humanity that results from the propagation of disinformation and misinformation, and some people don't. To justify that all people should care, it would seem important that all people could care. So the topic of whether some people can't care is relevant, and that brings up psychopathy and whether you are capable of caring about the damage to humanity resulting from misinformation.

On the whole, though, it seems that others' are more inclined to pick apart my beliefs than I am, so the idea of an individual overcoming their biases isn't even necessary because the individual doesn't do that alone. — Moliere

:up:

Which seems to bring us back to psychology. :wink:

It was just a question. — NOS4A2

It was a question which demonstrated your lack of empathy towards abused women. So it seems appropriate to consider the extent to which your perspective is a result of Psychopathy:

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, in combination with traits of boldness, disinhibition, and egocentrism. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress[4], which create an outward appearance of apparent normalcy.

What springs to mind is that they are two different articulations of the human all too human need to explain — Janus

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle

I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will. — jgill

Very good point.

We might say that we go with our intuitions in such cases.

Again, the goal will determine the level of accuracy (information) that is needed to accomplish the goal. — Harry Hindu

As much as the marketing department where I work might wish that were so, that isn't how things work as far as I can tell. There seem to be hard limits to what can be done in a great many ways regardless of goals.

You might be surprised at the extent to which practical matters bump into quantum limitations in today's world.
— wonderer1
Examples? — Harry Hindu

There are all sorts of metrological limits, in addition to the ones which affect measurement of voltage.

Modern logic ICs are running up against quantum limits which pose problems for shrinking transistor size.

Then to look at things from a different angle, you can buy a quantum random number generator to plug into your computer.

:up:

Could it be that the biggest problem for indirect realists, is being called indirect realists? — Mww

Might it be an even bigger problem, to label oneself with a philosophical label at all? To me it kind of suggests a closedness to different ways of looking at things.

(Not to say I won't make use of philosophical labels, as succinct ways of attempting to communicate a crude sense of what my perspective is.)