...if a natural process developed consciousness, it can be repeated. In theory, of course, but it’s not illogical. — GLEN willows

Whether or not it is logical depends upon the possible world in which robots develop consciousness. Saying it does not make it logical.

Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief. I remain unconvinced that we, as humans, can produce a biological creature replete with thought and belief out of inanimate material.

It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say?
— creativesoul

No. I never really understood what Aristotle meant by "art imitates nature." But he considers nature to be a process so art imitates that process. So, nature exhibits intelligence. The modern preoccupation with subjectivity obscures this idea. — Jackson

Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless.
— creativesoul

How is AI different from human intelligence? — Jackson

...consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul

I don’t see that at all. Do you mean that only humans can have the kind of intelligence you’re talking about? I remember a time when people thought that computers would be unable to do many things that we now know they can. — GLEN willows

Of course AI intelligence is different from human intelligence. What we’re debating is whether AI will eventually develop consciousness and I say why not? It could take hundreds or thousands of years of course. I just believe history is littered with the bodies of men who said “your ‘science’ will never explain ….” — GLEN willows

Sure, I suppose we could say that it is logically possible. That there are certain conditions and/or circumstances that would lead up to robots developing consciousness. Logical possibility alone is insufficient for justified and/or warranted belief. It is logicallly possible that we are the creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. Logical possibility plus adequate explanation is better.

So, what would it take for an inanimate object that operates on Boolean logic to form, have, and/or hold thought and belief about the universe and/or itself?

This requires already having a good ontological understanding of thought and belief, in terms of what it consists of as we know it. Anthropomorphism is popular... and mistaken. WE tend to personify things prior to grasping what sorts of features, qualities, and/or characteristics are uniquely human and which sorts are not. This is the measure of consciousness. This is what informs our viewpoint with regards to which sorts of things can be conscious and which sorts of things cannot.

I am interested to know how you can hold a true believe in things that require language to understand, without that language — Tom Storm

You cannot. What makes you think that non(pre) linguistic true belief is about things that require language to understand?

Belief that a mouse ran behind a tree does not require language. If the mouse is there, well... Surely you get the point.

Science is philosophy. Methodological naturalism.

I believe that we will eventually build robots with consciousness. Do you really think that's impossible?
— GLEN willows

I do. It's not because consciousness is something that lies outside purely mechanical processes, but rather it's because consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul

We are part of nature, aren't we?
— creativesoul

Exactly. So, "artificial" intelligence is just an extension of natural intelligence. — Jackson

Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless.

Hey my man! Hope all is good is peach country. Get rid of that effin lunatic Taylor Greene... Phew!

nature exhibits intelligence — Jackson

We are part of nature, aren't we?

"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths."

Richard Rorty — Tom Storm

Rubbish. Effin' Rorty...

True belief is prior to language. Either true belief does not require truth or truth does not require language(vocabularies).

It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say?

Some think intelligence is a function of human biology — Jackson

If the term means anything at all, it must include biological machinery. Our intelligence is most certainly a result of our biological machinery including our physiological nervous system, of which the brain is just one part.

For the record...

I'm quite fond of Dennett's paper "Quining Qualia". Quite indeed!

...if consciousness and the material brain are not literally the same thing, how do we avoid dualism? — GLEN willows

Mind/body dualism? Internal/external dualism? Material/immaterial dualism? Mental/physical dualism? Another, perhaps?

Which dualism?

I believe that we will eventually build robots with consciousness. Do you really think that's impossible? — GLEN willows

I do. It's not because consciousness is something that lies outside purely mechanical processes, but rather it's because consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional).

Making the problem of our slave history, and prejudice, forbidden school subjects will for sure promote the problems, and here is where Germany has far surpassed the US. Germany teaches their immoral actions against others in schools and publically makes everyone aware of the wrongs with signs and monuments. Shame on US for making change impossible. Like it is okay to make a person of color feel terrible but we must not say something that makes Whites feel uncomfortable? Perhaps a philosophy forum can deal with this better than our nation has? — Athena

We're in complete agreement here. American history textbooks are a joke. An injurious one at that.

To What Extent is Human Judgment Distorted and Flawed?

To the extent that the individual's belief system is false.

...we have the institutions of our world war enemy and every night in the news we hear about one horrible thing after another, and the reporters are asking what went wrong? Why are these terrible things happening? They are clueless about the fact that the US has imitated Germany in every significant way... — Athena

This is overstating the case. At least it seems that way from where I sit. Sure, there were at the time. and there still are Americans who sympathize with the idea of 'white racial superiority'. However, racist white Americans were/are prone to be anti anything non-white, whereas the Nazis targeted Jewish people.

The history behind how this all came to be is complex, for sure, but rest assured that there is always one deep seated mechanism at work:The systematic dehumanization of the 'enemy', whomever it may be. It's much easier to live with oneself when treating others cruelly or killing them outright, if those being treated as such have been previously devalued to the point of worthlessness in the mind(s) of the one(those) causing injury. That's the key core element common between Nazi Germany, the everyday affects/effects of the systemic racism inherent to The United States, and serial killers. We've not emulated Nazi Germany to the extent you suggest.

Babies and bathwater...

Americans were in awe of Germany's modes of manufacture and production, as well they ought have been. The Germans knew/know their shit when it came to such things. Given our post war economic boom was centered around manufacturing, it made good sense to emulate Germany in that regard, for they've always been very good at it. There were Nazi scientists brought on board in order to acquire their knowledge/expertise on rockets and nuclear dynamics as well.

All this being said, circling back to the OP...

American news outlets, today, are driven by profit. Profits come from advertising revenue. Advertisers want to reach as many potential customers as possible. Therefore, advertisers will pay the highest amount of revenue to the channels whose timeslots have the largest viewing population.

Shock sells.

In the seventies, the rock group KISS put on a constant theatrical production meant to shock conservative American values, particularly religious values and mores. The attention paid to them, much of which was by those avowed to somehow rid the country of their influence, made them global rockstars. The attention...

Shock sells.

Trump just said out loud what many Americans had been saying in private for a very long time. Sadly. Sadder still, is how utterly inept the opponents of such norms have been. Then there is the deep seated issue of who decides the narrative put into the public domain.

Point is that it's not so simple as to say that The United States is in trouble because we copied Germany.

If all belief manifested into reality, what would happen if two individuals held mutually exclusive beliefs about the very same events?

Insight?

:wink:

Better to think about other stuff.

If I promise to plant a rose garden for you on Sunday, then Monday there ought be a rose garden.

Is that an institutional fact ? It seems to fit the definition.

Suppose that belief or faith had the intrinsic property of manifesting into reality whatever is believed. — Benj96

Impossible.

Information is often thought about in terms of organized data. That is a definition that's put to use. Sometimes for good. Sometimes not.

the argument that information is the relationship between cause and effect — Harry Hindu

Is one that fails to take the right sorts of things into consideration.

Point one:Cause and effect is a kind of relationship. Point two:It makes no sense to say that information is the relationship between a relationship. Point three:Saying that information is the relationship between cause and effect fails to take into consideration the first point made above.

I prefer a system in which everyone is egoistic, the way it actually is I believe, and it all works out. — Agent Smith

If everyone is actually egoistic, then it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about preferring a system in which everyone is egoistic. It makes sense to talk about preferring a system in which everyone is egoistic, but only because not everyone is.

Some people help elderly people with tasks for no other reason than to be helpful. While it feels good to do such things, that feeling is not what motivates the action. Rather, it just an unintended consequence of helping others out.

To the OP...

Now that's a praiseworthy resurrection if there is such a thing! Greeks didn't do funny stuff with words. Those who came later are the ones who rendered the term meaningless.

"The grass is green" is true if and only if the grass is green.
"I believe the grass is green" is true if and only if I believe the grass is green.
"I know the grass is green" is true if and only if I believe the grass is green and the grass is green.
— creativesoul

It is the matter of the last that's in contention, so taking it as given would be begging the question. — Isaac

It's neither been taken as a given, nor have I provided a case of affirming the consequent. I'm not a fan of informal fallacies.

The question was asked about what exactly the difference was between those three utterances when it concerns what they mean. I offered a precise clear answer. The question had not been adequately addressed prior to my having done so. I thought it quite important then. That sentiment remains.

Surely, we can all agree that knowledge must be true despite the fact that not all knowledge claims satisfy and/or are even capable of bearing that burden. If not, then there is no distinction between the second and third aside from terminological preferences for proclaiming one's belief.

One need only look at the form you've had to put it in. The other two deflate. — Isaac

Show me what you mean here, if you would, because...

There's nothing more to "it's true that 'P'" than 'P'. — Isaac

...is irrelevant to the meaningful differences between the three utterances. What you've said here directly above pertains to the redundancy when a sincere speaker prefixes their own belief statements with "it's true that". It also pertains to situations where a sincere speaker affixes a belief statement with "is true". This just shows that "is true" is superfluous and "it's true that" is redundant when accompanying belief statements. That's because belief statements presuppose their own truth.

It is worth mentioning that belief is not rightly understood solely by virtue of treating belief as propositions. They are not equivalent.

But in the last, you smuggle in P1 (the grass is green). All of a sudden, the unanalysabilty of truth as a property goes out the window. The proposition "it's true that 'X knows P'" is no longer reducible only to 'X knows P', now hidden within it is P itself. — Isaac

Smuggle in?

:yikes:

"The grass is green" is in all three. "P1" is in none. So, this charge could not be more wrong. Besides that, I'm steadfastly against the common accounting (mal)practice of treating belief as propositions. It paved the way for Russel's clock, Gettier, and Moore's paradox, but that's another topic altogether.

How does the statement "the grass is green", when uttered by me, have any different meaning to "I believe the grass is green" (or " I know the grass is green ")? Unless I'm lying, my saying " the grass is green " automatically entails that I believe the grass is green. — Isaac

What's stated in the quote above struck me as quite an important yet neglected consideration. The question was also not satisfactorily answered.

I'm extremely busy in everyday life, so I've no time to really discuss anything in depth on a daily basis. However, I would like to encourage further discussion of the above quote.

The utterance "the grass is green" differs in meaning from "I believe the grass is green" and/or "I know the grass is green". This difference is perhaps most easily understood by virtue of considering the truth conditions of each utterance. They differ significantly. When two utterances mean the same thing, they share the exact same truth conditions.

"The grass is green" is true if and only if the grass is green.
"I believe the grass is green" is true if and only if I believe the grass is green.
"I know the grass is green" is true if and only if I believe the grass is green and the grass is green.

Interesting article that this thread is based upon. I'd like to see you keep developing that with someone. Can't be me. I barely have time nowadays to read, but this thread was time well spent.

Kudos.

Religion fills gaps in human knowledge.

I'll leave your avatar name and link out of any future quotes from you. That's the best I can do.

:flower:

I'm offering a much needed dissenting opinion regarding the utmost important topic. You do not have to read it. It's not like you're being forced against your own will, as if you're all tied up with toothpicks propping your eyelids open.

It also happens to be a response. I'm entitled. I've no ill will against you personally.

Truth is literally rooted in the word true. — Shwah

No it is not. That would make truth rooted in language use.

If truth is rooted in language use then either there are no such things as language less true belief or language less true belief does not require truth. Language less belief certainly cannot be rooted in language. The word "true" most certainly is.

You are using an aberrant definition — Shwah

That's not true either.

Be well.

There is no definition which says anything other than truth being the root word true with a -th suffix... — Shwah

That's not true at all.

truth noun
\ ˈtrüth \
plural truths\ ˈtrüt͟hz , ˈtrüths \
Definition of truth
1a(1): the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2): the state of being the case : FACT
(3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
truths of thermodynamics
c: the body of true statements and propositions
2a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
bchiefly British : TRUE sense 2
c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
3a: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
barchaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
4capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
in truth
: in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

...I assume belief is derived from truth...

Truth
the quality or state of being true

Belief
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

True
in accordance with fact or reality. — Shwah

By means of substitution...

I assume an acceptance that a statement is true is derived from the quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality.

Do you agree with the above rendering of what you said at the top, because the above is what happens when we substitute the definitions for the terms "belief", "truth", and "true". The translation does not make sense. Given that the definitions you've provided were used, I have to reject your use of those terms.

Edit: recursively the definition of belief becomes, "an acceptance that a statement is in accordance with reality". — Shwah

Either there are no such things as language less or pre linguistic or non linguistic belief or that definition is found lacking in it's explanatory power. It cannot take proper account of language less(non linguistic) belief.

This topic needs it's own thread.

My apologies. I didn't realize that that was a definition of "truth". In my defense, the format wasn't familiar. Usually people write the term followed by the definition. I'll have to return to this later...

There's a fine line between reading charitably and misattributing meaning to another's language use. I tend to try hard to avoid the latter.

Truth is literally rooted in the word true.

Edit: one needs a definition of true to parse truth or belief. — Shwah

You just linked me back to your own assertion that the term "truth" is rooted in the term "true". You've still not defined the term "truth".

I also disagree with that assertion, but that disagreement may be the result of mutually exclusive notions(definitions) of "truth, "true", and "belief" being at work.

Make no mistake. I do not understand the mathematics. I've read extensively regarding the three most common interpretations.

If you have an example of a quantum physicist or a theoretical scientist that believes in prayers based upon quantum mechanics, non-locality, quantum entanglement, or the current standard model of particle physics, then be my guest to talk about them if they use their knowledge of quantum mechanics to support the belief in prayer.

From my experience, those who do so are lay persons who do not understand that quantum mechanics is math.

Hitler is a fine example of what can happen when people doing wrong to one another is found as permissible/acceptable; killing is believed to be justified for reasons of the greater good; an entire swathe of a population finds themselves in dire straits; and a cult of personality convinces enough of those people that some others are to blame and are somehow inherently evil and the world would be better off without them.

I'm reminded of the song "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour.

The Republican Party has successfully convinced many Americans that other Americans(namely "liberals") are to blame for everything from high gas prices to their own feeling guilty about how some Americans have been treated throughout American history.

:joke:

I see definitions of "belief" and "true". There is not one yet of "truth".