Alexander Hine

AI plagiarizes from the expansive data it has been trained on — Questioner

Don't you think the same can be said of the human creative process? The data has been input and we rewrite it. Is anyone on this forum, whether knowingly or not, not rehashing Aristotle and plato, followed by all of the rehashes which flowed therefrom?

We already do that--settle upon what is most functional as so called truth--as our conditioning. — ENOAH

That's not an answer to my question.

Truths are independent of entrenched habits or what is most functional etc, and may therefore unsettle the current order of things.

Its rejection serves the interests of those who don't want anything to unsettle the current order of things.

Truths are independent of entrenched habits or what is most functional etc, and may therefore unsettle the current order of things. — jkop

Let's say I accept that definition. What, in the end, makes me accept it? It is reasonable? So what? Why is reason the final criterion? And so on. At some point we just settle, because there is no outside authority or blueprint for determining truth. Nature, where Truth actually "resides" is silent. And so we settle upon what is functional.

Added: further if we insist upon having Truths in order to not unsettled the current order, that is a settlement based upon function

Don't you think the same can be said of the human creative process? The data has been input and we rewrite it. — ENOAH

No, not exactly. We are able to take unrelated thoughts, bits of knowledge, memories, ideas, sparks of inspiration, and combine them (often with a dash of intuition, and an incubation period) into something new, something original.

Einstein called this "combinatory play" and he said it was the essential feature in productive thought.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/08/14/how-einstein-thought-combinatorial-creativity/

Interesting, will look into that

From the aforementioned Einstein:

"It is also clear that the desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of this rather vague play with the above-mentioned elements."

We are able to take unrelated thoughts, bits of knowledge, memories, ideas, sparks of inspiration, and combine them — Questioner

I think AI will be able to combine all of the above, include so called sparks of inspiration. But what AI may never do is be motivated by what Einstein called emotion, and i suggest is that (unpleasant) feeling which drives us to a diale tical process, (search), and that (pleasant) feeling which drives us to settle (belief).

It likely takes a biological organism like us to be so driven And so AI may not be objectively "conscious" in the way we think of ourselves. But they will be, for humans in history, sentient because most of us will ignore this deficiency and believe they are sentient.

But they will be, for humans in history, sentient because most of us will ignore this deficiency and believe they are sentient. — ENOAH

I'm not sure that believing something makes it true

I know. I understand. That is the issue.

Do you think the mind internalizing nature as representation is more at deformation than at simulation? — ucarr

Yes, played with and consumed, made as rod for the force of desires for the business of organic being, it would be deformation over simulation, for the latter is curiosity on par with science. — Alexander Hine

Are you describing two levels of deformation: a) deformation due to internalization of dimensional reality by translation to modulated neuronal circuits; b) deformation to the raw impressions arising from the neuronal circuits by willful intent of the person?

Mind independent reality is ... structured by nature. — ENOAH

HumanMind is... structured by images in memory having evolved since, say the dawn of language, to "hijack" the natural stimulus-response-conditioning... with a highly complex signifier based system — ENOAH

You think there's initially an interface between nature and mind? This followed by a linguistic overwrite of analog impressions?

You think there's initially an interface between nature and mind? This followed by a linguistic overwrite of analog impressions? — ucarr

I've never thought of it that way, but on the face of it, I like it for what that image reveals.

If I would modify it to what I have been led to believe, I'd say, the "initial interface" was not "between," but was wholly nature, and accordingly, it did not operate/produce fiction. In other words, there is an utter gap between the two, although it appears in expression as if the one gradually transformed into the other.

The initial interface is that biological feedback loop of stimulus-response-conditioning. And the conditioning part, the part that would gradually emerge likely with simple language, as mind, includes the preconditioning provided by evolution, and the conditioning provided by so called experience. Further details provided if of interest.

When stimuli is stored as a representation in mememory to allow for efficiency in response, I.e., when the image of fangs act to trigger the feeling of fear, we are still in nature and the images are not an entire system producing a universe of fictional narratives. The so called experiences are still wholly real and not displaced by fiction.

Mind then emerges when this process of images triggering real responses becomes a system operating autonomously, und3r its own evolved laws and drives, triggering feelings linked with Narratives (emotions) actions no longer linked to drives but to desires formed and presented as narratives, displacing the body and its natural aware-ing sensations with perceptions constructed out of symbols manifesting as narratives, "the apple is red." And so on.



Now we are still wholly conditioned, but our natural processes have been wholly displaced by an autonomous system of presenting narratives in front of feelings, sensations and drives.


To clarify, how did this system emerge? Because evolution [led to] "designed" the natural images to "want" to be stored in memory and manifested to trigger feelings/actions for survival. Now thoughts just function and appear, and they do so in such a way that our true natures falls for them as real.

So when we contemplate a thing like AI, not a dog conditioned by its natural biological drive to bond, to obey and love us, but a machine made up of empty signifiers triggering functional responses, for us, though its sentience is obviously a fiction, are we not talking about the human mind as I just described it? Doesn't believing the latter’s sentience merit believing AI?
ADDED: That is, if by sentience we mean like our minds, and not our aware-ing nature.

So when we contemplate a thing like AI... a machine made up of empty signifiers triggering functional responses... Doesn't believing... merit believing AI? — ENOAH

You feel that high-performance simulations are sufficient for standing-in for reality?

it's safe to say I know nothing about computing, not even AI.
But since I am speculating anyway, I'd say these simulations are not standing in for reality, but for our "reality," for our data, our processes, etc. And if so, since ultimately both are constructed out of "code," then why not?

Are you describing two levels of deformation: a) deformation due to internalization of dimensional reality by translation to modulated neuronal circuits; b) deformation to the raw impressions arising from the neuronal circuits by willful intent of the person?
1h — ucarr

No because the mere matter of brain circuits is only the blaze of the fire which must be constantly fuelled and periodically cooled.

You think mind independent reality and human perception_understanding are totally disconnected?

How are the following three things related: a) mind independent reality; b) perception_understanding; c) human imagination?

Not totally disconnected. Mind "needs" the body for the materials and energy to function, i.e., for perception there is first sensation. But for humans uniquely, the sensations are promptly displaced by perception..

So, Mind independent reality "hosts" Mind.
But I do not think mind has, through its structures and processes (i.e. knowledge) any real access to reality. Whatever knowledge it gathers and manifests, only suits Mind.

Added: note that for me mind is ultimately a process of producing functional fictions and empty of reality. So ultimately there is only mind independent reality.

Can we say body and energy are the template mind draws from and thus we have a triad connection supporting human perception_understanding: mind independent reality; brain-energy template; mental impressions (of exterior world) acting as raw data for functional fictions?

Can we say body and energy are the template mind draws from and thus we have a triad connection supporting human perception_understanding: mind independent reality; brain-energy template; mental impressions (of exterior world) acting as raw data for functional fictions? — ucarr

We can.

Generally, I see and can agree. But clarify. For me the body (the material infrastructure for perception-understanding which for me, is the functional fiction, or mind) is mind independent reality, nature or the cosmos. So, for me, why triad?

Further, for me, if we are transcending ourselves, that fictional process, not even a duality, ultimately. Ultimately, there is only mind independent reality, the body/Nature. Mind=history is a fiction displacing the real, functioning to affect reality, but having no reality of its own.

To nature, a piece of paper is that it is in being (i.e."paper" but only because we are here, Mind, and mind compels a name), it is not the markings on the page. Only for history do the markings matter because history makes them reflect meaning. But both markings and meaning are made up, fleeting, empty, and unique only to us. To nature it is just (paper) being (paper).

Just as with any product, it is a piece of art when the human mind (arguably, minds) recognizes it to be, also with AI sentience. — ENOAH

Personally, I don't think digital computers are actually, or fully, sentient, but proving it one way or the other, would be difficult, and would depend on the specifics of your definition. Yet I agree with your notion that computers are art-works created by human imagination to serve sentient persons in various ways. And it seems undeniable that some people can & do treat their chat-bots, or anonymous forum posters, as-if*1 they are IRL friends. So, in the person's imagination, the computer is sentient enough to perform one key function of a human friend*2.

Social AI is intentionally designed to mimic human language & sentiments. So, for practical purposes, the AI has some of the minimum requirements to form a "bond of affection". Whether that bond is mutual, for an AI that can chat with a thousand people simultaneously, is doubtful.

A human friend has more than just the ability to sustain a two-way conversation on topics of personal interest. So, the AI functions as a sort of Imaginary Friend*3, with the benefit that it doesn't take disagreements personally, and walk away in a huff. For some children, a doll or toy or storybook character can seem sentient enough to be a one-sided friend. When the child "recognizes it to be" so. :smile:


*1. philosophy of as if, the system espoused by Hans Vaihinger in his major philosophical work Die Philosophie des Als Ob (1911; The Philosophy of “As If”), which proposed that man willingly accept falsehoods or fictions in order to live peacefully in an irrational world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+power+of+as-if

*2. Friend : a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+a+friend%3F

*3. Imaginary Friend : People have imaginary friends for many reasons, primarily as a normal part of development to help with social skills, emotional regulation, problem-solving, and creativity, offering companionship, a space to explore roles and boundaries, and comfort during loneliness or stress. They serve as a safe way to process life, practice social interactions, and fulfill needs for control and belonging, especially when real-world social interaction is limited.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imaginary+friends

Only for history do the markings matter because history makes them reflect meaning. But both markings and meaning are made up, fleeting, empty, and unique only to us. To nature it is just (paper) being (paper). — ENOAH

"Only for history do the markings matter..." Maybe that's the point of life; things matter because living things can die. Being alive requires meaning because its presence is perishable, and therefore things become meaningful as either destructive or supportive. Our meaning-bearing language tries to point out one from the other. A life-barren world is totally neutral. Living beings cannot be neutral because they are vulnerable. That's why our mind's don't merely accept things the way they are. We always have an interest in what's beneficial to us. Non-living things can't help us survive in of themselves. For this reason, our language distinguishes itself from nature. It applies to nature standards of value that segregate things into a ladder of rising values. Water ranks about dirt. After development of agriculture, dirt ranks above sand. Of course, value rankings change according to circumstances.

Nature, apart from living things, doesn't supply values, so, of course, we make up the language fields that make values understandable and useful. Living things make physics meaningful by ascribing value to it. Ultimately, value comes down to alive or dead.

So, for me, why triad? — ENOAH

I'm chiefly interested in the interface between the mind and its exterior, the world. I think they're always entangled. The world without mind is existence without meaning and reality. The mind without something exterior to it is just empty, circular identity without transformation with persistence. It sounds wacky, but, I think, the mind must always flirt with not being itself in order to be itself. The mind interfaced with something exterior authentically not itself is transformation with identity persistence.

The universe without mind has interactions and results. All of these phenomena can be calculated by math backwards and forwards. Not until the symmetry breaking of asymmetrical deviation do we get events with consequences in place of mere interactions and results. This is where humans enter the picture and physics gets interesting.

things matter because living things can die. Being alive requires meaning because its presence is perishable — ucarr

I have come to believe being alive requires living, and that dying is just a transformation of what was living.

As for Mind (i.e. not living), having mind requires meaning. Mind is a meaning making system.

Living does not proceed through time, it just is, always present.

Mind, manifests meaning in a linear form, narrative, bringing the subject along for the ride, no longer present, but lingering in past and future, the only way meaning can manifest.

Eg. Imagine yourself, same fully homo Sapiens as for biological organism, but no access to any system of signifying, no meaning making. Your father dies, the organism feels something real triggered by the interruption to the bond. The feeling may linger, may even be triggered from time to time by the natural manifestation of the father's image from memory, (to trigger a response once triggered by modeling him). But there would be no lingering in time, the image displaced by ideas and emotions, I'm grieving, I'm an orphan, my father has gone forever and I can't carry on. There would likewise be no narratives of nostalgia, causing grief to linger. Without Mind, though an intelligent species like the elephant may feel deep pain at a loss, even be conditioned to return to the grave, conditioned by the memory of the bond; but it won't create narratives, rituals and monuments. It won't allow death to yank it out of the present, and have it fixated on time.

The world without mind is existence without meaning and reality. — ucarr

I have come to believe that if, like the rest of reality, we existed without mind*, we would be at one with reality, reconciled with our true natures. Meaning is that fiction which alienates us from reality.

*I mean uniquely human mind. I don't mean consciousness, which a body without mind has: it is aware-ing the sophisticated drives, sensations, including feelings and internal images, and movements of the body in response to stimuli from nature, internal and external (so called).

Informative, and I have yet to look into the added information in the notes (which I will).

To clarify and simplify. The point I have been pursuing is:

the kind of sentience we're really discussing is what human self conscious feels like;

we only have that self conscious feeling because mind is structured in such a way that our bodies have been conditioned to displace a natural aware-ing [of] nature, with the narratives of mind which we settle upon as real and that settlement we call we believing it.

because this is unique to humans, and because it becomes effective upon human belief, and because AI is the only other thing which shares mind's structures, AI will be (our kind of sentient) when we believe it.

I do not mean believing makes things Real. Only being real is real; not knowing/believing. What I mean is believing brings a thing into our unique "reality" the narrative of mind/history.