A synthetic philosopher propositions would serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands them eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, they are used as steps—to climb up beyond them... throwing away the ladder after he has climbed up it. — Banno
...corresponds to the proposition "rustling plastic implies impending treats" — Banno
A synthetic religion, if it were one that kept the "others" content, might be worthwhile. — Banno
A synthetic philosopher would be... disturbing. And yet also intriguing. If what counts is what is done rather than what is said, if acts are what is to be valued, then the content of the myth is irrelevant, and what is of value is what the myth shows: — Banno
...The perceived unity or continuity of the voice is still just ours. The divine spark is alive and well. The movies Her and Ex Machina are good on this issue. Just as we enact a faith in the reality of 'other minds,' we could also enact a faith in the 'soul' of a synthetic partner. It's not as if we have a formal proof of others' 'minds.'... — path
I would not worry too much about AI being like human thought, belief, and/or intelligence until an electronic device is capable of drawing meaningful correlations between itself and other things. That always begins - in part anyway - by recognizing/attributing causality. Until an artificial creation can do that, it cannot be an integral part of the process that results in thought and belief. — creativesoul
Sounds like a sales add... — creativesoul
Well, yes, in the end it is presumably something physical...
But how, that remains an unknown. — Banno
Isn't it also "in" the house and the apple? The size relation between apples and houses makes no sense without apples and houses.
I'm more incline to embodied cognition...
Indeed, I'd be incline to look even further afield, to seeing cognition as embedded in the world; after all, language is best seen as being so embedded.
But I suspect you have less realist, more idealist sympathies. — Banno
To make this work it would have to be related back to the cat not being able to believe it will be fed next Tuesday while believing it has four feet. — Banno
every belief is a relation between an agent and a proposition, such that the agent holds the proposition to be the case. The general form of a belief is "A holds that P is true" — Banno
Four possibilities:
Janus believes Banno has a front door
Janus believes Banno does not have a front door
Janus does not believe Banno has a front door
Janus does not believe Banno does not have a front door
You are saying that before the question, you adhered to Janus does not believe Banno has a front door and Janus does not believe Banno does not have a front door...? — Banno
I would not worry too much about AI being like human thought, belief, and/or intelligence until an electronic device is capable of drawing meaningful correlations between itself and other things. That always begins - in part anyway - by recognizing/attributing causality. Until an artificial creation can do that, it cannot be an integral part of the process that results in thought and belief. — creativesoul
I hear you, but how would judge, for instance, that I am capable of drawing meaningful correlations between itself and other things? — path
Relax - it's just the software talking. — Banno
So does he believe the proposition "My uncle is behind the curtain 50% of the time", well, he's a smart lad, but he doesn't understand either probability or percentages yet, so he can't believe a proposition he can't understand.
Ramsey's solution is that he believes the proposition "My uncle is behind the curtain" with a probability of 50%. — Isaac
And philosophy forums are so repetitious. I probably take less than a month to cycle through all my arguments. Taking a forum such as this as the statistical base, combined with Wolfram Alpha... might be quite convincing... — Banno
And philosophy forums are so repetitious. I probably take less than a month to cycle through all my arguments. Taking a forum such as this as the statistical base, combined with Wolfram Alpha... might be quite convincing...
— Banno
Fucking exactly ! And I also repeat, repeat, repeat. Iteration with a touch of variation. The continuity of the voice (that we can recognize this or that fellow pontificater) is already a kind of informal evidence against the 'divine spark' and its 'free will.' We are already something like vortices of inherited tokens. — path
You two are now playing a game that I am ill-equipped to play...
But it is just a game...
:wink: — creativesoul
I think you are missing the tone. I'm saying that our belief in the divine spark is alive and well, under a different name. As I grasp the situation, you yourself were just defending it.
My post was intended, with some of the others, as a polite attack on the superstition of the 'soul' and 'I' which is now 'sold' in the 'secular' form of whatever A.I. is supposed to be incapable of. 'I' can't be simply against this 'superstition,' just to be clear. — path
Perhaps. There is a spirit of play at work. But I'm not unserious. In case it's not clear, I have the usual intuitive of sense of 'being conscious.' I experience the famous burden of apparent choice that one might call free will. But theoretically and to some degree emotionally I experience a certain distance from there tokens, when I'm not just immersed in the usual ways of using them in ordinary life. — path
Sorry but there is nothing clear about that use of those names. — creativesoul
This looks like nonsense to me. — creativesoul
My apologies. I didn't mean to wander into my idiolect. What I'm getting at is that the 'divine spark' is something like the beetle-in-the-box. These days we use a technical word like 'consciousness.' But it's still a mysterious something that we are or think of in terms of an ultimate proximity. — path
The jump to the use of "consciousness" remains a mystery. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.