"The more AI models consume AI-created content, the more likely they are to "collapse," researchers find" — Pantagruel
Do you really want a self-driving car's actions to be (partly) directed by emotion?
The worst thing that you can do in an emergency is panic.
If the self-driving car is programmed correctly then it will probably do the best thing. — Agree-to-Disagree
Why do you need information about the physiological state of the subject? Unless you are a medical doctor or neurologist, it seems to be a remote area which wouldn't reveal a lot in terms of one's state of consciousness in analytic and metaphysical level. — Corvus
If you are familiar about the yogic system of indian philosophy there is a clear cut definition to reach higher states of being. Almost all of the Indian philosophy tries to achieve a state of perfection and provides a practical method which anyone could follow. Astangayoga is the path for perfection proposed by yogic system of patanjali. — Abhiram
Humans doesn't carry out tasks for bacteria. Humans are not machines either. Humans are beings. Being has an existence and an essense — Abhiram
This is a really useful way to think about these issues - particularly when we are thinking about how AI might develop. It seems to me that it can be applied very widely to technology in general. Darwin applied evolution to living things because they are self-replicating. However, that idea depends on how you look at things. Some parasites are dependent on another species to replicate. (I have in mind the fungi that replicate by hi-jacking ants - Wikipedia - Ant-parasitic fungus Viruses hi-jack the cells in their host to replicate - though they are border-line alive. Lichens are another interesting case.I think that some people believe that AI is hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps, programming itself, perhaps in some sense that is a precursor to sentience. In fact, AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention. — Pantagruel
Maybe this also applies to human beings. Too much recycling of the same ideas without evaluation or criticism of them is harmful to thinking. Full stop.Specifically, if human beings rely too heavily on AI then essentially we are back to the self-consumption of AI and model collapse, yes. — Pantagruel
If I don't know the difference between "I" and "you" (and "they"), how can I articulate my observation that I am thinking? If I can't articulate the observation, is it meaningful to say that I can observe it? I think not. So the thinker's awareness that they are thinking may be a special case, but it is not independent of other people's observation that they are thinking and the thinker's awareness that other people are thinking.You claim that YOU don't need an external observer to know that YOU are thinking. But YOU are a special case. You are making an observation about yourself. Other people need to observe YOU to try and determine if YOU are thinking. And people need to observe a computer to try and determine if the computer is thinking. — Agree-to-Disagree
Quite so. That's why the short argument about whether machines can be conscious etc. is that there are already conscious machines in existence. There are plenty of questions about what would persuade us that something is a conscious or living machine, so that argument is not very helpful. But for what it is worth, I think it stands up.Humans can be considered to be biological machines. — Agree-to-Disagree
The most intriguing problem with consciousness is that everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, but no one seems to know how the physical brain generates non-physical minds. This is called the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind.I take the point about states of consciousness at the analytic or metaphysical level except that I don't have a clear grasp about what those things mean. My view is that attributions of "internal" states, of belief/knowledge, desires and intentions is attributed by interpreting a given action in context of other actions and responses. — Ludwig V
everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, — Corvus
In ancient times, they believed mind is in your heart, and your breath is your soul, suppose.I certainly think that, but I don't think EVERYONE knows it. Many many many many people do not agree that the mind emerges from the brain. — flannel jesus
I think that some people believe that AI is hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps, programming itself, perhaps in some sense that is a precursor to sentience. In fact, AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention. — Pantagruel
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed.everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain. — Corvus
The fundamental problem is to understand when we can say that the machine is doing anything, in the sense that humans do things. Can they be said to calculate, for example? Do they check our spelling and grammar? Searle says not because it is we who attribute significance to their results. But that means that their results are significant; we treat what they do as calculation or spell-checking. It isn't straightforward either way.At the moment humans are hoisting AI up. It is not hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps. If humans hoist AI up high enough then AI may gain the ability to hoist itself further without human intervention. — Agree-to-Disagree
I was shocked to read the post by claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be?everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain.
— Corvus
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed. — Ludwig V
The fundamental problem is to understand when we can say that the machine is doing anything, in the sense that humans do things. Can they be said to calculate, for example? — Ludwig V
If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus
It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below.I was shocked to read the post by ↪flannel jesus claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus
No. The times tables are a short cut. They are the results of calculation. We memorize them because it makes it easier to do more complex multiplications. (I'm sure you know that 2 x 3 = 2+2+2). Some (perhaps all?) primary school children are introduced to multiplication in that way. Once they understand that multiplication reduces to addition, they are moved on to memorizing their tables.If a person memorizes the "times tables", and uses them to work out the result of a multiplication, are they actually doing a calculation? — Agree-to-Disagree
Perhaps at the software level it does mean that. But in this case, I think the "different way" is based on the machine coding of the process. (However, the AIs are a different case. The difference is clearly at the software level.)There are many ways that people use to solve a mathematical multiplication. Most involve either using their memory, using a calculator, or using an algorithm. Computers normally use an algorithm. Doesn't that mean that computers calculate in a similar way to humans? — Agree-to-Disagree
Yes, I agree with that. My understanding is that once you get into details, the spine is deeply involved in what the brain is doing, so we should not think of the brain alone, but of the brain + spine - and the entire nervous system. Then we have to recognize the hormonal system in the emotions and the heart and muscles in action. In the end, I actually prefer to say that the connection is between the mind and the whole body. But I am too lazy to always be correcting people, so in most circumstances I just let the difference go.In the complex system wherein and whereby the embodied brain operates — Pantagruel
If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus
It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below. — Ludwig V
You're not familiar with Dualism? With the concept of souls? — flannel jesus
If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus
So where in the brain is it located? — Pez
Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality. — Pez
I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken.It is not the main point of the OP worthy to quibble about, because the OP is not a High-Order Logic topic — Corvus
It may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part.That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it. — Corvus
I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken. — Ludwig V
t may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part. — Ludwig V
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.