• Carlo Roosen
    243
    I am here with a plan. From the start I have been clear about my plan. I wrote about it in my subscription request to Jamal and I was told it was no problem as long as I followed the rules.

    I am building a computer with super-human intelligence, a multi-year project. Independent of my success in this project, my plan, here on the forum, is to get a better understanding of the consequences of such a computer. Is it actually smart to build one?

    That would be a perfect topic for this forum, except over the years I have developed a personal philosophy that contradicts modern philosophy at its core. That is, I don't see thinking as the ultimate way of finding truth. In fact, I see the limitations of human thinking as the source of most world problems.

    People say I am in the wrong forum. I don't think I am. Philosophy hasn't always been rigidly grounded in theoretical thinking as it is today. It has been much more grounded in personal experience in different eras. There is also Eastern philosophy.

    I do have some kind of model that describes my new approach. [edit] I've started to present its principles in my first posts. The same model that I want to use to discuss the consequences of this AI, also underpins the theoretical principles by which this super-human intelligent computer operates. In other words, the technology and the philosophy around it are both built on the same basic principles.

    I have nothing against thinking, let that be said! I do a lot of thinking myself. But in order to see the limitations of thinking, it is needed to consciously take a distance from it, from time to time. I'd say 50% of the time. That is something we haven't learned in the West.

    People who say my writing is not substantial, please read more closely. It might be unusual and not written as another theory-on-top-of-a-theory, but it is grounded in personal validation. Not that you must take my validation as the truth, I encourage you to validate it by yourself. That is why I tell you my personal experience, to show you how you can get there. Some topics you cannot understand by thinking alone, it is that simple. Everyday topics, I am not talking about transcendental stuff.

    [edit]Posts of mine have been discussed as self-promotion and I still don't fully understand why. First it was about mentioning the name of the computer language, of which I also own a domain name. After I removed the website entirely and renamed the language here on the forum, the self-promotion argument kept returning. I believe that having a theory and trying to promote it over different posts is seen as self-promotion by the moderators. [/edit]To me, it is about the core principles of philosophy. But since moderators have the power to operate on their own accord, new ideas easily get banned this way.

    So here is my question, given all this, how should I proceed here on the forum? Every time I try to present an idea, it is seen as arrogant and not open to discussion. The opposite is true, I am here for discussion. I am willing to change anything in what I do, and I actually did this several times already.

    I am told to engange in other discussions. I find it difficult to do. I see a discussion "The (possible) dangers of of AI technology". What should I write: "I have a different view, let me explain"? You'll say, yes, that is what we all do here. But I feel often that there is no common ground to start the discussion, I'll just start annoying people.

    I do expect at some point in the future there will be a number of people here on the forum who will see where I am going. I already offered to donate my domain name to the forum, in case there is need for a central reference.

    Let me finish by saying that despite the opposition, I feel at home here. Nobody is willingly trying to hurt other people, I believe. Sometimes the tone is a bit harsh, but I can top that ;).
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    That would be a perfect topic for this forum, except over the years I have developed a personal philosophy that contradicts modern philosophy at its core.Carlo Roosen

    Use the concepts, explain them, engage with other users about other debates. Write OPs that present an issue in a detailed manner with open questions in it, make arguments that have a clear form.

    Here I tried to make a connection with Kant, which was a bad idea because people started to correct my understanding of Kant instead of trying to read my view on the topic.Carlo Roosen

    Several people engaged charitably, in detail, and critically with your view, and not exclusively in terms of Kant. It was not a bad idea to make a connection with Kant, the way you presented some aspects of Kant's thought appeared to be common misconceptions. You can't expect people to only engage with your view on a topic, you must expect them to have their own views and try to see yourself through their perspective as well. Also note that no one complained about that particular topic, it is still on the main page.

    t might be unusual and not written as another theory-on-top-of-a-theory, but it is grounded in personal validation. Not that you must take my validation as the truth, I encourage you to validate it by yourself. That is why I tell you my personal experience, to show you how you can get there. Some topics you cannot understand by thinking alone, it is that simple. Everyday topics, I am not talking about transcendental stuff.Carlo Roosen

    That is extremely close to evangelising from personal revelation. If your response to criticism is "validate my ideas experientially", rather than through conceptual analysis and dialogue, it isn't an approach that promotes discussion and criticism of your ideas. It promotes sharing your ideas without critical dialogue.

    I am told to engange in other discussions. I find it difficult to do.Carlo Roosen

    The reason this is asked of you is because it would help establish that you are not solely interested in behaving like the above.

    You've had this explained to you a few times now, in different ways, and I'm at a loss for how to help you understand these decisions further.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Now they are in the open, and I expect a few different viewpoints coming after yours. So yes, it was a good suggestion of you to let me post this on the Feedback. Thanks for that.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Also note that no one complained about that particular topic, it is still on the main page.fdrake
    I got multiple PM's on this
  • fdrake
    6.7k


    Not about that specific topic.
  • fdrake
    6.7k


    Do you mean from mods or other users?
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Other users. And nothing offensive, they suggested that mentioning Kant was a sidestep, that's all.
    I'll edit the post here to remove that confusion.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    I should also have mentioned that writing principally to help you make a superintelligent AI in your basement (so to speak), skirts extremely close to pseudoscience. You're being warned and modded in general because of a combination of all these things. If your conduct on site goes against a good number of the guidelines and rules, how could you expect not to be modded for it?
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    I am glad you are repeating all this here, so other people see what I had to deal with for several days...
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    No worries! I interpreted your OP as a request to reiterate what you'd been told, in public.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Here is my original email to Jamal:

    Hello, My name is Carlo Roosen and I would like to get an invitation to be able
    to contribute to the website thephilosophyforum.com.
    I have been working on a theory of Artificial Intelligence in relation
    to human intelligence. I have written my ideas in a little booklet [link]
    This book is not for sale or has no commercial goals whatsoever, I wrote
    it as a guidance in order to build an AI myself, and make my own goals
    more clear. I am a software programmer by profession and I decided to
    take a year off to work on this project.

    And here his answer:

    Generally you're not allowed to share your link in posts, if that's the primary purpose of posting, but you can put it in your profile and mention it in your posts (e.g., "to see the argument in detail, see the link in my profile"), so long as you're setting out freshly worded arguments within the posts themselves rather than just directing people to the book. Simply copy and pasting from another source is frowned upon, although you can of course quote yourself and anyone else.

    If you're happy with that, let me know and I'll send an invitation.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    I realise you're unhappy with the mod decisions which have been made, the reason for subsequent decisions regarding the above has also been explained to you several times. I'm going to treat it as perfectly clear why you've been modded from this point onward. You've been warned!
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Later I was NOT allowed to mention anything in my posts. I took my website offline including the booklet. I wrote original OP, although, naturally, I have similar ideas whatever I write.

    I sent PM's to several users (not moderators) for assistance, they did actually help a lot.

    Even yesterday I got warnings like this: "Please engage with others' ideas on the forum as well, you were warned."
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    That is extremely close to evangelising from personal revelation. If your response to criticism is "validate my ideas experientially", rather than through conceptual analysis and dialogue, it isn't an approach that promotes discussion and criticism of your ideas. It promotes sharing your ideas without critical dialogue.fdrake

    So if people say the moon is a cube, and I am telling them to look out of the window to see it is actually round, that is not allowed? Then if they start discussing about what a window is, is it not allowed to point it to them?
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Also note that no one complained about that particular topic, it is still on the main page.fdrake

    You deleted it first, it was only brought back with intervention of others
  • fdrake
    6.7k


    The reason for this was because the OP contained large sections verbatim copied from your book. You later clarified that you had taken your forum post and updated the book with it. Thus resulting in a mod discussion and a ruling to restore the thread. This has been explained to you as well.

    For what it's worth, I argued in favour of restoring it given the supplementary context you provided.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    You're making it worse and worse for yourself. I try not to throw shit at you, but now I'll have to tell all the details.

    On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 15:25 Carlo Roosen wrote:

    Hi [Jamal],
    This is a draft of the first post I plan to write on the forum. Please also look at the note at the end.
    ...
    note: This text is adapted from a little book I am writing. A link to the
    latest version of this book is on my profile page. Any feedback is welcome.

    It’s good. It should produce a lively discussion.
    [Jamal]
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    Consider the contradiction between the following statements. You were told by @Jamal:

    so long as you're setting out freshly worded arguments within the posts themselves rather than just directing people to the book.Carlo Roosen

    And you were told by me:

    The reason for (that thread's deletion) was because the OP contained large sections verbatim copied from your book. You later clarified that you had taken your forum post and updated the book with itfdrake

    Verbatim copying from previously published material is grounds for thread deletion because it's either plagiarism or self promotion. Seeing as your post contained large chunks of verbatim text from your site, I deleted it. Since you later clarified that you copied from the site into your book, it was restored.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    To reiterate, the above has been explained to you before!
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    But all the information was in that email, including the pdf of the book, and Jamal says "It's good". I post it and two minutes later it is deleted.
  • fdrake
    6.7k


    Jamal gave you a conditional acceptance of the post. Your post appeared to violate the spirit of that conditional acceptance - being identical, verbatim, to the material in your website. It was subsequently restored.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    No I sent him the full OP text plus the pdf. Just because I was not sure to what extend this was acceptable. "It's good" is not a conditional acceptance.
  • fdrake
    6.7k


    I know. And I checked your book and your post for text matches.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Ok, I'll leave it here. Let others tell me what I apparently cannot see.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    O, one more thing. The only explanation you have given here are these two points:

    If your response to criticism is "validate my ideas experientially", rather than through conceptual analysis and dialogue, it isn't an approach that promotes discussion and criticism of your ideas. It promotes sharing your ideas without critical dialogue.fdrake

    I should also have mentioned that writing principally to help you make a superintelligent AI in your basement (so to speak), skirts extremely close to pseudoscience. You're being warned and modded in general because of a combination of all these things. If your conduct on site goes against a good number of the guidelines and rules, how could you expect not to be modded for it?fdrake

    Asking others to validate my ideas experientially, why does that stop discussion? Others can come back and say: I looked out of the window and what I saw was that the moon is a banana. We'll have a great discussion after that.

    And about the monster in my basement, I explained that these are two distinct goals, building the thing and verifying if it is a smart thing to do. Why is that pseudoscience?

    So no, I really have no idea what I should do differently.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    Asking others to validate my ideas experientially, why does that stop discussion?Carlo Roosen

    You can validate it yourself.
  • fdrake
    6.7k
    In case that remark was too glib, if you ask someone to validate the underlying ideas in your framework exclusively experientially, you can thereby render your own ideas beyond criticism by stipulating that they can only be criticised as such. In doing that, you expect someone to "go away and think about it", without giving them a precise articulation of what they should think about. How it all hangs together.

    It is quite similar to inviting you to contemplate the varying connectivity of the oscillating dynamical graph - which is a particularly vivid image I had, even though "varying", "connectivity" and "oscillating" have no meaning beyond their impression to me in that context, and "dynamical graph" is an unarticulated technical term. If I disagree with you on the basis of your ideas' contradiction of the varying connectivity of the oscillating dynamical graph, you've got no recourse while staying on topic except to inquire about my worldview. In that regard it stifles discussion, or centralises it on me and and my mysteries.

    If I unpacked that term with little to no detail over a series of posts, while repeating the demand to verify the ideas experientially, it would resemble evangelism. If I spent the majority of my time on the site doing that, it would be evangelism about the varying connectivity of the oscillating dynamical graph, and I would not be respectfully engaging with my interlocutors.

    Compare that to a hypothetical post in which I fully explicate my understanding of a term and situate it in an engageable context. Also compare it to a revealed spiritual edict.

    If my above remark appeared rude and stifling, what I have just described is the operating principle that made it so.
  • Moliere
    4.8k

    To answer the titular question:

    Post on others' posts. If you start a new topic in the main forum try to utilize some resource or other -- you'd be surprised how many people of thought about similar things to yourself and usually they have insights. Even news articles or wikipedia pages are fine for this.

    And The Lounge is pretty free-range -- most anything goes other than explicit rule violations.

    And if you think some decision is wrong then that's what the feedback forum is for -- reversing decisions that were wrong.

    Any questions?
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    To me your answer shows that it is perfectly possible to have a discussion with me. Because here we are, discussing.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    [edit] Basically you are saying, don't have the guts to publish OP in a regular category. Even if I write something that is at the core of philosophy, namely, where do we find truth, in thinking or in direct realisation, it should be in the Lounge.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.