Fortunately, the video was only about 5 min long. It could be longer and it would add nothing to the subject, which in my opinion is very simple (see below), even if a lot of ink and saliva has been spilled and a lot of disputes arisen on the subject.

You are asking about "strong" arguments. I don’t know what do you expect from that. A strong argument is just a well-founded argument. Sometimes, even a simple question or example can provide such foundation.

There are a lot of simple ways to show the existence of free will or reject its inexistence, since a lot of people in here and in other philosophical media negate its existence.

First of all, one must bring in the definitions of free will and its opposites, determinism, fate, etc., so that we walk on the same ground.
So, from Oxford LEXICO:
Free will: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion".
Determinism (Philosophy): "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will".
Fate: "The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power".

Now, I can bring in the following questions:
1) What is more realistic (pragmatic) for you?
This is what is of outmost importance, since each one has our own reality and the answer must fit to it, comply with it and be accepted by it.
2) Do you feel responsible for and in control of your actions (except in certain situations)?
Ask yourself this exact moment you are reading this, moving the mouse around, drinking coffee, etc. Are you doing all tthis mechanically and/or are forced to do them in some way?
3) If free will were inexistent and everything in our life were predetermined, how would we know that?
This is similar "How do we know if we live in a dream or simulation?" (Some prefer to use the catchy word "Matrix".). Well, we can't, can we?

Simple arguments are the strongest, sometimes. :smile:

I know about this story. Only that I read that the engineer was fired, not just going "on leave", as the title of the video says.
Anyway, I don't know what is your purpose of referring to this video, so I can only comment on whether Google's decision was right or wrong.

I think it was the right thing to do. Saying that a chatbot has gone sentient, thinking and reasoning like a human, etc. is a huge blooper. (I am working in the AI field.) It exposes the whole company. So, besides showing ignorance and the engineer could be fired only on that point, it was the best way for a company of high technology standards and prestige to express its position on the subject.

Tr. from Greek "(Greek spelling)" — hypericin

Indeed, this is quite incomplete. What is missing here is not a translation, but rather something from the translator's mind! :grin: I am a professional translator and have edited a lot of translations in my life. Some translators are either absent-minded or thing that the reader knows exactly what they are talking about, where it is only them who know! :grin:

And then, why Sartre should know about Ancient Greek pronunciation? Only persons of letters, should know about such things. Here, it happens the opposite: the translator adds text which he shouldn't! Even worse, he criticizes the author of the text he translates, which is not his job at all!

BTW, the letter 'h' before a word --when written in Latin letters-- indicates a light aspiration which Ancient Greeks used to pronounce the letter with which certain words started. This has been discontinued since very very long ago. No one actually cares. Why should one care? The spelling "exis" is just fine. What is maybe missing is its translation into French (in which I suppose the text was written). This is what one should do when he uses a foreign word.

Only the true academic elite have the privilege of fully reading such high texts. — hypericin

Exactly. It's what I already said.

***

Now, personally, I wouldn't give so much importance to such events ...

:up:

Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations — Gnomon

Well, maybe some. But they are mainly created --as already said- for entertainment. They are commercial products. I don't think that the average person, or even most people, who read/watch sci-fi care much about philosophical implications. They can only excite their imagination. As I said, I am a programmer and have been amd still am involved a lot in AI, so I know exctly what it is about and what are its possibilities as well as its limitations. Non-programmers don't. They have no idea. They can only digest --and not always-- the commercial product they are been sold.

On the other hand, there have been quite a few sci-fi novels/movies that indeed led to "scientific innovations", which you mentioned. One of the first that I can remember was Kubrick's "A Space Odyssey". After a few years since the film was projected to the cinema screens, we saw actual space stations. But this was pure material, machanical technology. No AI robots with consciousness, morality and such nonsence.

Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. — Gnomon

Right. However, not only robots but also simple computers can operate "independently", at least appearing to do so. They contain appropriate programs based on which they act and "decide". But they don't and will never have free will and decide by themselves, as much as they can be evolved --sometimes to a large degree-- to do really amazing things.

Now, as you say, all this happens "currently", it refers to the currenst state of affairs and also to what we can imagine as real possibilities, i.e. thinking pragmatically. And we can't know if some new, revolutionary technology can be created in this or other planet with humans in the future, most probably coming from some alien civilization ...

Until then, I believe it is more useful and productive to think pragmatically and talk about pragmatic things! :smile:

Iassume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. — Gnomon

No, not at all. My "such things" refer to statements like "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ...", etc. I thought I was clear on this.
As for "Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly", I agree, but it has nothing to do with all that I was talking about.
BTW, I don't think that Kant or any other important philosopher would ever come up with such a blooper as "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion"!

The observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. — Gnomon

He doesn't have to know how his brain processes incoming sensations to know and undestand symbolic imagery. Fortunately so! :smile: A person doesn't have to know how emotions work, to feel happy, sad, angry, etc. and to be able to identify and undestand these states.

So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real. — Gnomon

Of course, what else can he do? He must however, realize and acknowldge that his reality is subjective, which BTW is the only reality that exists. (Note that by "reality" I don't mean the physical universe or the external world, as a lot of people do.)

I do not agree that intelligence is an essential characteristic of being human. — Athena

Basic intelligence is not a criterion, since animals have intelligence too, yet to a much lower degree. Same goes with language and other mental faculties.

On the other hand, what humans have that animals don't is, for example, reasoning (logic). This certainly characterizes humans, together with other mental activities. Also, of course, humans are different from animals on a physical level, since they belong to different species.

adults living in a foster home because they can not safely care for themselves. I think we can agree they do NOT have the intelligence necessary for survival yet I think we also agree they are human. — Athena

These are special cases that cannot be taken as criteria for the difference between humans and animals. Of course, madmen, suicide cases and other mentally heavily sick people, have a much reduced ability to survive. Alzheimer, dementia, etc. alone reduce the ability to survive. Yet they are still humans, but on a physical level only, i.e. they belong to the human species.

I have no idea at all. I don't think we can ever know for sure. — Hello Human

Do you mean that it might be that physical universe (external world) would not exist if you or I or the entire human species did not exist?

The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. — Gnomon

I can see this, and it's fine with me, "exotic" or not. But I was talkng about common terms, like "information".

Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea :grin:, it's out of my range of knowledge and interests.

Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. These sci-fi movies and novels are responsible for all the crap that exists in people's mind regarding AI. (I have discussed this issue in length in some other medium,)

The "Argument From Illusion" is a philosophical quibble, that physicists are not concerned with. It's related to Kant's notion of "ding an sich", which we know only as mental concepts : illusions. :smile: — Gnomon

Nicely put!
Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? Esp. when he meets more stuff like this in the thesis in question, as I mentioned. It shows ignorance or big mistakes and this reflects on the source and/or his thesis.
Still, I could ignore all this and would not reject a thesis or theory, if I had found important elements in it that make it interesting or plausible. But I haven't. Well, this concerns only me. :smile:

My Enformationism thesis expands the meaning of "information" beyond the "standard" bare facts, or the "technical" application of Shannon. — Gnomon

Yes, I think this is evident. I can accept it. No problem. :smile:

abstract Information does not have "feelings", but it can cause a sentient being to "feel", — Gnomon

I thought of that too, but it was not so evident. So, it has to do with the use of language then ...

* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). — Gnomon

Wow! This is the most "exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all.

Besides that, I will say once again that all this looks quite interesting, but it is totally outside my sphere of knowledge and interests.

Where did I write "substitute"? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nowhere. It was I who used this word, as a response to your "Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy",
Well, this looks like a (known) method of avoiding to talk about the essence of what the other person says.

Bye!

Information is the essence Energy & Matter. In its energetic form, it's call "Causal Information" *1 — "Gnomon

I see. This then is about the same with what I hypothetized, "Maybe this 'apparent' or 'initial' chaos contained a kind of order in itself", if you replace "order" with "information". Yet, I would be really surprised if that could be proved and become part of our reality. Because there are too many things that don't make sense in it, which I mention below.

In the PDF (From http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Matter-Energy-and-Information.pdf), Max Tegmark is quoted to say “I believe that consciousness is, essentially, the way information feels when being processed.”
I found this included in Tegmark's Book/paper "What Are You Optimistic About?"
Now, I wonder what kind of "information" the author of this book and the anonymous(!) author of the PDF are talking about ... Because the following question came to my mind when I read this quote was "How can an information feel?". So because this is totally absurd, I had to interpret it as follows: "the way a person feels when his mind processes an information". Then a second question was: "What kind of information is he talking about?"

Anyway, both authors should at least define "information" before using it in such an "exotic" theory. Well, I know, this is a very common unfortunate phenomenon among writers and speakers, namely, that they assume their readers/audience know and share the same meaning with them of the (key) terms they use! Moreover, most often they don't use standard/common definitions but rather their own, which makes the situation much worse! And, BTW, this is exactly why knowledge --starting to be built at an early age in life-- is so imperfect an so much confusion and misundestanding occurs in what we read and hear and then store as "knowlege".

In the present case, I can only use a standard/common/baswic definition of "information": "Facts provided or learned about something or someone." (Oxford LEXIKO) If you check other dictionaries, you will find this term in common: facts, i.e., things that are known or proved to be true. The word "known" is critical. A fact, and hence information, cannot exist by its own. It has to be processed by the mind --its nature identified, undestood, classified, etc.-- and become knowledge. Only then can information have a meaning. A computer contains millions of data, stored in its chips. Yet, they are useless and have no meaning unless they are retrieved, undestdood and used, in whatever way, by either a program in the computer itself or a person.

Another point I can mention in the PDF is that the autor maintains "Cartesian Dualism is a conceptual illusion", 1) He is the only one that has expressed this position, after I checked in the Web and 2) Wheter otr not Dualism has a faoundation or not, rejecting it in this way shows that one is ttally immerged in the physical world and cannot see anything outside it. Well, how can one judge or undestand anything about dualism if one tries to "process it" --analyze it, undestand it, etc.-- using exclusevely information from the physical world? How can I undestand anything about human logic, emotion, feelings, etc. by just looking in and examining the cells of the human body?

Then, "Cybernetic systems came along, which described systems in terms of matter-energy interactions, ..."
I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception (in contrast with that of the "Cartesion dualism" that the author brought up!)

***
In short, this is one of the most unfortunate articles related to matter, energy and/or information I have ever read. Sorry about that.

Therefore, I cannot digest or process further this "exotic" subject in the current circumstances.

First of all, it is very good that you brougt in definitions from standards sources at start of your topic. :up:
This is quite rare in here, and it is a big miss-take . I know well that some even hate dictionaries and encyclopedias!

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" — Tate

Using the concept of "God" restricts this definition unnecessarily. Oxford LEXICO, defines it as follows: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.", which is much better, but it still restricts this definition unnecessarily.
So, let's make it more general, that is, applicable to all kind of situations: "Strong belief in something, based on conviction rather than proof.". I think this covers most if not all the cases, religion included.
For example, a very common cases is "I have faith in you". It means I cannot be totally certain, I have no undeniable data, etc. supporting that you are going to do or succeed in something, yet I strongly believe that you will. (Sometimes, of course, we say this to people just to encourage them.) It is a very recognizable feeling and mental state.

So, this is my answer to your topic "The meaning and significance of faith".

Yet, there are a lot of different uses of the term faith and, depending on the context, "faith" acquires different meanings. Like in the case that follows.

If you want to talk specifically about the subject of faith "as it appears in Judeo-Christian traditions", then your 2nd definition is well applied. In this case I will add that Judaism and Christianity --as Islam, Hinduism, etc.-- are dogmatic religions. Hence the concept of dogma comes in, for which Oxford LEXICO offers the following definition: "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Not perfect, but it gives the basic idea. Judeo-Christians believe in hundreds of "facts" and stories the truth of which has and can never be proven. E.g. The stories of the Creation of the world, Adam and Eve, etc., which are contained in the Book of Genesis, the "Ten Commandments", which God gave to people via Moses and so on. My personal understanding and explanation of all these cases, is that they have a symbolic meaning and value, rather than are besed on foundations and/or historical data. Dogmatic religions are built on traditional values --moral, economic and political-- of a nation or civilization.
(They are too far from my way of thinking and view of the world.)

Matter, Energy & Mind have been identified as various forms of a single creative causal power*1 — "Gnomon

The PDF you refer to doesn't mention mind at all. On what basis are you involving it in the Big Bang?
I also can't see how a mind could be involved in the Big Bang. I could only imagine that the Mind already existed and created that Big Bang - if the Big Bang we know and talk about actually occured - See below). That Mind could only be a God, such as theists believe. Only that God could put order in that chaos. All this is just logical. But not necessarily true, of course.

some First Cause is logically required to establish order-within-Chaos — "Gnomon

This is logical but not necessary. We don't have enough information about that chaos, and if indeed there was a chaos. Maybe this "apparent" or "initial" chaos contained a kind of order in itself, a state of being settled down, etc. For example, when you throw a dice, there is a chaos in its movement and at some point it stops moving, becoming inert. The cause for that inertia is gravitation. (I guess, I'm not good in Physics.) Likewise, the chaos produced by the Bing Bang containd gravitational forces in itself or has produced then iself. I can't say, of course if this could ba a possibility or not.
This is one viewpoint. Another is that Big Bang is only a theory, which indeed has been prevalent for a lot of years over any other. However, we know that today, it is disputed (Re: https://www.inverse.com/article/62192-scientist-disputes-big-bang-theory . (Re: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/astronomer-who-rejected-theory-of-big-bang-1.324257, etc. I got 6.5m results in Google about < Big Bang disputed >.)

The same, more or less, goes about Singularuiy.

***

Again, I find your whole description quite interesting. But ssince my knowledge of Physics is very limited to be able to get involved more. I can only discuss what is logically possible and facts.

You said "If you quote someone then a source must be given", didn't you? Well, I said this is not the point of the topic. What part of it you don't get?

Authority is one of the essential criteria for a sound philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't find it essential at all. In fact, rather ineffective. One may bring up an authority for debating purposes, but it is not OK to do that as a substitute of one's own position, ideas, etc. Citing someone is a bad if not a substitute for arguments. It shows that the person does not really undestand the issue at hand or he is not able to describe/explain and judge it.
Imagine that everyone in here caite others as a response to every idea and subject. This would be an absence of philosophical talk!

If the speaker himself has no authority (such as every member of TPF), then it is a very good idea to cite one who does — Merkwurdichliebe

"Essential", became now "a good idea" ...
And, since when TPF members are authotities??

If you quote someone then a source must be given — Jackson

I don't think that this is the point here. When you cite someone, you normally also include the source.
I think that the point is why does one have to cite others, in general. Well, may be not, But this makes more sense.

it was John Lennon that said there was no such thing as an original idea, or something along those lines — MonfortS26

But then, why do yourself bring up an idea from someone else? :chin:

It seems impossible to have a productive conversation while simultaneously pointing to the source of every original idea — MonfortS26

I fully agree! :up:

I have brought up this issue a lot of times. It seems that these people are not able to formulate their own position or they think it is not enough to make an impact as citing the position of a known philosopher or other authority. On the other hand, I rarely see quoting definitions of concepts from any standard source, dictionary or encyclopedia. These two combined, show lack of real understanding of philosophical issues.

First of all, sorry about the long delay of my response. I was not near my PC for the last two days ...

The rational human mind "discovers" the logical functions of Nature, — Gnomon

I agree.

Humans are clever, but they still don't have the power to "invent" Laws of Nature. — Gnomon

Good point. I never thought about that. Most probably because Physics is not my cup of tea ...
For me, the whole issue was just about what the topic asks ("Where do the laws of physics come from?") ...

Your whole description is quite interesting. :up:

As you'll see in the last reply prior to yours, I'm still having a nice conversation with Bob. — Philosophim

I see. So you simply mean, "I have a nice conversation ..." :grin:

OK, I see that you don't care about semantics and/or grammar, which is of secondary importance of course, neither about how knowledge is acquired, which is of primary importance because it concerns your topic, and which nevertheless you ignored or avoided to discuss, most probably because you don't know what knowledge is and you don't want to know.

Anyway, posting a topic requires being also a good host and thank people who repsond to it, except if they are offending you. Which was not my case (as you stated).
Anyway #2, even semantics and grammar, let alone definitions and desciptions of concepts -- such as "knowledge"-- are useful. Only nonsense is useless. Which was not my case either, I think.

Anyway, sorry about my intervention in your topic. My bad. I've just chosen a wrong person to respond to.

I've been having a fantastic discussion with a member on this forum — Philosophim

You mean, simply, "I had a fantastic discussion ..." :smile:

how we "know" knowledge. — Philosophim

Besides being a pleonasm and a circular question, knowledge is acquired, not known.
Knowledge consists of facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education.
I had no idea about baseball. Then a friend of mine explained to me how it is played, its rules. points. etc. So, I got some information --which I had to process in my mind (vital)-- and I know now a little about this game. If I had watched a baseball match --which I haven't-- I would have more knowledge about the game. Still though, far less knowledge from a baseball player. There are levels of knowledge, They are built --and knowledge is built-- with acquiring more and more information and getting more experience about an object or subject.

This is basically the process of acquiring knowledge, but, here too, there are levels of elaboration, complexity and details in its description/explanation, which have to do, for example, with how the mind processes facts. But this belongs to some other topic ...

***
I know of course that this is far from being an actual reply to the whole topic, which BTW sounds quite interesting, but too mauch for me to get involved.. I just brought up some basics of knowledge.

Where do the laws of physics come from? — Art48

From the human mind.
No law whatsoever --legal, scientific or other-- exist by itself. As rules do not exist by themselves. As theories, systems, axioms, principles, ... do not exist by themselves. They are all created by humans.

Scientific laws, in particular, "describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true". (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-law-basics-of-the-scientific-method)

"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)

(Highlighting in bold characters is mine.)

I meant a link of a comment of yours! Anyway, thanks.

So, I'm assuming that you meant "comply with fate" or "comply with everything" ...

We must comply, unwillingly! — Agent Smith

Comply with what? If this is your conclusion, can you elaborate it a little or provide me with a link? Thanks.

Are you still stuck with "free will"?
Or you have reached a conclusion? I would like to hear about it ...

This position is commonly called “materialism”. But for some reason, some people commonly called “idealists”, ... — Hello Human

This is an interesting subject. But why do you have to bring in "-isms", schools of philosophy, etc.?
Wouldn't it be more interesting to present your own position/view on the subject, based on your personal reality, knowledge, reasoning and experience?

So, I would like to "hear" your own position on your own subject "Is there an external material world?"

i

wiki is for losers. tired of people using wiki and dictionaries to discuss philosophy — Jackson

That's a new one: Dictionaries and encyclopedias are for losers!
So, you say that I am a loser, since I value a lot dictionaries and encyclopaedias. And you think you are not?

I would rather not have to read such "pearls", esp. in this place, but they are still part of the fun. :smile:

Does nothingness exist? — Jackson

Nothingness: "The absence or cessation of life or existence." (Offord LEXICO)

"'Nothingness' is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence" (Wikipedia)

Do you still need to ask this question? :smile:

we have no evidence that somebody is suffering inside a body showing alarm signs of suffering — Angelo Cannata

The being suffers and it manifests that in a lot of various ways. What other evidence shoulld we expect?
How do you mean "somebody" inside a body? A spirit or soul? Impossible. If you believe in the duality of body-spirit, the spirit can be inside the boyd as well as outside. What other entity can exist in a body?

Nobody would say that we should protect computers from violence — Angelo Cannata

Aren't virus attacks on computers acts of violence, esp. malware? Shouldn't we protect them from such attacks?

I'm sorry --and I don't like having to say this-- but your assumptions/propositions/statements lack foundation and sense.

They would not think that of physics, but think there is nothing to learn about philosophy. — Jackson

This is true. Even for myself, in a way. I rarily think that I have still to learn about philosophy itself. At some point I realized that I can have my own, independent ideas, which of course have been built from reading a lot of philosophical texts and about quite a lot of philosophers. I feel that I am in a position to judge whatever philosophical idea, statement, quotattion, etc., on the condition that it is clear and well defined, of course. Parallelly, however, I can always get inspired by philosophical ideas.

I'm not sure though if this is good or bad, I mean not having to learn more about philosophy, which is a very interesting point that you brought in! :up:

Making up words and concepts does not allow for philosophy. — Jackson

I agree. Unfortunately, this is quite common. Again, I wonder why ...

Philosophy isn't just imagination randomly, — Varde

Imagination, as a process, can be but it is normally not random. It is mainly a directed action of forming new ideas/concepts, images, etc. It is the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful.

I don't want to go on. Almost everything you say is totally wrong. Per definition, not according to my view.

My advice to you is to start using dictionaries: Look up the definitions --all of them-- of every concept you are using. It's the only way to put some order in the confusion, which you are not even aware you are in.

I admit, I'm harsh with you, but man, you miss really a lot, and you need to work a lot and hard, if you want to get involved in philosophy in a way that makes sense.

I don't know why people start threads bashing philosophy. — Jackson

I wonder too ... Although in this case I think that it is I who bashed more @Verde for his description of philosophy than he philosophy :grin:

Philosophy is a reactive-process (sub-atomic propulsion mechanism) that enhances or amplifies data filtering, preparing us for science or psychological enrichment. — Varde

Godssake! How did you get all that?
Suffice to say that Philosophy itself --it's nature-- is not a process. A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. On the other hand, philosophy is basically a system of thought. Thinking is a process, but in this case we would have "philosophy in action" or "philosophizing" etc., which indicate action, activity and/or process.

But even if we skip the above semantics, there's a striking word: "reactive", which signifies a response to a stimulus. That is, totally mechanic. Philosophy is very far from that. It uses creative, basic logic/reasoning. It uses imagination. It uses intuition. All these are non-mechanic in nature.

I agree. "'Supernatural' as an empty, useless term!" :smile: