It is a conception of what it would be to have a truly synthetic human mind. It would have to be a kind compu-dasein, and not merely programming. — Constance

I couldn't find what "compu-dasein" is. So I guess its a kind of term of yours, a combiination of a computer/computing and "dasein", the German term --esp. Heidegger's-- for existence. But what would be the nature of such a "synthetic" mind? What would it be composed of? Would it be something created? And if so, how?
And so on. If one does not have all this or most of this information how can one create a reality or even a workable concept about it?

an examination of a human "world" of possibilities structured in time — Constance

I know little about Heidegger's philosopy, from my years in college, in the far past, when I was getting acquainted with --I cannot use the word stydying-- a ton of philosophers and philosophical systems. So I cannot conceive the above description of yours. It's too abstract for me. Indeed, this was the general feeling I had reading your messages since the beginning.

So, I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted your ideas and for not being able to follow this long thread. :sad:

Your side of the disagreement takes us OUT of natural science and into philosophical territory that has an entirely different set of assumptions to deal with. — Constance

Of coure, since "free will" is a philosophical concept and subject. Natural science and any other phyiscal science have nothing to do with it. (Even if they mistakenly think they have! :smile:)

a day when science will be able to conceive of programming, with the help of AI, that has the subjective openness of free thought. Considering first what freedom is, is paramount. — Constance

OK.

Today's fiction is tomorrow's reality. — Constance

True.

...Can this be duplicated in a synthetic mind? You say no ... — Constance

In fact, I was in a hurry to assume that I know what you meant by "synthetically". I should have asked you. Maybe you have a point there. So, I'm asking you now: what such a "synthetic mind" would consist of or be like?

Studying primitive DNA is a practical start. Imagine once we, that is, with the AI-we-develop's assistance, come to a full understanding of the human genome. All that is left is technology to create it. — Constance

OK, since you are talking about DNA, etc., maybe you would like to check, e.g.:
- Biological computing
- The unique promise of 'biological computers' made from living things

I personally have not studied these things, since I'm not so interested at the moment. But you seem to be! :smile:

Another thing: Although I don't know how knowldgeable you are in the AI field, I get the impression that are not so well acquainted with it in order to explore its possibilities. So, if I'm not wrong in this, I would suggest that you study its basics to get better acquainted with it, so that you can see what AI does exactly, how it works and what are its possibilities, etc.

if we are a biological manifestation of freedom and choice, then it is not unreasonable to think that this can be done synthetically. — Constance

Free will (freedom of choice and action) is not a biological manifestation. It is produced by and does not reside in cells. It is not something physical. It is a power and capacity that only humans have.

Of course, for now, it is a simple matter of programming, — Constance

Well, it is not so simple. I can assure for this! (Take it from a computer programmer who knows how to work with AI systems.)
:smile:

you know that the technology will seek greater capabilities to function, work, and interface with the world, and this will prioritize pragmatic functions. — Constance

Certainly. People in the field are already talking about biological computers, using DNA found in bacteria, etc. But see, even these computers in general terms will be as dumb as any machine and will still be based on programming. Frankenstein was able to build a robot that could have sentiments and will. A lot of such robots have been created since then. But in science fiction only. :smile:

knowledge itself is a social pragmatic function. — Constance

One can say that, indeed.

Why not conceive of a synthetic agency that learns through assimilating modelled behavior, like us? — Constance

In fact, one onc can conceive not only a synthetic agency but an organic or biological one too. And it can be modelled on certain behaviours. I believe the word "modelled" that you use is the key to the differentiation between a machine and a human being. In fact, we can have humans being modelled on certain behaviours, e.g. young persons (by their parents), soldiers, and in general pessons who must only obey orders and who are deprived of their own free will. You can create such a person, on the spot, if you hypnotize him/her.

Therein lies freedom, an "open" program. Is this not what we are? — Constance

Well, if you like to think so ... :smile:

Can AI have an "end"? — Constance

AI's purpose is to provide as much information as possible and solve problems. ChatGPT itself says that its purpose is "to help and be informative". But it is not actually its purpose. It is the purpose humans have created for it.

AIs are machines. So, AIs themselves do not and cannot have an "end". They do what their programmers instruct them to do. They will always do that. This is their "fate".

why posit an anthropomorphic creator of the universe, thereby invoking the problem of an infinite regress of creators, when you can go one step further and claim the universe has always existed? — ucarr

Only the element and story of the anthropomorphic creator is enough for a rational and honest being to reject it. Of course, this normally doesn't happen immediately even if one is a very rational and knowledgeable person. A whole religious culture is built since 2,000 ago and burdens us since our first baby steps in our never ending education and maturation as well as our domineering, oppressive, despotic, bossy way we have been educated, by our parents, school and society in general, and esp. for the older generations, have made it very difficult to lift this heavy burden off our backs. Indeed, this kind of education has very deep roots in our minds and consciousness. And it takes a lot of (philosophical) thinking to do that. For the last two generations of course, the burden is not so heavy since a lot of the old values have started fading out and education is much less oppressive.

I believe I'm quite rational --in fact I'm and always have been a rationalist as well as a realist person-- yet, it took me a lot of years to ask myself questions about the Christian God, like why is God referred to and depicted as a masculine and old person? Shouldn't God transcend genders and have no age at all? Wouldn’t be more logical that God --as Supreme Power and Creator-- be depicted as a light, which has no gender or age? Then, why God in the Bible constantly exhibits so many human characteristics and esp. negative ones, like rage, and is seeking revenge of or punishing people? Besides, isn't God who created Man? If Man has flaws, who is responsible for that? And so on and so one. My list contains a lot more of such questions, which all lead to one thing: Man has created God. Not the other way around.

This is not to make less of this great man, Carl Sagan, whom I really loved and love. (BTW, I watched half of the video you brought up.) But what I say is that one has not be a person of his caliber or listen to such a person to realize that the Bible together with God we are fed since our youth are just myths.

As long as dogmatisim or even biases caracterize a discussion, "umbrella" or any other terms become automatically "unfit for philsophical examination". Philsophical examination needs to be impartial in order to lead to a truth or stay on the path that leads to a truth.

But opposition has grown from industry and landowners who say it hampers economic growth and property rights. Some lawmakers are trying to weaken the law.

It would be interesting to know who forms that opposition and how exactly the law hampers economic growth and property rights ...

As I see, you refuse to look up the terms. Well, you are not alone. You, along with all the others who hate or avoid to look up and/or examine closely and really undestand the terms the meaning of which they don't know or think they know, will always remain with misconceptions. Which means, they won't be able to make correct judgements. It's only obvious.

Perceiving, like imagining, remembering, speculating, inferring, etc., is a species of thinking. — charles ferraro

Imagining, remembering, speculating, inferring, etc., are indeed thinking. Perceiving is a total different thing. It involves our senses and is a most simple process: it stops at recognizing, identifying things, which are almost instant. What we observe we can then process with the mind, which involves thinking, a process that can take ... forever.

Descartes: For any human mind, to think is to exist (cogito ergo sum). — charles ferraro

I don't think Descartes has ever assumed "for any human mind". It;s an additive. It's Berkeley that assumed that, as I menteioned.

In other words, when and while I am thinking, in the first person present tense mode, I must be existing. — charles ferraro

I have showed in different occasions that this unfortunately is not true, referring th the term "thinking" as we use it today. In fact, its the opposite. During thinking you may lose the sense and experience of living. There are many times that you are thinking all sorts of things but in reality you are absent-minded, or immerged in the past by bringing up memories, or while you are imagining things, etc. Thinking can be also illusory. In all these cases you are not aware, or you are partially aware, of your existence and anything in your environment! Thinking actually is an obstacle to being totally aware, that is, observe and perceive things in your environment as well as aware of youresf. But I can't believe Descartes didn't realize all these things. That's why I believe that by "thinking" he most probably meant "being aware". That is, "I am aware, therefore I exist".

Berkeley's esse est percipere (to be is to perceive) and Descartes' cogito sum (while thinking, I am) are saying precisely the same thing. — charles ferraro

As I said, thinking and perception are two totally different things. But if by "thinking" pone means "being conscious/aware" --as in Descartes' time -- then they are close.

They both claim, each in his own way, that the existence or being of a human mind depends upon its perceiving or thinking. — charles ferraro

Please look up the definitions of "perceive" and "think" or "perception" and "thinking". I mean it.

However, Berkeley takes a major step beyond Descartes. — charles ferraro

Of course. He lived a century later. And most probably he took ideas from Descartes.

Berkeley also claims the "esse" of every object of human perception depends upon its "percipi," i.e., the existence of every object depends exclusively upon its being perceived by a human mind. — charles ferraro

Right. By this only you should see that thinking and perception are different things. And that Berkeley was very close to consciousness/awareness, since consciousness depends on perceiving; it is actually and in essence perception. (Not as a definition, of course).

Yes, that fits well.

I started to watch the video and will continue later. That's quite impressive from a psychiatrist. I mean I could expect it from a psychoanalyst ...

BTW, I wonder whom is he showing the finger to in the video ...

All this is quite interesting. Although I don't think the OP is talking about these exreme cases ...
Anyway, it's always good to know. Thanks for the refs! :up:

Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work — Tom Storm

Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. It only believes in brain. Certainly, there may be exceptions, as in any other field. Even Carl Jung --the only name that is familiar to me in your list-- believes that the soul is a manifestation of the body. He also uses the term as somthing given, known by everyone. As besides all psychologists do.
Psychologists talking about death? Of course. They deal with it all the time. It is the primary fear for every patient. But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. Of course, everyting is possible. But "bread and butter"? You must have a lot of experience on the subect to say that.

Can you share with us some of this experience by giving some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list?

Did George Berkeley mean that the existence of the entire world was dependent upon human perception, or divine perception? — charles ferraro

At the time I was studying various philosophers --quite far in the past-- Berkeley appeared to me as quite an obscure philosopher and he remains so. Just to show this and also set the "climate" in which he discoursed:

"It is, I think, a receiv’d axiom that an impossibility cannot be conceiv’d. For what created intelligence will pretend to conceive, that which God cannot cause to be? Now it is on all hands agreed, that nothing abstract or general can be made really to exist, whence it should seem to follow, that it cannot have so much as an ideal existence in the understanding. (Works 2:125)"
(https://iep.utm.edu/george-berkeley-british-empiricist/)

Well, although my English reading is excellent, I have a difficulty in understanding the above passage. Of course, we are talking about 17th century English, but even so.

I believe that the following says a lot about your question:

Now, about the "esse est percipi" principle itself, I cannot formulate any conclusive or even certain overall idea about it. So I prefer quoting ideas from others, much more knowledgeable than me on the subject. Maybe you can make something out of it for your quest:

"Berkeley's immaterialism argues that 'esse est percipi (aut percipere)', which in English is to be is to be perceived (or to perceive). That is saying only what perceived or perceives is real, and without our perception or God's nothing can be real."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley)

"In the Principles and the Three Dialogues Berkeley defends two metaphysical theses: idealism (the claim that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence) and immaterialism (the claim that matter does not exist). His contention that all physical objects are composed of ideas is encapsulated in his motto esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived)."
(https://iep.utm.edu/george-berkeley-british-empiricist/)

"For any nonthinking being, esse est percipi ('to be is to be perceived')."
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/esse-est-percipi-doctrine)
It seems that this principle is not applied to humans! So, if this is true, then all gets quite obscure ...

As I told you in the beginning, I found and still find Berkeley quite an obscure philosopher.

Anyway, I hope some of all this has added a small pebble to your topic ...

This post is not at all to suggest that the usage of philosophy is a replacement for modern psychiatry and psychotherapy. — Dermot Griffin

Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"?
Where did you get all this from? :gasp:

I find that it is a false dilemma to posit a thing as either objective or subjective, as there can be emergent things from the relationship between the two.
I think that 'truth' is a prime example of this ... — Bob Ross

Emerging from what exactly? What could be something on which both an objective and a subjective process can be applied?
You offer "truth" as a prime example of it. But this poses some problems related to your proposition:
1) Can anything at all emerge from truth? What could be that?
2) Can truth ever be objective? Who is out there who can speak about it? And if he can speak about it, wouldn't that have a subjective tint?

I have more questions, but I don't want either to overwhelm you or become too critical (because I already seem to be! :smile:)

I don't know about "magic", but I can see "chaos" in your post! :smile:
Scattered ideas here and there, with no purpose seen in the horizon ...
Sorry about this, but this is what one can see from where I'm standing.
Maybe if you could tidy it up a little ...

Thanks for your response to the article.

OK. Thanks for your response.

OK. Thanks four your reaction to the article, anyway.

A goal of a discussion if to have everyone involved and participating in the discussion. This is a common but questionable assumption in the philosophy of education, a vestige of a factory model. A way of measuring productivity. — Fooloso4

The article says "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible", not everyone. That would be impossible, anyway. Then is an indicative element. It shows a direction, a desirability. Opposite to it is "as less as possible". Which of course is undesirable.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? — Fooloso4

It is applicable to any discussion forum according its structure,size, rules, etc.
And it is good that brought up the element of participation, because I find it most important, even vital. Why? Because participation depends on the way the discussion is taking place. A characteristic example is that about one in ten OPs do not even care to reply to someone who reacts to his/her topic. And not once, but twice. And some of these OPs ask explicitly for a participation! So, besides that showing lack of politeness and respect, it is detrimental to participation. Because It is natural that the person who has been ignored abstains from a further response to such an OP. Isn't that right?

Another thing that happens, equally important and detrimental, and which may partially explain the lack of response from the part of such OPs is -- I repeat it verbatim because it has maybe escaped your attention-- "the participation is more based on 'friendship' or 'enmity', and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description".
This is natural in social contacts in everyday life, but it shouldn't happen in a discussion forum, except of course in cases when there's is a clash and adversion between two persons. But we are not talking about such cases. Yet, because it is a natural human reaction and a particular one, we cannot include it among the elements or rules of a good discussion.

You can change your assumptions and attitude, which might change what you say and how you say it. — Fooloso4

No one can require from anyone to change their ideas, beliefs, assumptions or any personal trait in order to participate construtively to a productive discussion. False assumptions, defective reasoning or lack of knowledge are in the game. One needs only to follow and apply the elements --or as many of them and as well as possible-- that make a discussion smooth, productive and constructive.

The problem is that points 1, 2 and 3 are in conflict with points 4, 5, and 6. — Isaac

They might be. I'm not willing to analyze this. As I just said to Fooloso4, these are suggestions, ideas, criteria regarding a good discussion. Each person may have their own. The question is if they work and are effective, at least for the majority of people. And I believe the ones I presented --which are not mine-- are applicable and quite effective and I believe acceptable by most people.

So keeping a discussion on track according to one set of views on those first matters tends to work against that latter. — Isaac

That's true. I have indicated a couple of times to my interlocutor that we have deviated from the topic, but they believed that what we were talking was "on track" as you say. But this doesn't mean that there mustn't be a kind of rule that reminds to stay on track, does it? :smile:

Looking at data and drawing a rational conclusion from it is simply not that difficult — Isaac

I don't know where are you applying the element of logic to here, but it made me realize something that I wish to add to this topic: These "rules" --if you want-- are in fact so evident for most intelligent people, that they can be actually considered as just "reminders". :smile:

First, it should be noted that the guidelines were written for teachers leading classroom discussion. I think the following claim is questionable for both classroom discussion and forum discussion: — Fooloso4

This may be true, but it is about guidelines as you yourself say. The post though was an article and not guidlenes, for which BTW only the TPF administrators can post. It is an article about "elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one". as I said.
Participants in discussions can always consult such ideas. And those who really care can be inspired by or at least get reminded of them.

[Re "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible."] Why is this desirable? — Fooloso4

Because one participant is better than none. And two participants are better than one! :smile:
Of course, the anount of participation normally has to do with the topic and its description, how many people are familiar with the subject, how much it attracts their interest, etc.
However, what is rally happening here is that the participation is more based on "friendship" or "enmity", and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description. I have come to this realization in the 4 years since I joined TPF. And I'm not the only one who believes that. And this factor alone limits participation.

There are several questionable assumptions underlying this, including: — Fooloso4

OK, OK. Again, these are not guidelines or rules of conduct that one must abide to. One can get from that whatever inspires or gets remidended of him/her. In other words, it's not a subject to be discussed about. If that were the case, I would have posted it in the regular Discussions section.

In my opinion it is better to have enough self-knowledge to know when to stop talking and listen. — Fooloso4

Right. But I belive the key element here is "conscience" rather than "self-knowledge".

When you’re teaching always assume there is a silent student in the class who knows more than you do. — Fooloso4

Sure, there may be. But you can;t do anything about it, can you? And even if you could, it wouldn't have changed anything, would it?

As an end word, anyone can create one's own rules or important elements in a discussion that make it good or bad. The question is how applicable/workable and effective these rules or elements are in practice.

Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ...
— Alkis Piskas — javi2541997

Well, I must not complain. Yesterday I received an acknowledgement from T Clark. (But only after you have rocked the boat! :smile:)

I don't remember seeing your post on the main page — javi2541997

As I realized yesterday, when I was looking for that article, one has to open the "Artrcles Submitted" section to see it! And I don't think this is what people use to do ...
So, once again, it was unfair from my part to complain and also jufge people's attitudes regarding discussions! :zip:

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my article, T Clark.

Hi! Javi! Well come back!
Thanks for your (single) response to my article.

What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. — javi2541997

Thanks a lot, Javi!
I believe too it is good, but I see it more as a useful guide and something that would increase the quality of this place.
But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ...
However, as I undestand, people in here don't really care either about decent, disciplined, well-constructed and constructive discussions. They rather prefer anarchy. And be free as they want.
In a way, I can undestand this. This is a social place and some chat is always desirable. But within limits, of course. This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it.

I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed. — javi2541997

You are right.

[Re Participation] Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. — javi2541997

I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is.

Right. Talking about free will, I believe is much more constructive. :smile:

if you’re a devout Christian, ignore this thread — it doesn’t apply to you. It will only hurt your feelings. Go elsewhere and be well. — Mikie

A devout Chistian is not necessatily a fanatic, a zealously religious or someone who cannot think rationally, but instead he (for brevity) believes blindly in his religion and God and reacts badly in the presense of views different than his own, as if his llfe depends on his beliefs.
In fact, I consider this "disclaimer" already quite offensive because it invalidates believers' intelligence.
(To make one thing clear, I'm neither a believer nor am I offended by your "disclaimer".)

And I'm afraid that the fanatic in the present case is yourself. From what I gathered reading your post, is that you are supercritical against not only Christian believers, but also theists, independent of any religion. Your tone is authoritative and you show a good deal of arrogance --a definite "I know better" attitude. I guess you must be a young person. You show revolutionary tendencies and immaturity.

Now, you might call me critical. You would be right. I am. But on a personal basis and for specific and justified reasons, which I have explained.

Keep in mind that argument is targeted to people with very specific beliefs about God. — GRWelsh

Do you mean, it is used to dissuade them from believing in God? Do you think that such a shallow --as I have expalined-- construct would succeed in that? I believe that it would succeed in the opposite: it would rather strengthen their belief in God! :smile:

Anyway, I had and have no intention at all in invalidating or undervalidating your topic, your description of it, your purpose of launching this discussion or your beliefs about God.
I just referred to the logical construct you brought in --i.e. from a purely logical viewpoint-- independently of any belief or disbelief in God.

What I was getting at is that your age is part of the now as it relates to a point in the past. That aspect of the now is emphasized on your birthday, but it's there all the time in some way, unless you drop down below the surface. — frank

I can see the first point. I can't follow the rest ... Sorry.

This is mostly Kierkegaard type stuff, I guess. — frank

Ah, this explains everything! That's why I can't follow it! :grin:

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist." — GRWelsh

Speaking of the Devil ... :smile:

Not by disrespect to this quotation, but I couldn't help thinking of it as paradoxical, since the world in fact believes that Devil does exist. Well, maybe not so much these days, when a lot of myths have been demolished, but certainly until the recent past. And the quotation belongs to the past.
So, any idea regarding Devil in this context must point out the fact that people have been convinced about his existence.

So a funny variation came to mind:
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he exists."
Which is an oxymoron, because it implies that Devil doesn't actually exist, so how could he pull this trick? :smile

Another variation, a little more serious, showing how people are convinced about the existence of Devil:
"The greatest trick God/Religion ever pulled was to convince the world that Devil exists."
How else could God/Religion justify the cases in which God fails to protect and support people? So, in such cases we let God aside or justify harm, by saying --and believing -- "This is the work of the Devil", "The Devil incarnate", "Get thee behind me Satan", and so on.

The reason I bring this up is that Christians will often cite this as, paradoxically, evidence that the Devil does exist and (as a consequence) that Christianity is true. — GRWelsh

Ah, good. I should have waited before commenting on the quotation ... But now it's too late. And I also enjoyed it! :smile:

About Theodore Drange's argument — GRWelsh

The whole construct is built on thin ice and falls easily apart ...
1) the statement "[God] wants all humans to believe God exists before they die" is totally arbitrary. I have never even heard about that.
2) ... other similar assumptions ... I skip them and come to the most important part ...
3) (2) is unfounded. It is based on the assumption that all people should believe what God wants.
4) The conclusion (4) cannot be drawn from (3). That some people do not believe that God exists doesn't not mean that he doesn't.

To summarize, the whole construct is based on the assumption that if God exists whatever he wishes should be necessarily affect all people. Yet, God has given humans a free will. A benevolent God would never punish someone who doesn't even believe in him.

Well, maybe all that was not necessary but I'm always challenged by logical constructs! :smile:

So why would God allow the Devil to pull this trick? — GRWelsh

OK, I won't follow this part because I can't talk about so many assumptions. Assuming that God actually exists is already a huge assumption, but it is at least challenging. Adding Devil into the game, however, makes the game too heavy or incredible light, like a bubble that can burst at the slightest blow ...

But I enjoyed it so far. Thanks for the post. :up:

Once a year, there's a day when one aspect of the now is magnified, specifically about how it relates to another date: your birthday. — frank

For me, my birthday meant only something when I was a kid and received presents! :smile: I have stopped celebrating it since a lot of years ago. It's just a social convention.

Your birthday is a distant star, but you use that star to judge your appropriateness. You may notice some confidence and poise in some areas, and identify that as part of the blessing of this pole star — frank

Are you in poetry?

--thoughts from the bathtub — frank

That's a good place for inspiration. In the past I used it to find solutions in my computer programming projects! :smile:
It's also the place in which Archimedes made his famous discovery! :smile:

"Here you go, sir. Please don't drop it on anybody." — Vera Mont

:grin: "Well, you can, if you have no better solution to win a war."

Scientists sometimes do see ahead to the probable dangers — Vera Mont

They usually do, I believe. But, as I said, they can only act as consultants. They are not the decision makers.

[Re AI] If it evolves a mind of its own. Then, it may decide to help us survive - or put us out of the artificial misery business once and for all. 50/50 — Vera Mont

Well, I don't want to disappoint you, but as an AI programmer and quite knowledgeable in AI systems, I can say that this is totally impossible. Neither with chips nor with brain cells (in the furure).

The waste. ... Can't ever seem to erase the consequences - or the waste. — Vera Mont

Yes, I thought about thete waste. But the Chernobyl link you brought up talks about successful handling of the waste ... Otherwise, I have read that the area surrounding Chernobyl remains radioactive.
Anyway, the potential danger of nuclear power (atomic bombs) destroying everything is always a threat and I can't see how this could be ever handled ...
What is very sad is that all that shows the self-destructiveness of Man --in the Modern Era more than ever-- and I can't see how that could be cured. A person with self-destructive tendencies may be cured, even by taking medicine as a last resort, but how mankind could ever be cured? What would it need to take?

[Re guns] If that traffic can't be stopped, how do you figure computing technology that runs on a world-wide web and conducts vast amounts of international information and commerce is going to be confined by legislation in the UK or Austria? — Vera Mont

Same with drugs. But here is where we use to ask, "Can't or doesn't want?" I believe that if a government cuts enough heads it can handle it. But I mean really cut. Not e.g. forcing the tobacco companies put a warning label on cigaret packs ... So, why tobacco use is still allowed?

One reason is that governments collect a huge amount from tobacco sales taxes. Yet, the direct and indirect cost of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from the use of tobacco is about 10 times higher! (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631133/) Here is where we can justifiably say that human intelligence is highly overrated! :smile:

Another reason, however, could be that a decision such as forbidding cigarettes may have a similar effect with the Prohibition (alcohol ban) in the US in 1920.

Anyway, let's hope that we'll be luckier with the AI sector.
(We should maybe need to use ourselves some of the "intelligence" we ourselves have created! :grin:)

This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals. — universeness

Of course it's a personal view and complaint. Whose else could it be? :smile:

Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position? — universeness

I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all.

But let's come to the hot point in my message: the challenge!

The term 'physical,' described as: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... — universeness

I agree.

Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future. — universeness

This is a theretical approach based on an arbitrary use of undefined concepts. Certainly nothing physical in it.

Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. — universeness

Existence, reality, experiences, etc. All this is concepts, mental constracts. Not physical. We are not speaking here about psychological time ot how I perceive time in my mind, etc. This belongs to another area.

This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. — universeness

Don't quite get this.

I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. — universeness

Maybe so. OK, but about the physicality of time?

It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it. — universeness

Oh god. Is it I who needs to change my position regarding time, after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?

Godssake, universeness. Get real!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/ — Vera Mont

This is all I'm talking about: taking measures ...

Even if shut down tomorrow, its legacy will be around for a hundred thousand years. — Vera Mont

What is this legacy about?

In theory, the US could legislate gun control... but it's not going so well. — Vera Mont

It's a good thing you've brought up this, because I had the curiosity where do different countries stand ragarding guns control ...

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation)

Indeed US is the only place where guns are allowed. (A further research shows that only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions: US, Mexico, and Guatemala. A further research couls show the reasons why this is so. But I'm not willing to go that far!)
What we see here is a marked diversity in the reaction of governents regarding the same danger: that of bearing arms. Which means that governents can take measures measures against gun usage and indeed they do.

And how legislatures handled the simple, straightforward, known hazard of Covid was .... uneven at best — Vera Mont

Indeed. Governments respond differently under the same circumstances of dangers. This is a socio-political matter that maybe would be interesting to explore, but not in this medium, of course. But whatever are the reasons for such difference it is true that any government has the ability and the authority to pass legislation about dangers threatening not only the human beings but also the animals and the nature.

Development and application of computer technology is far more complicated and vested in more diverse interests. — Vera Mont

Right. That's what I talk about a lot of factors involved in handling potential dangers, including interests.
But I will come back to the essence of all this: potential dangers in a sector should not be a reason to stop the development in that sector, but a reason to take measures about that.
And the more voices, esp. from experts, are heard --including movements-- regarding the dangers from the use of AI, the more chances are that pertinent legislation will be eventually passed.

I have not seen it demonstrated that ever-increasing computing and automation capability is "mostly benefits". — Vera Mont

I don't know what can of "demonstation" are you expecting. There are many. But let this aside for the monment ...
Do you mean that the development of computing has stopped to be beneficial?
Are we at the end of the digital era?

On the negative side, however, the obvious present harm is already devastating and the potential threat is existential. — Vera Mont

Example(s)?

In any case, the point is moot, since nobody has the actual power to stop or shut down the ongoing development of these technologies. — Vera Mont

I don't have in mind any technology that has discontinued as beeing dangerous (although there may be). But I know that a lot of technologies have been discontinued because they wer obsolete. And this is usually the case and will continue to happen.
Just imagine that the nuclear technology will stop being developed --even discontinued-- and all nuclear power plants be closed because of the Chernobyl disaster. This would mean erasing from Earth this technology and finding another technology to replace the nuclear technology, which took more than a century to be developed to its current state.

You create instead a legislation about the use of that technology.
— Alkis Piskas
Which "you" does this? How? Even assuming any existing government had the necessary accord, and power, what would that proposed bill actually say? — Vera Mont

Whoever has the authority to do it. And through resolutions of the appropriate channels (Parialament) as any legislation is established. Technocrats may also be involved. I can't have the details!

A lot of experts are warning people, but they certainly can't issue public statements against e.g. smart weapons while collecting a salary from an arms manufacturer. ... — Vera Mont

OK, let's make it simple and real. How has legislation been passing regarding Covid-19? Weren't all the cases based on expert opinion and suggested solutions by experts? Who else could provide information about the dangers involved? And this was a very difficult case because humanity had no similar experience, i.e. basic information were missing, and also Covid-19 has changed its "face" a lot of times during the yesrs 2020-22.

Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration. — universeness

Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. Also, bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. Sometimes it may be useful but most of the times it's not at all. It's just a wate of time. And I don't mean only you: unfortunately a lot of people do it.)
You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course.

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges. — universeness

See, this doesn't help at all the discussion. It's just another view. And based on QM, not in real life. Not something anyone can experience, connect it to real life and so on. Such things are only useful for taining one's intellect. Like Math problems. They are fun, but they are not useful for our lives.
Philosophy to be valuable, must apply to life, to things that can be experienced or explain basic things in life and the Universe. 2,500 years ago, Heractitus said "Everything flows". This condensed "knowledge" explains the concept of time better than most theories of sophsiticated except "empty" or useless views about time I have come upon.

Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat. — universeness

Interesting. But it has nothing to do with what I have said so far neither helps me undestand better the nature of time ...

***

Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said.

This seems not really to the point. It seemed like you were painting concerns as merely irrational and perhaps stupid. — Bylaw

No, I believe there are indeed things to be concerned about. But what I'm saying is that they are attributed to the wrong place. Machines cannot be responsible for anything. They have no will. They can't be the cause of anything. They have no morality. They can't tell good from bad. As such they themselves cannot be a threat. (Threat: "A declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course" (Dictionary.com))

there are a number within the AI industry itself who have dropped out because of their growing concerns. — Bylaw

I undestand that. I would cetainly not want to participate myself in projects that present a danger for humanity. But if I were an expert in the field these projects are developed around, I would not simply drop out of the game but unstead start warning people, knowing well the dangers and having a credibility as an expert on the subject. Because, who else should talk and warn people? Those who are active working on such projects?

So, what are we supposed to do in the face of such possibility? Stop the development of AI? Discontinue its use?
— Alkis Piskas
Yes, I think that's be a good idea. Won't happen most likely and part of the reason is the way concerns are framed by others. — Bylaw

But you don't discontinue a technology that produces mostly benefits because it can also produce dangers! You create instead a legislation about the use of that technology. This is what I said at the end of my previes message. I repeat it here because I believe it is very important in dealing with hidden or potential dangers from the use of AI and which you are bringing it up yourself below.

Both dialogues are useful and neither benefits from painting people with concerns as silly or stupid. — Bylaw

I don't know if you are refering to me. As I said above, I do believe there are concerns and that a lot of responsible and knowledgeable on the subject people are correctly pointing them out. But unfortunately the vast majority of the claims are just nonsense and ignorance. I'm a professional programmer and also work with and use AI in my programming. I answer a lot of questions in Quora on the subject of AI and this is how I know thet most concerns are foundless if not nonsense. The hype about AI these days is so stroing and extensive that it looks like a wave that inundates all areas in our society. And of course, ignorance about AI prevails.

I don't see companies and governments as mature enough to handle and do oversight over these new techs. And in the US, government oversight is very controlled by industry. — Bylaw

You are right saying this. And I guess there are much more factors involved than immaturity: ignorance, will, conscience, interests ...

I can't really see your post, the one I orginally responded to as constructive, however. — Bylaw

The only post of mine you responded to me before this one was https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/823537

I've always thought of infinitesimals as part of the metaphysics of mathematics. They don't really exist in normal arithmetic, but have a mathematical description that allows them to be used in calculus, say. Leibniz came up with the idea, then a bit later the limit definitions took over. — jgill

Interesting. :up: