Comments

  • Climate Denial
    I see acts of kindness and generosity all over — Xtrix

    Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake — Xtrix


    There are some obvious reasons— mostly money — Xtrix

    So, being money-minded is genorisity then?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    Something like that. Was there a question? — Banno

    No, no question. Just needed to check if I was anywhere near the ballpark with Wittgenstein.
  • What is 'Belief'?
    that is, one cannot know something that is not true. One might think one knows it, but one would be mistaken. — Banno

    Can you prove the statement "one cannot know something that is not true"? Does this follow from the JTB (justified true belief) definition of knowledge. If yes, it's as arbitrary as the JTB. If no, kindly explain.

    I ask because I recently downloaded and watched an online philosophy course on the meaning of knowledge and the ditto claim appears in the course.
  • The Turing Rule
    Never having read anything by Leibniz, I am assuming that the "principle of the identity of indiscernibles" would dictate that two items which are utterly indiscernible must be held to be identical, ergo the same type of thing? — Michael Zwingli

    Yes.

    See below to a Marvel comics reference. Raven/Mystique refers to a shapeshifting supervillain/superhero.

    Raven, or is it Mystique — Gary M Washburn

    ↪T Clark
    Thanks for the link to ELIZA. Very interesting.

    To all three of the above members

    1. The principle of the indiscernibility of identicals: No issue here. If a and b are the same thing, for every predicate applicable to a (Px), Pa, that predicate is also true for b, Pb. In other words, if a = b implies .


    2. The principle of the identity of indiscernibles: Problematic. Why? Some but not all properties maybe shared. For instance, snow is white and also swans in the northern hemisphere are white. As far as whiteness goes, snow and these swans are indiscernible. Are snow and white swans identical? No! This is the weak version of the principle.

    In defense of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, it applies only if the objects in question are indiscernible in every sense i.e. if for every/all predicate Px, for a (Pa), it is also true that Pb, then a = b. This is the strong version of the principle and is, to my reckoning, clearly true.

    What about the Turing test? Clearly, it's an application of the Turing rule (the identity of indsicernibles, 2 above) but then people know that an AI is a machine and ergo, is definitely distinguishable from a person. So, people may raise an objection to the Turing test, that is to say, the Turing rule is the weak version of the principle of identity of indiscernibles.

    However, study closely what it is that's being assessed - consciousness. Consciousness has some behavioral correlates. For simplicity, let's say that the following predicates are true for consciousness: Pc and Qc where c is consciousness. Suppose now an AI (i) is such that Pi and also Qi. Put simply, the AI (i) is indistinguishable/indiscernible in every and all respects from consciousness (c). This, as you might've already noticed, is the strong version of the principle of identity of indiscernibles. In other words, the Turing test and the Turing rule are immune to the Raven/Mystique rebuttal.
  • The Turing Rule
    When I look up "Turing principle" it discusses the computability of functions. I don't think that's what you're talking about. What do you mean specifically? — T Clark

    I edited the OP to correct the confusion.
  • Are humans evil?
    The Aché (allegedly commit infanticide & senicide) are neither angels nor fiends. They're human — Yuval Noah Harari
  • The Turing Rule
    ↪Gary M Washburn


    You overestimate and underestimate at the same time.
  • The Turing Rule
    ↪T Clark
    My examples have been hypothetical. Can you cite any real-world examples of the Turing principle in action?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Yes it is too much indeed. And that's why you can never have a fruitful discussion with a fanatic (both sides fanatic, theists or atheists).

    If a religion person denies these historical atrocities or excuses them saying it was "God's will" then you better turn your back and leave. Anything else would be a waste of time.
    But then not all theists are like that. Some recognize them and realize how unjust these atrocities were.     — dimosthenis9

    True but what made "some (religious folk) recognize them (atrocities) and realize how unjust these atrocities were"? Can't be religion itself - scriptures have remained exactly as they were for nearly 20000 years. Ergo, this moral growth has to be the work of secular/atheistic forces.

    To be fair, I feel both theism and atheism are, despite their antithetical relationship, partners insofar as ethics is the issue - they seem to work synergistically. Concordia discordis.
  • The Turing Rule
    I'm mostly interested in the broad principle you described, what you call the "identity of indescernibles," — T Clark

    So, what's your take? Do you think the Turing principle (identity of indiscernibles) is justified/unjustified?

    Does it follow that, if X and Y are indistinguishable, X = Y?
  • What is 'Belief'?
    Beliefs are propositions that one holds to be true.

    Belief systems are sets of assumed/accepted as true propositions that constitute an internally consistent picture of the world.

    When we examine, put beliefs and belief systems under the microscope, we're checking whether or not they are justified and/or internally and externally consistent.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Religion has a role both in evil and good of course. And if you want to attribute evil in religions you have to attribute good also. If we wanna be fair.

    But my point is that religion doesn't transform people from good to evil. It's always a personal choice what you will follow.
    It is true that many people use religion as an "excuse" for being good or evil. But if someone chooses to follow evil (or good) he would use any other excuse also even if it wasn't religion. Some tragedy in his life, or anger for corrupted political system, or unhappy childhood etc etc. We can't take away the personal responsibility from each persons choices and just attribute it to religion. Blame "bad" religions for everything.

    And at my thread if you remember I was strongly doubted that religions make more evil than good at the end. That people who probably use them as a "reason", "excuse" to act good are more than those who use them for evil. Maybe that's why is still necessary for our societies. Imo it's still the best "worse" moral glue for humanity.Considering the average low intellectual level of humans worldwide.     — dimosthenis9

    Of course there are many reasons, some you've mentioned, why people turn to the dark side but you can't deny that religion is one such reason. History is replete with instances of religiously-motivated atrocities. We could, with great effort of course, forgive such heinous acts (genocide and more) but then to also have to accept that it was divinely ordained is a tad too much, no?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    What is it that any groundbreaking philosopher is doing when they construct an idiosyncratic vocabulary? Even before they have written a word of it or even fully articulated their new concepts in words, they have an inner sense of this new way of thinking that they consult , refer to , modify. Ostensive definition is only useful
    if you want to copy dictionary definitions. In terms of how we actually use words, we rely on their sense for us in relation to each of our unique ways of understanding the world. My sense of each word I write here is slightly different from your sense of these words as you read them. Ostension misses this about actual
    word use. It is an abstraction that covers over what is really happening.     — Joshs

    I guess I should say that's exactly Wittgenstein's point - even words that have referents that all of us can see, point to (ostensive), we make errors. So, a fortiori, words that are about inner experiences fare worse.
  • The Turing Rule
    Dude, don't re-interpret the Turing test. Stick to what the Turing test says. — Caldwell

    I have done no such thing.
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    when I am in doubt about the uses of words in my private language , I consult a written text or my memory of the context of use of that word in sentences and paragraphs that determine its sense. — Joshs

    You can't write about inner experiences because the definitions of the words are ostensive and that would mean every time you think of a word in your private language you would need to recall what it referred to but what if you're not sure? You would be stuck in a loop.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Thanks alot! — Michael Zwingli

    You're welcome!
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Well I don't agree with Mr. Steven on that at all. Being good or evil is a mater of personal choice at the end. And nothing else. If people use as an excuse religion to be good or evil that doesn't change that it is still a personal choice after all.

    Religion isn't a magic pill that "transforms" good people into evil.     — dimosthenis9

    You're trying to eat the cake and have it too. You can't claim religion has been a part of our lives and then go on to assert that religion has no role in evil.
  • The Turing Rule
    Careful with the syllogism. Not that the computer, if it passes the test, is a person. It is that the computer is intelligent. — Caldwell

    You can't tell the difference and, ergo, by the Turing rule, the AI is a conscious (makes it a person) OR, intriguingly, if that's a hard pill to swallow, acknowledge the problem of other minds.

    What you call "the identity of indiscernables," a phrase I hadn't heard before, is a central one to how I see the world. If you can't tell the difference, there is no difference. Both the Turing test and the P-zombie apocalypse are good tests of the principle. — T Clark

    I avoided including p-zombies in the OP because I wanted to focus on the Turing principle.

    Anyway, since you brought it up, let's discuss.

    A person (P), an AI (I), and a p-zombie (Z) are all identical as in they can't be identified if all 3 are in a room.

    Ergo, as per the Turing principle:

    1. P, I, Z are all actually conscious. P-zombies are impossible (physicalism) but AI is conscious.

    2. P, I, Z are all not actually conscious. P-zombies are possible (nonphysicalism) but other persons lack consciousness (solipsism).
  • Coronavirus
    Reading this, isn't there a chance that some traditional vaccine, followed later by an mRNA vaccine, could give extra immunity? — jorndoe

    We might fall between two stools or perhaps have the best of both worlds.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    [ — Michael Zwingli

    ]

    I thought I might help you finish what you started. :grin:
  • Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox.
    TheMadFool, you are asking me to teach you in here a subject that takes months to learn!
    I have already told you quite a few things that pout AI in the right perspective. Yet, you have not taken them seriously.

    BTW, and this should actually be my first response to the topic: You shouldn't have launched a topic, start taking in details and develop "advanced" ideas about a technical subject that you don't know well enough!     — Alkis Piskas

    Aye!
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Exactly. And unfortunately it's what humanity still needs. What "works" better, for most people at least. Or else people wouldn't maintain so passionately religions till now. — dimosthenis9

    With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weingberg
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    And yet at my thread "what can replace God?" you were doubting that most people even nowadays get their morals from religions. — dimosthenis9

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I did mention religious morals are acceptable but the reason for doing so seems to rather deplorable - want of reward/fear of penalty. That's just monetary logic - you're merely buying your way into heaven with good deeds as the currency of choice.

    Secular ethics, if you take care to notice, is neither about reward nor about punishment. The secular moral theories out there are all about good for the sake of good.
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    @Banno

    I like the beetle in a box thought experiment. It goes like this: Exclusively private experiences (qualia and others) are hidden from the public eye i.e. it's impossible to crosscheck the referent for correctness. Yet, oddly, there are words that refer to private experiences like pain, joy, etc. How's this possible? Consistent external cues obviously.

    So when I'm in pain, I wince, cry, and so on - these outward manifestations are observable and are the pseudo-referents of words that, purportedly, describe the corresponding inner mind states. However, intriguingly, there's no way I can tell that my pain is the same, qualitatively and quantitatively, as yours or anyone else - the contents of the box (beetle/whatever), according to Wikipedia, "...drops out of consideration..."

    Pain (feeling) -> Wince & Cry -> "Pain" (word). Put simply, words that refer to inner experience must have some observable outer signs. If no such cues are available, inner experiences can't be discussed with other people or, if one insists that's not true, only at the level of visible external features.

    A private language (specifically designed for pure inner experience that doesn't possess any kind of outwardly detectable signs) is untranslatable & incomprehensible (to others).

    Now, if I construct a private language, what happens is I can't determine if I'm using the words correctly (consistently), necessary for comprehension. The only person who knows what words mean in a private language is myself and if ever I doubt the meaning of these words, I have only myself to consult but that's a dead end - that I doubt means I don't know and if I don't know how can I clear my doubt?

    Hence, the nature of many experiences (religious, mystical, nirvana) :point:



    Show, don't tell
  • Does thinking take place in the human brain?
    Does thinking take place in the human brain? — Alkis Piskas

    What a superb question. I wouldn't say it's a definite NO!, but have you considered Revelations - these being, in a sense, divine transmissions via prophets (recievers).

    Too, we might need to work backwards here - do a thorough analysis of the human brain (its substance, construction, architecture, and so on) and try to figure out the nature of the signal it's meant to pick up/receive?

    I mean, if I see a radio antenna and study it, can't I somehow come to know it's for radio. Intriguingly, are insects tuned in on some kind of frequency arthropoda antennae (biology)?

    Basically, the song on your radio is not generated by the radio.
  • Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox.
    OK, we both believe that each is not reading or undestanding of what the other says. So, here's something more general and simple: It is very evident that you don't know what AI is. So, what's the purpose of talking and talking and talking about it? — Alkis Piskas

    What is AI then? Please edify me of it. Keep it simple- I'm computer-illiterate. Much obliged.
  • Climate Denial
    What I was referring to was not rational assent. Many people accept the reality of anthropogenically induced, or at least enhanced, climate change. What to do about it, including accepting a fairly drastic reduction in one's prosperity, comfort and convenience is the real stumbling block. The fact is that really significant change needs to be mandated by governments, but again the problem is getting any government that proposed such radical changes voted in, and then voted in again and again for a sufficient series of terms to effect the needed changes. — Janus

    So, the choices are either a benevolent dictator OR ecological collapse? Mother Nature has us cornered, has us by the balls. :grin: Magnifique!

    That's the way people seem to be; does it matter whether it has "anything to do with our nature"? The important question would be whether we can find a way to work around this inertia before it's too late. Your question reminds me of the Buddhist story about the person who has been shot with a poison arrow wanting to know what kind of poison it was, what kind of wood was the bow and arrow made from, who made the bow and arrow and so on, before consenting to treatment. — Janus

    Of course it matters. Didn't you hear? Mother Nature knows best! We better keep on pumping more CO2, even CFCs, billions and billions of methane, into the atmosphere. That's what she wants us to do for God's sake!

    It reminds me of a year or so old thread :point: In the book of Joshua, why does God have the Israelites march around the walls of Jericho for 6 days?

    My contribution for what it's worth to the thread was:

    If an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being was on your side in a battle, wouldn't it be silly to question faer commands? Of course, assuming such a being exists. — TheMadFool

    Connect the dots - Dear ol' Mother Nature is comparatively orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. I think this isn't the time to be asking questions about whether what we're doing is right or wrong. We should, as Nike puts it, JUST DO IT! Maybe there's light at the end of this rather dark, very dark, tunnel.
  • Climate Denial
    joke explained is a joke lost. — Wayfarer

    :lol:
    You shouldn't have to explain a joke.
  • Intelligence - Party Paradox
    Both ridiculous assumptions. Viruses and other bacteria are highly intelligent, being able to adapt to their surroundings and gain immunity to threats that once put them in peril. Just because we can't communicate with them or detect any form of thought in the manner of our own doesn't mean they don't "think". What's the difference between a man deciding to take a back road when his regular route is obstructed by a collision to avoid the inconvenience or hassle and a virus deciding to mutate to avoid succumbing to a vaccine? Sure, the man can say "this is why I did this" and anyone listening can smile, nod, and agree, but the same intelligence is present in both cases. That is to say, minus the fancy titles and vocalization, the same effect remains. — Outlander

    The Mind - No Mind Equivalency Paradox. Hence, this thread which is, in a sense, asking is human-like intelligence beginning/ending, evolutionarily speaking?
  • Climate Denial
    They’re also known as ‘warmists’. You know, people who run around scaring the populace with nonsense about climate change. — Wayfarer

    :lol: You did a volte face faster than you can say Jack Robinson. What made you change your mind?
  • Climate Denial
    ↪Janus
    Minor differences, overall agreement. That's how I would describe our exchange.

    Can you go a bit deeper into this inertia concept? Does it have anything to do with our nature? What could explain it? People seem to take lots and lots of convincing before they decide to not accept but just to merely consider a point of view. I've experienced this myself - it takes a huge amount of effort just to get heard, forget about changing people's minds.
  • Climate Denial
    OK, then I'm not sure what you think could have been achieved in decades that took a couple of centuries. — Janus

    Positive change. Climate change has been a hot topic since 1900's (Svante Arrhenius) and it's now the 2000's - it's taking a hell of a long time for the danger to sink in.
  • Climate Denial
    Not sure what you mean by "good civilizations" as opposed to "mere civilizations". If you have in mind our present state of "uber-civilization", this was achieved as quickly as it has been due to, as Wayfarer mentioned, the "boon' of fossil fuels. I don't think inertia has been all that much of a problem when, as circumstances have allowed, it comes to transitioning to greater prosperity, comfort and convenience; I'm not convinced that many of us resist that kind of change. It's change in the other direction that causes us to dig our heels in, I would say. — Janus

    By good civilization, I mean one that's in keeping with how nature works - harmoniously with other species and the environment itself - and so, is in some kind of sustainable equilibrium with everything else. Mere civilization is the one we have at present - disequilibrium defines it.
  • Agriculture - Civilisation’s biggest mistake?
    The one positive outcome of the agricultural revolution was morality/ethics - as more and more people began to live together, it became necessary for some kind of rules/laws (read: moral codes) that provided the glue for harmonious coexistence. Morality, initially, served only one purpose - to dilute/eradicate homo homini lupus - but as time went by, the moral wilderness began attracting first, animals (animal rights movement), and now, even plants (ecological movement). The trend is as plain as the noses on our faces - morality/ethics encompasses, should do so, all life. Thus, humans become, despite our many qualitiies that contradict it, the guardians of life, the biosphere. We need to take this responsibility seriously and turn over a new leaf and right the wrongs we've inflicted on the living world.
  • Climate Denial
    I don't think it's predominately greed that is the problem at all. Most of us are not that greedy; what we are is addicted to our present prosperous, comfortable lifestyles (at least most of us who have such lifestyles and are the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions are it seems).

    It seems the majority just won't vote for any government that would seek to diminish comfort, convenience and prosperity; it's inertia, not greed, that is the major problem, as I see it. And as Bitter Crank mentioned the transition from a fossil fuel based economy to an economy based on sustainable energy is an enormous, seemingly almost insurmountable problem, just as are reduction of the human population, making the transition to an economics of de-qrowth, and giving up the multiple evils of industrial farming practices which are destroying soils everywhere and fish-farming and general over-fishing which is degrading the oceans.     — Janus

    You mean to say inertia as in a resistance to change like in physics how it's difficult to start/stop motion. You might have a point there; this same inertia has been the stumbling block for positive change throughout the ages - what could've been achieved in, say, a decade took over a coupla centuries, in the process delaying the transition from mere civilizations to good civilizations.
  • Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox.
    I thought I have already cleared that there;s no such thing as "true AI". Do you actually read my comments? I'm sorry to ask that, but your above statement indicates that you don't.
    Anyway, I will ignore it ...     — Alkis Piskas

    I'll have to repeat myself because you seem not to have understood my point. There are a lot of computer systems (Google for more information) out there that people want to pass off as AI but, the thing is, they're not. Thus, I had to make it explicit that I was referring to true AI (as of yet hypothetical) and AI (actual).

    It's kinda like how North Korea is known as the democratic republic of Korea - not a true democracy.

    No computer is labelled "AI". I explained what AI is. But you don't read what I write ... This is a misinformation and confusion spread in the Internet. Second time caught not reading what I'm writing!
    Anyway, I am an AI programmer. So, AI is quite real to me as well that the computer I work with is not an "AI computer"! It's just ridiculous!     — Alkis Piskas

    I don't see why you should have found what I wrote wrong in any way then.

    I said "it looks like all this is based on false premise(s)". A puzzling question that is based on a fallacy or contains false premises or assumptions cannot be called a "paradox". A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
    I'll give you a classic example. Most people call and consider "Achilles and the tortoise" a "paradox". However, it is very easily rejected as a real problem because it is based on the false assumption (fallacy) the time and space are discontinuous, finite and thus divisible. So there's no paradox here either. See what I mean?     — Alkis Piskas

    I know what a paradox is but thanks for the explanation. Back to the main page:

    For a computer to disobey its programming it must obey the command to disobey.

    How is this not a paradox? :chin:
  • Climate Denial
    Did not Mother Nature endow us with care and concern for others as well? Why is greed given primacy? Especially when you see generosity all around. So why make us generous and loving? — Xtrix

    Yes, but arguably our proclivities aren't equally matched - greed/selfishness trumps genorosity/altruism any day.

    It’s not Mother Nature, and it’s not human nature. It’s not genes. It’s about a society that elevates some aspects of human behavior and suppresses others. The dominant system today is called capitalism. — Xtrix

    I humbly beg to differ. If we weren't as avaricious as we are, money wouldn't be our priority and then things might've been different.

    Coming back to what I said earlier, I still feel that Mother Nature's to blame for her own predicament. Life is, all said and done, selfish - evolution made us that way and now we're supposed to feel guilty about how we (mis)managed the situation. C'mon!

    By the way, are we sure that climate change isn't what Mother Nature actually had in mind when she, over billions of years, perfected human grabbiness?
  • Climate Denial
    Status quo über alles – Cui bono? Follow the money. — 180 Proof

    Are you saying the earth and all living organisms on it, that includes us, are at the mercy of a few people with vested interests in oil? That's uplifting!

    See my reply to Xtrix below.

    There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well. — Xtrix

    Yes, money seems to be the prime suspect. It's the obvious choice from any list of reasons why there are climate deniers. My question then is, does the buck have to stop there? I'm calling for a deeper analysis of money. Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results (we're what evolutionary biologists might call a successful species). Doesn't the whole issue look like mother nature's plan backfired? Climate change then is not man-made, life/mother nature is to blame. Why make us greedy?
  • Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox.
    ↪Daemon
    I can vaguely discern what you mean to say - does it have something to do with Searle's Chinese Room Argument?

    Computers are simply circuits and electricity - they actually don't know that, for example, they're adding 2 and 2 when given the instruction 2 + 2 = (picture a calculator). It's just that we've designed the circuitry and electricity flow in such a way that the output is 4.
  • Agriculture - Civilisation’s biggest mistake?
    Yes, perhaps, but the important part for abstract thinking, upon which all art and science depends, namely the frontal region, has grown tremendously, while the evolutionarily less important parietal and occipital regions have shrunk. — Michael Zwingli

    So, disinformation is not beneath Yuval Noah Harari. His book was just getting interesting. Oh well! I suppose he had his reasons to make that claim or maybe he didn't know or perhaps you're wrong or where you picked that tidbit from has poor credibility ratings. More possibilities than I can handle.

    Point is, the cause of human inequity, and so of suffering amidst abundance (the very abundance partially resulting from agricultural industry) proceeds not from extraneous causes, but from within us, as a result of our nature. — Michael Zwingli

    Yep, we're hunter-gatherers; ill-equipped for farming, and whatever else that followed from ploughing fields, planting seeds & irrigating them.

    Harari also points out that human intellect or whatever it is that put us on top of the food chain brought about change at such a pace that the environment and other animals had no time to adapt. The usual way things happen in evolutionatry terms is a slow rate, spanning over millions of years, at which individual species impact other species and the environmentn giving them time to, well, adjust. Human impact, however, has occurred over a mere 30 or so thousand years, agriculture being one of them.
Home » TheMadFool