:lol: Perhaps you could offer me a little trust that my intentions are honorable and offer a little more depth of your own personal opinion towards the viewpoints I raise in the OP, beyond ""pseudo-profound bullshit"

Perhaps you could say which of my sentences in the OP best fit your two categories below, in your opinion and why?

On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true. — Yohan

I think Dennet was quoting a 'child,' when he used the term 'deepidy.'.

I don't think there's a syndicate or organization with the sole purpose of generating and perpetuating delusions — Agent Smith

Yeah, I agree. There are many nefarious groups/organisations but I don't think there has ever been a group that is so well structured, that they have the power to fool all of the human population of the planet all of the time. Perhaps some groups can fool a large number of people often, but not all of the people all of the time.

All I can say at the moment is we don't seem to be 100% rational, a necessity, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Rational is such a relative term, isn't it? It requires the confirmation of others and it's easily abused and obfuscated. If I claim to be 100% rational at all times and everyone around me agree's because I might kill them if they don't then we have the rationality of autocrats like Putin or madmen/opportunists like Trump. Yet what you say has merit. Rational thinking is not always the best way to deal with irrational situations, so I agree if you are suggesting that not being 100% rational all the time is a necessity for survival.

for our second birth (we are born twice I believe), 1st physically, then 2nd mentally. Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team? — Agent Smith

You would have to give me some more about your idea of a 'mental' birth moment/time frame?
I assume you are not contrasting with the evanhellical notion of 'born again.' I assume you are typing about a moment of 'self-clarity,' as to 'who you are,' and 'what you want,' that you are 'content' with. This is why I value these two questions so much but what exactly do you mean by 'mental birth,' if it's different from what I have suggested?

We're so deluded that — Agent Smith

I have at least a hundred questions for you based on these words alone Agent Smith but can I at least ask:

In your opinion, was this an accidental/deliberate result of the nefarious actions of historically rich, powerful, influential individuals/groups?
Are we 'so deluded' despite all the efforts of the classical/modern philosophers/scientists or were some/all/the majority of them complicit in your perceived goal to 'delude' the majority of their own species?

A designed entity that can rival humans at translation will likely be along the lines of a ‘wet-wear’ creature that we interact with rather than ‘program’.
— Joshs

I agree that interaction will probably be primary. 'Wet' may not matter. Why should moisture matter? My money is on stuff-independent structure. — jas0n

Wetwear is just a buzz term that currently belongs more to sci-fi than computing science.
We don't have any technology that you could call an 'organic' or biological computer, such technologies are still very much in their infancy.
If we had little self-replicating nanobots which we could inject into our body and they could then become part of us and we could have a small control system attached to and controlled by our brain that controlled the nanobots and could be used to combat disease in our bodies and keep our blood clean and help heal our wounds very quickly then such could be labeled wetwear.
At the moment, the term is really just a way of categorising the workings of the human brain in deference to the computing terms hardware and software. The term wetware has very limited significance to the world of computing at the moment.

so they did not have the option of choosing a modern free market system , whereas we moderns, being the consequence of older thinking like Epicureanism, have the requisite knowledge to choose to set up an Epicurean commune if we want — Joshs

But if a group did choose to set up an Epicurean communal system, I assume that they would do so because they thought that was a better or superior way to live compared to modern capitalism so the newest system is not always the superior one.

Shouldn’t it be the case that they are superior precisely because they are a consequence of ? Isn’t that the whole point and value of advancement in understanding , that you take with you but build upon the old knowledge? The latin root of superior is ‘above’. There cannot be an above without a below, a foundation, a ground. The above is consequent on the below — Joshs

To me, this thinking is based on a very old bias. The notion that up is in some way superior to down or right is superior to left. This is mathematical BS, is it not?
My rights rather than my lefts, a bill of rights, human rights. no bill of lefts. Your last two sentences suggest equal importance between the foundations and that which is built upon it. We see further only because we stand on the shoulder of previous scientists. I maintain my rejection of your use of 'superior' in the context you employ it.

The new know-how is superior to the old know—how in that one’s newer knowledge gives one the option of building a replica of the older model but the earlier era of technology in which the older model did not have the option of building the newer model. — Joshs

I am not arguing about the advantages that the new may have over the old, but 'superiority' is a different matter. You are pushing the 'above' relationship with the word 'superior' but there are other relationships such as the aristocratic/divine or even nazi connotations associated with the word.
Industrial created more wealth and prosperity for most compared to early agricultural but the consequence of climate change suggests that from the point of view of looking after our planet, industrial is not superior to agricultural. A faster and more efficient car may not be superior to a more roomy, aesthetically pleasing car.
In science, it is often better and quicker to get a computer to 'process data,' but it is often wise to also check where you can using pen, paper and human to check the computer's result.

The newer era is superior — Joshs

An interesting case in point. Art has always been and will always be in the eye of the beholder so I don't see how you can ever use the word 'superior' in relation to art. I am personally not a fan of modern art, at all, no matter what new technique, not available to the old masters, is employed.

I want to be clear that what I’m saying isn’t that newer painting or cars aren’t necessarily aesthetically superior or prettier than the older versions, but that the newer ways of understanding art or car technology are superior to the older because they stand on the shoulders of the old ways and provide more. choices. — Joshs

Ok, I responded to earlier comments before I read this but no matter as this allows me to highlight the clear difference between us. I think it is that you see that which is built on top of the foundations as being 'superior' to those foundations due to the added advantages and my position is that those advantages are often not so advantageous and that the foundations are equal in importance to any enhancement and are not inferior.

Another line of thought might be, in your opinion, is the capitalist free market economy 'superior' to the Epicurean commune?

Is modern physics superior to Newtonian physics? — Joshs

Can there be a modern physics without Newtonian physics?
Modern physics has the larger scope due to Newtonian physics.

Do they subsume and transcend their older versions — Joshs

Are scientists smarter now than they were then? I don't like your use of 'superior.'
A car can always be faster and have more functionality and more efficiency than an earlier model but that does not necessarily make it 'superior,' as I'm sure classic and vintage car enthusiasts will attest to.
I am not suggesting scientific advancement is identical in consequence to technological advancement in cars but I think the principle holds regarding 'superiority.'

that the new is superior to the old to the extent that it subsumes and enriches the old, giving us the option to choose from among a variety of ways of thinking ( including the old) that the older approach could not? — Joshs

No, in my opinion, such are not superior as they are a consequence of.

An electronic knowledge base is quite unlike a human memory — Daemon

Evidence?

That's no way to achieve clarity is it? "The Mars Rover "kind of" emulates human thought". — Daemon

I was not going for absolutes. I was going for a level of comparison between a current AI system and human thought processes. An electronic knowledge base that can be queried is comparable, as an emulation of a human querying their own previous experience. They are not exactly the same but they are comparable.

Do you feel the same way about old science vs new science? — Joshs

I don't see them as combative. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants,' is how new science should forever view old science.

Does science advance, such that ignoring the distinction between old and new theories in physics or biology is hard to justify? — Joshs

To me, the term 'new science,' can often be portrayed, by some, as in some way 'superior,' to 'old science.' I simply defend against that. Otherwise, I have no problem with the two labels 'old' and 'new' applied to anything. I also don't fully subscribe to the comment that an 'old head' is wiser than a 'new head.' Perhaps it's true in a majority of cases but certainly not all.

I don't really subscribe to old ways or new ways of thinking, especially on a website that is forever quoting from ancient thinking and thinkers. There are just different/alternate ways of thinking. I am happy to accept any way of thinking if it results in new knowledge.

The Mars Rovers do not match or surpass the way humans access experience because they don't have experience. — Daemon

Perhaps that's why I included the words 'kind of' and put them in quotes for emphasis.
I don't have the qualifications in cognitive science or in the development of Mars rovers to make statements like yours above.

There's a Twilight Zone episode where a creep goes to 'Heaven' (where he wins every game without effort, etc.) and slowly figures out it's the bad place — jas0n

Yeah, I have the Twilight Zone box sets. I remember the episode well.
I wonder how long it would be before the physical joy of an eternal orgasm would turn into a horrific scream. Pleasure of any kind must reach a 'ok stop now because I am full,' point. Hell must exist or else heaven cannot be. We are creatures who need comparators as you state yourself.
Of course, theists get around this easily by claiming 'you are trying to conceive 'heaven' with a human mind and you cant do that,' my answer is normally 'but that's all I have! and it's all you have too!' They will normally just respond with a head shake and a comment like 'have faith in god!' To which I INTERNALLY say 'AW F*** OFF!' :naughty:

Dreyfus used Heidegger's work to argue against the hopes for AI back in his day. I think the approach was more symbolic at the time. I'm more hopeful with a continuous (floating-point ) approach. The internal thought of just boxes of numbers, not unlike the brain perhaps, if interpreted appropriately. — jas0n

I think our best attempts algorithmically are 'object oriented' approaches combined with the idea of 'methods.' The autonomous vehicles we have sent to the planets are amongst our best AI attempts compared to say 'expert systems.' The Mars rovers such as spirit, curiosity, opportunity and the new one, 'perseverance' have demonstrated a kind of 'learning' ability. They go a little bit beyond just 'pattern matching' algorithms. Their heuristic algorithms can 'make decisions,' based on a combination of their sensory inputs and their 'recorded data of previous experience.' This previous experience is recorded as a 'knowledge base,' which is formed based on 'training scenarios.' the rover is put through on Earth. This knowledge base can be 'queried,' by the system to simulate a human asking an internal question.
This system does 'kind of,' emulate how humans access their previous experience to make decisions when faced with new unpredicted/unexpected conditions never encountered before.

I wouldn't use that exact word for it myself. I understand that (perhaps incorrectly) in terms of even a copper atom having its little allowance of 'consciousness.' — jas0n

There are many varieties of panpsychism, such as cosmopsychism etc but I don't think the initial 'ingredients' or quanta or initial composites of consciousness are as interesting as it's possible future 'composites.' Our two consciousnesses are networking in such an easy and convenient way that has never existed for the vast majority of the past 14 billion years. The internet does bring individual human consciousnesses closer than has ever been possible before. Surely the distance between us will blur more and more as time passes and transhuman technologies propagate.
I remember watching the much underrated (in my opinion) film AI by Steven Spielberg.
The futuristic creatures portrayed near the end of that movie were 'individual' but also had the ability to merge or act collectively by 'tapping into' the experience of any one of their fellows.
All this stuff is part of why I don't understand the theist position. I would be so so disappointed if any of the religions turn out to be true. The future possibilities for the human species are far more exciting in my opinion than anything heaven posits have to offer.

Translation is one of my fields of expertise, in that I have worked as a translator (using a "Computer Assisted Translation" or CAT tool) for 20 years. — Daemon

I take it you mean human language translators rather than the many other 'translators' used in Computing such as translating high-level languages into low-level languages or into binary etc.

Part of the Advanced Higher computing course we taught included a unit on natural language translation. Computers don't 'understand' anything at all, so you are of course correct.
Getting a computer to process context is one of the hardest parts of NLP.
"Spies like us." Are these spies who like us or spies who ARE like us?
The heuristic algorithms we used employed the semantic and syntactic rules of English to enable the system to display all of the possible contextual meanings on the screen and ask the user to choose which one was closest to the intended meaning. A poor solution but good enough for the purposes of the teaching content of the unit.

Do you think that it is valid to posit that there exists a reference frame within which the Universe ends when YOU die?
— universeness

That's a sound empirical hypothesis. — Wayfarer

Would you end your statement there or would you offer any further opinion on the significance or consequences of the reference frame I suggest?

I confess that I really don't know. — jas0n

I don't either but I find that I live in very exciting times but also very unstable.
I think we are at a turning point. Extinction or humanism is my honest opinion.
I think we are doomed if we don't achieve global unity, economic parity for all and a determination to leave our little pale blue nest and extend our species beyond this planet.

The gradient points in the best direction for the next baby step. — jas0n

I like your 'baby step,' analogy. I think that's currently quite accurate for 'significant advances in AI.'
I really don't think there is ANY danger of a data/information singularity, anytime soon.

No. I just don't see why it won't happen eventually. We're near the beginning of the revolution. An economic/military arms race will only accelerate the process perhaps, though Skynet might get us first — jas0n

I think it will happen eventually, yes but do you think the potential technological movements toward a transhuman distant future is evidence of emerging panpsychism?
Humans merging with technology! Cyborgs/human brains contained in cybernetic bodies/human consciousness transferred to cloned bodies etc. All these sci-fi projections of transhumanism. Will this eventually mean more 'networking' of individual consciousnesses and the ultimate result would be a Universal consciousness which is a merging of the individual consciousness of every lifeform in the Universe? Could such a manifestation of panpsychism satisfy the god criteria, ie the Omni's?
So the reason the god posit has always been with us, is because it is our ultimate fate/goal.
I don't particularly subscribe to this, I am an atheist through and through but I find the 'ultimate result of technological advancement,' interesting.

An 'operationalized' definition of consciousness might involve something like a Turing test. If you are talking on the phone with some voice and don't know if that voice is conscious or not, then it's 'operationally conscious' (in the context of that particular test.) — jas0n

I have never seen or read about any AI system that can pass the Turing test in any interesting way, have you?

Do you know if they've got any big computers that can do it almost instantaneously ? I haven't checked in for awhile. I never focused on NLP, but I know the theory of SGD pretty well. — jas0n

:rofl: I've never heard of SGD, so much for my 30 years teaching computing science! I only taught to advanced higher level in Scottish Secondary Schools and I only taught the curriculum so thats my excuse. I have tried to 'keep up' with my field but I still haven't heard of SGD. A quick internet search
took me to https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/ml-stochastic-gradient-descent-sgd/
and I read a little about Stochastic Gradient Descent. Sounds to me like a 'fine tuning' methodology to better predict what word has been spoken. I have not seen or heard of any natural language translator that is any major improvement on a system such as 'siri,' have you?

Am I conscious ? Is it plausible that I (manifested as this stream of text) am the output of a program? Because you know the field, you'll probably say no. But how about a century from now? — jas0n

Oh, I totally agree! Although I think you are setting a very ambitious time frame. I think some seriously transhuman creations are in our future but I think it will take thousands of years not hundreds and only of course if we can prevent our own extinction.

I made the point about the subjective nature of time itself. I drew on some quotes from various scientists on that point. The very fabric of space and time is in some fundamental sense generated by the mind. — Wayfarer

Do you think that it is valid to posit that there exists a reference frame within which the Universe ends when YOU die?
Personal oblivion due to death means no awareness for YOU of the passage of time.
So for you, after death, the remaining lifespan of the Universe is instant.
Is this a valid reference frame or just a human arrogance of the importance of 'self.'
The arrogance of 'me, me , me!!'

Computing Science is my field of 'expertise,' in that I taught the subject for 30 years.
NLP is progressing but it's still pretty bad with dialect and translation of the 'spoken' word.
Universal translators are still quite a way off I think. I don't think I will be able to visit a non-English speaking country in my lifetime and be wearing an earpiece that speaks to me in English that which is spoken to me in Spanish. Even if we do get such technologies working perfectly, I don't see how this helps answer the questions I asked about.

Excellent questions! Altered Carbon runs with this idea and allows personality/memory/self to be stored on a kind of flash drive. Is there anything special about our brain meat? Don't know ! — jas0n

Thanks, I wish we had some answers! Come on ye scientists!

Ah, but that brain is part of the dream — jas0n

But that only makes sense if my brain exists in a world outside that dream. — jas0n

Well, your brain can be preserved in formaldehyde for much longer than a human lifespan.
Are 'you' still in there? What about those who get their head preserved in cryogenic storage?
They hope to be revived at some point in the future.
Einstein's brain was dissected which is unfortunate if he could have been brought back.
The information on a computer hardisk is not lost when the drive is separated from the computer.
If only we could read the contents of a dead human brain like we can from a memory chip.
It remains a complete unknown for now I think.
Does the brain of a dead human have to be allowed to 'disassemble,' before YOU can become truly dead. Are YOU gone from the brain the second you die?

If you take away waves, what is left of the sea? — 180 Proof

Potential.

Here is an offering from MUSE:



Propaganda permeates all levels of society, even between two people in a relationship as suggested by MUSE above so, I think its always been used to 'show your tribe/nation,' as the best one available. Is there any country (apart from perhaps the poorest ones) whose leaders do not constantly publically claim that their country and their politics is the best country and the best politics in the world ever ever EVER!

I think I am beginning to hate Latin! Why do people think it adds something if you 'type some Latin,' to augment? :death: Sorry for this little rant, nothing personal intended, just one of my current 'pet annoyances.'

I am not so intrigued by the proposal that consciousness is a composite of smaller quanta but I accept that it probably is because I believe that everything is based on smaller and smaller quanta.
Do you think distant future advances in transhumanism will make the merging of individual consciousness more likely?

What I find most interesting is the human need to know or at least the need to ask questions.
It does not seem to matter how often humans make statements such as 'we can never know' or 'there is no answer,' or 'it is pointless to ask the question.' The questions that we cannot answer still have an 'existence' and as long as they do, someone will ask them. Saying 'that a particular question will NEVER be answered,' will NEVER be fully accepted because humans are convinced that 'time brings change.' So change gives hope of an answer 'in time.'
That is the human condition. Perhaps this is where individual contentment can be found.
Only if you can take your basic means of survival for granted and you have relatively good health of course. Then you might be able to just enjoy a life of thinking and doing and asking big complex questions that no one can currently answer and still be very happy and not die utterly mentally destroyed or completely mad because you couldn't answer the meaning of life the Universe and everything, with something more meaningful than 42.

New Theology regards the Gods of planet Earth as personifications of the one true God: the ultimate ground of existence, the foundation of reality — Art48

This reminds me of a comment made about polytheism and theism in general.
'Theists have reduced their many gods to 1 god. Only one more step to go to reach improved enlightenment! Number of gods= 0.'

The future is a world of ∞∞ possibilities. God maybe one of 'em. You never know what tomorrow will bring. Isn't that what's so exciting about times yet to come? — Agent Smith

Sounds to me that you are suggesting that some merging of individual consciousnesses in the very distant future is not something you completely reject, An emerging panpsychism?

We could invent God (I mean for real) but that seems to be irreversible (omnipotence & omniscience) — Agent Smith

What do you mean by 'for real?' If you really do mean 'for real,' then the obvious question is how do we do that?

I'll get back with you next week, Lord willing — Watchmaker

I edited my previous comment to you, just to make it more complete.
Absolutely, we could all do with more time spent thinking, I am no exception to that.
To be continued...next week....providence allowing!

What/who combined the combiners? — Watchmaker

Well, now you are moving towards issues like infinite regression and the suggestion that the whole system collapses without a 'first cause' or prime mover. Probably the best that the theist community has come up with is the Kalam cosmological argument which has been totally debunked by cosmologists, in my opinion. There is no imperative for a first cause or a prime mover which has any significance to our Universe.

If, for example, each individual different Universe is a bounce or oscillation between linear time epochs of the creation to the destruction of a previous Universe then it makes little sense to ask about a 'first cause' that started the bounce or oscillation as no information passes from linear time epoch to linear time epoch. It could also be said that there may have been so many 'bounces' that the number approaches infinity and therefore the system could be called eternal. So the need for a first cause or a first mind or god would be so far back in linear time epochs to be of no significance to our Universe at all, even if some kind of 'trigger' point for the 'bounce' did happen.
This is also true in the many worlds posit, there comes a point in the multi-verse posit that there are so many Universes that the idea of a creator has no significant value at all, beyond that of a simple spark that starts the fire. The spark (if it ever existed) has little or even no importance compared to the effects and existence of the fire.

I thought it was also worth adding that the theists have the same problem as in, where did god come from. An infinity of earlier gods?
Why should we accept their 'special plead' of no the regression stops at god. How is that different from 'you cannot ask about 'before the big bang,' as there is no before time=0.

:smile: Aint it the truth!

Well, I don't want to add to the burden of your reading list Jack, :smile: but I would highly recommend Joe Atwill's 'Caesars Messiah'. I found it fascinating and compelling but after listening to its main dissenters, especially atheist academics such as Dr Richard Carrier, I have currently settled at around the 66.7% mark, as a measure of how convinced I am that Joe Atwill is correct on the majority of his findings.

I'll take your word for it. — Agent Smith

Please do, but I don't think I am, as Barry Manilow starts off with 'One voice singing in the darkness.'
I think the number of global voices are growing and growing, all demanding a better life for all and better stewardship of our planet. Join our voices Agent Smith. The bigger the throng the better, perhaps we can finally install adequate global checks and balances to prevent nefarious ba****** from ever gaining significant power anywhere on our planet.

Hmmm. What would be the great "combiner", then? — Watchmaker

If I understand your question correctly I would say that would be lifeforms such as us, we do the combining.

A computer looks at an image of a bird and it sees 1s and 0s — Agent Smith

I think this is an example of what we must not do, anthropomorphise computers!
Computers do not 'look' or 'see.' An input sensor is a peripheral device, attached to a computer.
A computer has no conception AT ALL. Our best AI systems still can't even pass the turing test in any interesting way yet. A computer cannot even conceptualise 1 or 0. It is simply a device that humans can use to manipulate all possible manifestations of the two binary states. Quantum computing offers more than two states.

It's a start for computers, they can now at least "see" the general shape of objects; rudimentary animal vision, won't you agree?
Something's not quite right, yes? — Agent Smith

No, because 'see' requires conception and a computer does not conceive of meaning when it pattern matches a square it scans, with a stored square shape, either bit by bit or using attributes.
Yes, it can output letters such as 'this is a square,' on a monitor. But these are interpreted by us as having 'meaning.' The computer does not connect all the processes it performed from scanning the dark and light pixels from the square on paper, through the pattern matching to the letters output onto the screen. Each coded instruction involved is not connected by the computer towards any cumulative meaning or purpose.