My point was that a sentence has more content than separate words that make up the sentence. We couldn't possibly communicate any new idea if a sentence does not have such a property. If you are looking for an absolutely new idea, then please consider the conclusion of the OP, namely, AI cannot think.

Could you give some examples of known ideas and new ideas? How does it work? — Corvus

When I say "cup", you immediately realize what I am talking about since the word refers to an idea. The sentence "the cup is on the table" contains many words; each word refers to an idea. The sentence, however, refers to a new idea, which in this case is a situation.

Thanks for the article. I will read it when I have time.

The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea.

Yes, it can. — T Clark

If you say so. But that means that you didn't pay attention to my argument.

This is not correct. — T Clark

It is correct. We can calculate the physical properties of atoms and molecules using Ab initio methods and the density functional theory. We can even predict protein folding using AI as well. You can find two publications on this topic here and here.

there is a tyrant within you...that in todays world is seen as despicable...but I say embrace who you are in all of your beauty and in all of your horror, accept yourself wholly. But obviously dont give in to the tyrant. But rather channel that mother effr into your passions. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think we need to understand why the subconscious mind could be so cruel in some individuals. It is partly genetic and partly due to the bad treatment of the conscious mind. We cannot fix the first part, yet we can suppress it according to the leatreatures. For the second part, we need to understand the trouble we have caused to the subconscious mind, trying to heal it.

Finally, the (metaphorical) tender and ignorant flesh is exposed. Now it can be graded properly. Ah, except I note one flaw. And I'm no professional by any means. There is no "we" in this abstract concept. A man can be born alone in the world and he will still think. But perhaps this is a simple habit of speech, a human flaw, like we all have to be ignored, so I shall. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt. :smile: — Outlander

Correct. I should have said "an intelligent creature" instead of "we".

But! Ah, yes, there's a but. Even still. One cannot "know an idea" without the auspices and foreprocesses of thought itself. So, this is defining a concept without explaining its forebearer. Your so called "thinking" is created by the process of involvement with "known ideas". yet how can an idea exist and be known unless thought of? — Outlander

I don't know the right word for playing with ideas, experiencing them, without any attempt to create a new idea. :wink: For sure, such an activity is different from thinking, given the definition of thinking.

Ok. So we have to differentiate between information and experience (Mary's room then). Because you're not seeing the experience, but rather a reconstruction in a monitor, in a flat screen. A few pixels, but the experience isn't made up of pixels. It is a translation from something to something totally different. — JuanZu

Very accurate!

Love your avatar BTW. Reminds me of my mood most of time sober. — Outlander

I am glad you like my avatar! :wink:

Well, it appears to be 'thinking' was my point. It cannot think. It would have been better of me to state that AI models do fool humans into thinking it can think. — I like sushi

Correct!

It simulates speech very effectively now. I do certainly not equate speech with thought though. I want to be explicit about that! — I like sushi

Correct again! An AI produces meaningful sentences only based on its database and infrastructure.

I was not sayign any such thing. I was stating that AI is far more capable of pattern recognition than us. It can sift through masses of data and find patterns it would take us a long, long time to come close to noticing. It is likley these kinds of features of AI are what people mistaken for 'thinking' as it seriously out performance us when it comes to this kind of process. — I like sushi

Correct again! :wink: An AI is just much faster than us in pattern recognition since it is silicon-based. It is specialized in certain tasks, though. Our brains are, however, huge compared to any neural net that is used in any AI, and it is multitasking. A neuron is just very slow.

So, what is thinking? You've, from what I've seen, yet to delineate a clear and concise formula (and resulting definition) for such. — Outlander

I define thinking as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea. This definition is inclined to processes such as abstracting and imagination.

Well, I mean, take the following sentence.

Ahaj scenap conopul seretif seyesen — Outlander

You are talking about language here. Of course, this sentence does not mean anything to me since I cannot relate any of the words you used to something that I know. The language is used to communicate new ideas, which are the result of thinking. We are working with known ideas when it comes to thinking, so there is no such miscommunication between the conscious and subconscious mind.

Spinoza's 'conception of substance' refutes this Cartesian (Aristotlean) error; instead, we attribute "mind" only to entities which exhibit 'purposeful behaviors'. — 180 Proof

He is definitely wrong. Purposeful behaviors are attributes of living creatures. Living creatures have at least a body and a mind.

Circular reasoning fallacy. You conclude only what you assume. — 180 Proof

No. You need to read things in order to see what I said follows, and it is not circular.

P1) AI is mindless.
P2) The mind is needed for the creation of an idea
C1) Therefore, AI cannot create an idea (from P1 and P2)
P3) The thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea
C2) Therefore, AI cannot think (from C1 and P3)
C3) Therefore, AI cannot create a new idea (from P3 and C2)

I’m OK with that as edited. — T Clark

Given the definition you suggested, you either don't understand what objectively exists means, or you don't know what emergence is. I don't understand why you removed substance from my definition, but something that objectively exists is a substance, as opposed to something that subjectively exists, such as an experience. A neural process cannot give rise to the emergence of a substance, or something that objectively exists.

Moreover, the brain is subject to constant change due to the existence of the mind. So, the brain cannot produce the mind and be affected by the mind at the same time. That is true, since the neural processes are subject to change once the mind affects the brain. There is, however, no mind once neural processes change. So, you cannot have both changes in neural processes and the mind at the same time.

Of course it can. Life emerges out of chemistry. Chemistry emerges out of physics. Mind emerges out of neurology. Looks like you’re understanding of emergence is different from mine. — T Clark

Biology, chemistry, etc., are reducible to physics. That means that we are dealing with weak emergence in these cases. Emergence of the mind, if it is possible, is strong emergence, which I strongly disagree that it is possible because of the reasons mentioned in the previous comment.

But that’s what it means. As I’ve said before, if you want to make up definitions for words, it’s not really philosophy. You’re just playing a little game with yourself. — T Clark

To me, abstraction and imagination are examples of thinking. Remembering, free association, etc. are not.

What do you mean by "think"? What is your definition of "think"? — Corvus

I already defined thinking in the OP.

AI simply simulates thinking. — I like sushi

They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking.

It is built for pattern recognition and has no apparent nascent components to it. — I like sushi

Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so.

A car ran over the neighbor's dog.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? It (the idea via sentence) happened, it isn't any more or less than what it means. — Nils Loc

Each sentence refers to at least one idea, such as a relation, a situation, etc. In your example, we are dealing with a situation.

Compare:

A 2024 Rapid Red Mustang Mach E ran over our neighbor's 15 year old Chiweenie.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? — Nils Loc

We are dealing with a situation again, no matter how much detail you provide.

There are plenty of other mental events that come to mind that might be considered emergent. As we’ve discussed previously, as I see it, the mind itself is emergent from the neurological and physiological processes of the nervous system and body. — T Clark

What sort of emergent thing is the mind? To me, the mind is a substance; by the substance, I mean that something that objectively exists and has a set of abilities and properties, so it cannot be an emergent thing. Is the mind a substance to you as well? If not, what sort of thing is the mind?

No. Thinking is — T Clark

That is a very broad definition, which I don't agree with. For example, remembering is required for thinking, but it is not thinking. The same applies to free association.

What does it mean to 'think'? — Jack Cummins

I already defined thinking in the OP.

Is it a product of the nervous system or something more? — Jack Cummins

It is a product of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind working together. These minds, however, are interconnected in a complex way by the brain.

This area is complex because it involves the question as to what extent thought transcends the thinker. — Jack Cummins

I think that thinking transcends the thinker. You understand the meaning of a sentence right after you complete reading it. Each word in the sentence refers to an idea. The idea related to a word is registered in the memory of the conscious mind once the word is read. A new idea emerges magically once you complete reading a sentence!

This already seems to beg your conclusion, that something fundamentally separate from the components of a human is required for a thought to be designated as an 'idea'. — noAxioms

This is a premise that can be confirmed. But for that, we need to agree on what an idea is.

This also requires an implied premise that an AI has no similar access to this fundamentally separate thing, which you also state. — noAxioms

Correct. AI does not have access to any idea.

OK, but what exactly is an idea then? — noAxioms

We have been through this in another thread. I already defined the idea in the OP.

Arguably, the same can be said of you. — noAxioms

I can also produce a meaningful sentence that demonstrate an idea.

It has taken me several years to control the evils that I have encountered. My depression, which was unbearable for several years, is under control. Evil thoughts are less frequent and they are not as dense and persistent as past. I am doing well with my subconscious mind right now. As a result, I am more creative compared to the past. So, yes, we can manage the hard situation. I am, however, not sure how to divert evils to something useful for me and others. Do you know how to do that?

Gotye & Kimbra - Somebody That I Used To Know

Philosophy often looks at the problem of consciousness, but the idea of the subconscious may get overlooked. It involves layers of memories and conditioned programmes. The subconscious may manifest itself in so many ways, dreams or unexpected conscious experiences. The intricate relationship between subjective experiences, memory and time may be an essential aspect of juggling the here and now with wider, expansive understanding of life and how 'reality' becomes manifest in lived experiences. — Jack Cummins

Correct.

Cher - Believe

Anathema - Flying - Explosion of the Heart



Anathema - Deep



Anathema - The Lost Song Part 2

Rob Zombie - Demon Speeding

All your thoughts are your own responsibility, and thus due to you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Each person has a world beneath, so-called the subconscious mind. I would say that most of our emotions are rooted in the subconscious mind, since the conscious mind, although in charge of controlling things, is very simple.

I understand what you are trying to say. Life could be very difficult when we are facing challenges. The challenges are due to others or ourselves. I had a very difficult period in my life, too, and I fought the best I could. I still feel evil thoughts and intentions even now, which I am sure are not due to me, and I can handle them easily now. So, I think, everything for you is a matter of time. Once you reach a level where you are sure that you can control everything on a personal level, then you can manage your life better.

When the world seems to be full of butterfly effects, starting from our conception (or our parents meeting, or our grandparents meeting), it looks like we have a huge effect. Especially if we have children, who then have children. — ssu

Yes. The butterfly effects are significant. If the sperm that made me had been just a little slower, then another sperm would have met the egg, so there would have been another person. The butterfly effects also play a significant role in the life of a person, especially when it comes to decisions, since our lives fork at the point of decision. A little like or dislike makes us decide otherwise, so it changes the life of the person and the lives of others as well. A person who comes up with an excellent idea may change the history of humankind.

Megadeth - Symphony Of Destruction

Yngwie J. Malmsteen -- Icarus' Dream Suite Op. 4

Gnarls Barkley - Crazy



Gnarls Barkley - Crazy

Fear in the future comes from the bad experience in the past. Bad experience comes from bad people. Forgiving is forgetting. If you manage to forgive the past, then you can live in the present and open your arms to what the future brings to you.

Garbage - The World Is Not Enough LIVE

i think it's a theory rather than a definition. Most people who understand how to use the word consciousness do not attribute it to matter in general. — bert1

Correct.

You make a good point that theories or definitions might exclude consciousness from being casually efficacious. It needs some extra work to defend the causal efficacy of consciousness if all it is is the capacity to feel. — bert1

What I am trying to say is that the consciousness/experience is a mental event. It cannot have a property since it is a property itself within the property dualism; therefore, the experience cannot affect the physical. It is not a matter of extra work. It is impossible.

Depends on your wording. Does mass have the ability to warp spacetime? — Patterner

Mass does not warp spacetime; a substance that has mass warps spacetime.

That was you who defined consciousness as the property by which matter subjectively experiences! Now, you are saying this property, consciousness, has the ability to cause as well. You don't notice that a property cannot have ability.

If you say so. Saying yes, however, does not make the claim true.

It can. It is. Here we are, after all. — Patterner

No!

Consciousness is the property by which matter subjectively experiences. — Patterner

Correct. That is an acceptable definition of consciousness. Consciousness, given this definition, cannot be causally efficacious in the material world.

Like an invisible jellyfish floating inside the skull? — frank

The mind is irreducible, but can be present in several places simultaneously. So, yes, like a jellyfish floating inside the skull.