I asked if that makes it a con artist, and it quibbled about definitions. — Gary Venter

Philosophers often seem to quibble about definitions, when the definitions are unclear for the arguments. :nerd: But shouldn't the AI Knowledge Expert System be able to present with the correct definitions at the press of the button instead of quibbling about them? :D

Dogs are animals is absolutely true no matter what. — PL Olcott

Something is true or false always in relation to some respect. Dogs are animals is false in case of the robot AI dogs. Dogs can be tools in wood carving toolbox. Dogs are pieces of the wooden material that get inserted in the holes of the workbenches to secure a plank of wood to be carved. In this case dogs are animals is false again.

5>2 is false in case of the amounts of electric current output of some electrical tools. When 1 is set to the highest, and 5 is the lowest, 2 is greater in the current output than 5. In this case, 2>5 is true. 5>2 is false.

Very importantly, as a matter of empirical fact, we have not found anything in the universe yet that cannot be reduced to numbers. — Lionino

Think of 3 dogs, 3 apples, and 3 cups. They are all 3s, but denoting the different objects.

Yes I found Jung interesting, — Punshhh

Saw a good video in Youtube on Jung's psychology of Dreams.

↪Corvus

Sleeper’s not unconscious just “dormant.” — Arbü1237

Being "dormant" is for the animals (bears, toads, snakes ... etc) having long winter sleep usually from 3 - 4 months. "Being dormant" can be used with some plants too. You don't use the word "dormant" on humans.

↪Corvus

This are real delusions. — Arbü1237

The post was just asking you for clarification on your claims, which sounded confused and muddled. How can "asking for clarification" be delusions?

Philosophy has become a classifying system for concepts and lines of reasoning, and all the branches the definitions and arguments could take. For instance there must be at least 20 types of panpsychism by now. New research, such as PhD dissertations, consists of following a line as far as it can go and then extending it in some way, probably by further splitting the track. Philosophy ends up having the same organizational structure as a book of chess openings. — Gary Venter

Interesting point. :ok:

ChatGPT has adopted the philosophical approach. Everything seems factual and devoid of evaluation, at least until the conclusion that "belief in the existence of the world is generally regarded as a foundational assumption of human cognition and inquiry, underlying our understanding of the natural world and our place within it," for which no support is provided. — Gary Venter

ChatGPT seems to be ok for getting quick summarised info on the topics. But it is not for anything more detailed, deeper or serious source of info. What portion of the info from ChatGPT and all the online based description source would be reliable and objective knowledge in terms of the factual and verified truths is another matter.

If it was once living, yes — Arbü1237

When you are asleep, your body is alive, but your mind is unconscious.

The idea of god and Santa are real and we can imagine the idea and understand it. — Arbü1237

1. It was a question about if the existence of God and Santa are real. Not the ideas.
2. Does it make sense to say that for us to be able to imagine and understand it, it has to be real?
3. Does the world care if we can or cannot imagine or understand it?

Bottom line: No, you can't travel in any of them.
But good luck on your attempts! — Vera Mont

:up: :fire:
Logical possibility doesn't mean factual possibility.

In theory is can process any knowledge known to humankind that can be encoded as text strings. — PL Olcott

How is it different from ChatGPT?

I think consciousness is what dictates the term “alive.” — Arbü1237

Does it imply that unconsciousness is what dictates the term "death"?

so everything’s real and nothing’s fake. — Arbü1237

Is Santa Clause real? Is God real?

That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. — RussellA

By applying the correct reasoning.

Kant said it isn't possible. — RussellA

Where did he say that?

I agree. All language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA

Some, not all, or doesn't have to be, and depends.

Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination. — RussellA

Only the cat would know it for sure.

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games.
— Corvus

Isn't everyone. — RussellA

Inadequate reasonings try to keep on going around the circles eternally, but the correct reasoning calls it a game. :D

For example in one dream I was lifted up out of my world by the Christ and as I looked back I could see my life laid out beneath us as though different experiences at different times were side by side, or in separate rooms and my whole life was visible in some sense. The perception I had was as if we stepped out of time and all time was before us like a landscape. — Punshhh

That sounds like a really interesting and meaningful dream. I wonder if you are into mysticism and spiritualism and deeply religious too, although I don't think one need to be committed to any religion for experiencing such powerful vivid dreams.

Freud tends to describe dreams in connection to sexuality and the hidden desires of human mind. But Jung says a lot about dreams in conjunction with the existence of souls, afterlife, life before one's birth, psychological alchemy, and collective unconscious. Jung's psychology is also based on theology and the world spirit.

I have a few books on Jung, and might go back to reading him again. It is an interesting topic, if you are into it, and want to know more.

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.
— Corvus

Perhaps, but still making a factual statement. — RussellA

A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world.

No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple". — RussellA

Sure. No one is denying how it works in scientific terms IE photon of lights whatever. Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction and conjecture of the workings of visual perception by the physicists and chemists. It is not an absolute proven fact. There are lots of abstractions and hypotheses even in science, which people take for granted as if it is a word from God.

But the point is that, it is not more meaningful or interesting than saying you cannot see Mars without your eyes. The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. It is undeniable truths, but not really interesting or important statements.

I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game. — RussellA

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. Part of the aim of philosophical discussions would be rescuing the folks swimming and drowning by confusion in the pool of the linguistic games, and letting them see, there is Mars, and there is a cat. You are just seeing Mars, and you are just seeing a cat. You didn't need indirect or directness to see them. :)

True, the photons of light that enter my eye were caused by something that existed in the past, and just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it still doesn't exist in my present. — RussellA

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.

Yet how can the Direct Realist be immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is when there is no guarantee that what they are seeing still exists? — RussellA

This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. I used to think the distinctions were legitimate before, and was tending to take IDR side.

But having read some books and thinking about it, it proves that the distinction may not exist. There is just perception, and perception with reasoning. There is no such things as indirect or direct realists. Maybe there are. You see and read about them, but the discussions end up futility gaining little.

When you look into the night sky and see Mars, what you see no longer exists, as it takes time for the photons of light to travel through space. — RussellA

Yes, I must perceive shapes and colours before being able to reason that they were caused by the planet Mars.

IE, I cannot reason that .I am seeing Mars before photons of light have entered my eye. — RussellA

I would have thought one would be smart enough to infer the existence of Mars when seeing the bright red dot in the sky based on the inductive reason that things keep exist as it does even if it takes time for the light travel to the observer's eyes.

It would be unreasonable to conclude that Mars doesn't exist just because it takes time for the photons of light to arrive at one's eyes.

Yes, but the cat is not seeing the external world "as it really is". What the cat is seeing is a representation of how the mouse used to. — RussellA

The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless. — RussellA

I am not sure if this is really the case. That's what you seem to think. But we don't know what the cat thinks about the actual situation. Your assertion has little ground explaining the reality of the case here. This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it.

Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars. — RussellA

It still sounds the account has nothing to do with "Indirectness" in perception. If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is. You may have said, it is an UFO in the sky looking down at you. You wouldn't have said "I see Mars." when it was Mars you were seeing.

Again bottom line is that, Mars has far more property than photon of light. It is a physical object in the sky with the mass and weight, weather and rocks and soils etc etc. It is not just a patch of photons of light.

There is a mouse and photons of light travel from it to a cat. It takes time for light to travel a distance.

By the time the cat sees the mouse, the mouse has unfortunately died, and yet the cat still sees the mouse.

How can the cat be seeing the external world as it really is, if in the external world there is no mouse? — RussellA

There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. The mouse died biologically of course, but the dead body still exists. No problem for the cat to see the dead body of the mouse.

The fact that the cat doesn't know about photons of light doesn't mean the cat could see things in the absence of photons of light. — RussellA

In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. In here you are totally ignoring the subjective perspective of the cat in his perception. You are describing the cat's perception only from your point of view. This is incomplete account of perception.

Yes, first "I see shapes and colours" and subsequently, after using my powers of reasoning, "I see Mars".

IE, I can only say "I see Mars" after saying "I see shapes and colours" — RussellA

You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes.

When someone looks into the night sky and sees a bright dot, how do they know that the bright dot has been caused by Mars rather than Venus say. They can only know by applying their powers of reasoning to the bright dot. — RussellA

Yes, this was my point. You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. It is a bright dot, which has red colour. But when you learn about it, and the book tells you it is a star called Mars. You know what it is. It is the planet Mars. Next time when you see it, you see the same bright dot in the sky, and your reasoning tells you it is the planet Mars.

If you then analyse how you end up getting the perception of the bright dot in the sky, and explain photons of light travelling into your eyes, then it is the low level explanation using the concept of light travel. You are using the scientific reasoning to the way how the perception works.

It is just different level of the explanations on the perception. It is not different mechanisms of the perception.

Metaphorically one could even say, Mars was whispering to me tonight.

Saying Mars is photon of lights, and the mouse is also photon of light sounds meaningless and confused.

Bottom line is that sense data is not transmitted by the objects. Sense data is the product of reasoning on the existence and nature of the object by the mind.

Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA

I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. The photons of light was contrived by you, not the cat. The cat doesn't know what photons of light means. The cat knows what mouse is.

Are you saying that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data? — RussellA

For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA, and it doesn't exist. All he cares about is the mouse he sees.

I am saying it on behalf of the cat, because he can't speak the human language.

Presumably, when a cat sees a mouse, photons of light have travelled from the mouse to the cat, and the cat sees photons of light. — RussellA

How does the cat know photons of light is the mouse?

How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of these sense data. How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of any photons of light travelling from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA

The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he?

I feel as though lucid dreaming can be enlightening. There is the awareness of a dream and that one can control it? Doesn't it imply that we are all able to dictate how we perceive life? For me, lucid dreaming is an ad hoc assertion of the fact that God might exist. Does the fact that you can dictate what kind of reality you perceive, indicative of the reality that you exist in? — Shawn

Having lucid dreams is not daily events. It seems to be happening when one is more spiritual and mentally active than the normal times. Could it be sign for one's consciousness extending into the Noumenon and attempting to perceive the contents of Thing-in-itself?

There are people who claim to have met God in their lucid dreams. But obviously and unfortunately the claims cannot be verified in objective sense. All minds are locked up in one's own brain, and no one can access to it apart from the owner of the mind.

The Indirect Realist is in part pointing out that language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA

Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists?

Lucid dreaming is a phenomenon that I want to analyze. What are your thoughts about it? — Shawn

According to Freud and Jung, aren't the lucid dreaming the evidence for the existence of different types of consciousness?, viz, conscious, subconscious, collective unconscious, objective psyche ..etc.
I have seen some folks trying to make the predictions for their future by interpreting their dreams.

For me personally, I sometimes have lucid dreams, and it can be very entertaining in the dreams. When I wake up, and the dream which was so lucid, vivid and entertaining disappears from the mind can give disappointment for the day in real life.

The original version of CycL was a frame language, but the modern version is not. Rather, it is a declarative language based on classical first-order logic, with extensions for modal operators and higher order quantification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL — PL Olcott

Does it handle / process abstract concepts such as God, souls, freedom or immortality?

In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts, data, or entities that pertain to one, many, or all domains of discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) — PL Olcott

This is a good link for the concept "Ontology in Information Science". Thanks.

Here is some logical grounds for believing in the existence of the world from ChatGPT.

"The logical ground for belief in the existence of the world can be approached from various philosophical perspectives, each offering different arguments and justifications. Here are a few key approaches:

1. **Empirical Realism**: Empirical realism is the view that the external world exists independently of our perceptions and experiences of it. This position is based on the idea that our senses provide us with reliable information about the world, and that we can trust our sensory experiences as a basis for forming beliefs about reality. From this perspective, the existence of the world is grounded in the evidence provided by our senses and the consistency of our observations across different perceptual experiences.

2. **Metaphysical Realism**: Metaphysical realism holds that the external world exists objectively, regardless of our perceptions or beliefs about it. This position is based on the idea that there is a mind-independent reality that exists independently of human consciousness. Metaphysical realists argue that the world has an intrinsic nature and existence that is not contingent upon our subjective experiences or interpretations of it.

3. **Inference to the Best Explanation**: Some philosophers argue for the existence of the world based on the principle of inference to the best explanation. According to this principle, we should believe in the existence of the world because it provides the best explanation for our experiences and observations. The existence of the world is posited as the simplest and most coherent explanation for the diversity and regularity of our sensory experiences.

4. **Pragmatic Justification**: Pragmatic approaches to belief in the existence of the world emphasize the practical consequences of adopting such a belief. From a pragmatic perspective, belief in the existence of the world is justified because it is necessary for successful navigation of our environment, interaction with others, and attainment of our goals and desires. Belief in the existence of the world is seen as a useful and necessary assumption for engaging effectively with our surroundings.

These approaches provide different justifications for believing in the existence of the world, ranging from appeals to sensory experience and empirical evidence to arguments based on metaphysical realism and pragmatic considerations. While each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, belief in the existence of the world is generally regarded as a foundational assumption of human cognition and inquiry, underlying our understanding of the natural world and our place within it."

I wonder if these views provide the solid enough grounds for the beliefs, or do they have some logical flaws in their views.

Thank you. Seems like a great forum. — Gary Venter

Welcome. Yes, it is. :)

Quite a different approach to logic, though, we find in the scriptures of Friedrich Hegel. He maintained, that contradictions are a vital prerequisite of all progress. The german word “aufheben” can have a dual meaning: to save and to abolish. In his expression “synthesis” it is just that, the combination of two mutually excluding ideas into one, encompassing both. — Pez

Hegel applied this principle to human mind, in his famous work "Phenomenology of Spirits" for describing and understanding the workings of human consciousness. Marx took over the idea applying the principle into the existence of material and the operational principle for the societies, providing the ideological foundation for the extreme materialism and communism.

If we apply Hegel's idea to philosophy at large, it is not idle talk at all but the necessary ingredient for a dynamic development of ideas. — Pez

Agreed. :up: :fire:

We don't have to believe in the existence of anything - doing so doesn't have much advantage - but exploring and entertaining the possibilities of competing theories - and developing new ones - can be useful to life. — Gary Venter

An interesting post. :up: It is interesting, because it was unusual to read about the sceptical world view, which is based on, and coming from science and QM perspective, not some idealistic immaterialism. I used to have the idea (still do), when science especially physics and QM knowledge get mature and deepen to the limits culminating its level of knowledge in the domain, that would be a kind of views on the world and universe, rather than being absolutely certain about them. There are lot of points in your post to go over, mull over, reading up, and return for further discussions. Thank you for the great post. Welcome to TPF. :pray: :cool:

I don't currently know how to handle contentious knowledge. — PL Olcott

Any AI system needs some sort of reasoning logic based on the different domains and hierarchical structure of the data. It is more challenging to implement the reasoning logics onto the natural language based data, because computers cannot handle the human natural languages well, hence converting the data into the axiomatised symbolic formalisation using the semantic frames would be needed? Just guessing.

Here is some conceptual definition of the semantic frames in AI knowledge based system.

"In semantics, particularly in the context of knowledge representation and artificial intelligence, a frame is a data structure used to represent knowledge about a particular concept or domain. Frames provide a way to organize information hierarchically and capture both structural and procedural knowledge.

Here are some key components and characteristics of frames in semantics:

1. **Slots**: Frames consist of slots, which represent attributes or properties of the concept being modeled. Each slot can have a name and a value, where the value can be a simple data type (such as a string or number) or another frame, allowing for nested structures.

2. **Values**: The values associated with slots can represent various kinds of information, such as characteristics, relationships, or behaviors of the concept being modeled. For example, a frame representing a "car" might have slots for attributes like "color," "model," "manufacturer," and "engine type."

3. **Inheritance**: Frames can inherit properties and relationships from other frames, forming a hierarchical structure. This allows for the representation of generalizations and specializations within a domain. For example, a frame representing a "sedan" might inherit properties from a more general "car" frame.

4. **Prototypes**: Frames can serve as prototypes or templates for creating instances of concepts. By specifying default values for slots, frames can capture common characteristics shared by instances within a category.

5. **Scripts**: Frames can also include procedural knowledge in the form of scripts, which represent sequences of actions or events associated with the concept. Scripts provide a way to represent typical sequences of behavior or events related to a particular concept.

Frames are used in various applications, including expert systems, natural language processing, semantic networks, and knowledge-based systems. They provide a flexible and intuitive way to represent knowledge about complex concepts and domains, allowing for efficient reasoning and inference in AI systems." - ChatGPT

He also agrees that Cyc project's flaw is the problem of handling contradictions in the input data.

Just like the Cyc project each unique sense meaning has its own unique GUID
9824b3dc-7237-4b4b-9a71-fb788348bc9a for the living animal "Cat"
9f444cef-f49f-4aa8-89bf-248ee5976b92 for "Cat Palm" — PL Olcott

So how do the users know which is which? Do they have to type in the unique GUID into the system to get the correct definition they want?

Or can the Cyc project know which is the right one the user wants to know? How does it do that?
Some users could call cat palm as just "cat", and some may have a cat called "cat palm".

The formal semantic class {dogs} is a node in the above inheritance hierarchy. — PL Olcott

What about the case where cat means a plant?
"What is a cat plant?
Chamaedorea Cataractarum, also known as a Cat Palm, is a small, bushy palm tree that is native to Southern Mexico and Central America. It's an easy-to-care-for houseplant with beautiful foliage!" - Google

You have an analytic expression in your system, which says, cat is animal.
But when someone asks about cat (to mean the plant), the system will say cat is animal.
The answer from the AI "Cat is animal." is a wrong answer. The answer must be "Cat is plant." is right.

So you update the system after the complaint.

Cat is animal.
Cat is plant.

But after the update, the system has two expressions for the same word cat, which are contradictory.

Of course logicians would object, that logic is independent of time, an eternal static thing so to speak. — Pez

The Temporal logicians wouldn't object. There are tons of different non-classic logics out there.
It is sunny. (It was true this morning.)
It is sunny. (It is not true a few hours later.)

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott). — PL Olcott

Analytic knowledge is still limited in a sense that it doesn't add any new information to the knowledge. If you knew the meaning of cat, then you don't need the AI system to look at what it means. If you didn't know the meaning of cat, then you can look up a dictionary or google it.
Therefore, why do you need the AI analytic info system?

Yeah, ok. — Mww

Kant's TI was opposed and criticised by many of the other Philosophers after his time such as Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bolzano, Heidegger ... etc. His TI wasn't absolutely perfect. But then which philosophy is?

Good luck. — Mww

Thanks. To you too. :ok:

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott). — PL Olcott

Yes correct. It is true regardless a cat is or is not in the living room.

This stipulative definition specifies that "Cats are animals." <is> Analytic(Olcott) and "There is a cat in my living room right now." <is not> Analytic(Olcott). We finally have an unequivocal criterion measure where disagreement is simply incorrect. — PL Olcott

How about "There is a cat or there is not a cat in my living room right now." ? Is this sentence analytic or not?