Apparently we are going to have to wait until the rest of civilization catches up with Canada's progressive cannabis laws before we can think about going anywhere. My outlaw days are past.

surrounded by dykes and everything — Benkei

:up:

I thought you would be interested in knowing about this city. It seems a cool place to try to live, indeed — javi2541997

Thanks javi! However it turns out that England's stance on cannabis reform is somewhat archaic and, until that changes, moving there poses us a serious problem. There are worse places to be stuck than Canada I guess....

So to me, the Turing Test doesn't seem to provide a useful criteria for much of anything. — wonderer1

I've been pondering it a lot myself for the last week and I'd agree with this.

Well, it has an important aspect of intelligence that many other systems don't have, which is learning. Do you think that a distinction between learning mechanisms and non-learning mechanisms is worthwhile to recognize? — wonderer1

Sure as long as we understand that learning reflects the ability of a pattern-recognizer to adapt to novel instances. I don't conceive of "machine-learning" as in that sense evocative of sentience any more than I do the outputs of artificial neural networks.

I do think that there is a wealth of information to be gleaned both about the nature of neural networks themselves as exemplary of self-modifying feedback systems (learning) and also potentially about the nature of reality, through the scientific analysis of data using neural networks.

Here's something that might interest you @Bob Ross. A mathematically perfect solar system.

"According to new research, all six planets orbit the same star in resonance with each other, following an unwavering rhythm that has lasted billions of years."

This seems overly dismissive to me. — wonderer1

It isn't dismissive, it's objective. The fundamental mechanism of information processing via artificial neural networks has not changed. It is simply faster and more robust. It isn't one whit more intelligent than any other kind of mechanism. If anything, sophisticated analog computers designed for real-time in situ execution of critical tasks are worlds more impressive to me. Electronics have become needlessly complex and are prone to failures. Moreover, the user interface quality and practical end-user value have been co-opted by and sacrificed to the ability to leech and monetize data. These fundamental designer goals are being baked into these systems, corrupting their integrity and quality.

Nvidia hasn't become a two trillion dollar corporation because hype. — wonderer1

This has absolutely no bearing on inherent nature of the technology in question.


ChatGPT
The concept of supervised learning and backpropagation as methods for training neural networks emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, notably by researchers such as Frank Rosenblatt and Paul Werbos. These ideas were refined and popularized in the late 1980s and 1990s, leading to the widespread adoption of neural networks for practical applications.

Backpropagation and training are indeed at the core of how my system operates

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some way (human or non-human) in the future? — Agree-to-Disagree

Do we really even understand what consciousness "is" ? How it emerged from inert matter? What its actual role is in the evolving universe? Or do we only grasp certain aspects of what it does?

I hasten to point out, if human beings could create sentience, it would correspondingly increase the plausibility of the hypothesis that human beings were likewise, created. If sentience could be created, in my opinion, it could only be in the context of the synthesis of the entirety of the complex phenomenon we know as "life." To date, experiments in abiogenesis are crude, at best. If anything, they rely on embedded self-organizing features of reality more than they do our ability to control that reality.

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some non-human way? — Agree-to-Disagree

Exceedingly unlikely since we know the exact mechanism whereby they generate responses. And they did not "evolve" in the same way and have none of the characteristic features associated with known sentience (aka living organisms). What is being hyped as "AI" for marketing purposes is a simulation, a simulacrum, a model, nothing more.

Further, it is clear that knowledge of the truth enhances our causal powers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As noted above, the enhancement of our causal powers (and thus freedom of action) in knowledge is a communal effort. — Count Timothy von Icarus

as opposed to its rational part and how this constricts freedom of action on implementing ethically-minded policy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Durkheim looks closely at how this communal-instrumental mind (which he consistently refers to as a real and essentially living thing, the cultural mind) is produced through the mechanism of habits, enlisted by moral norms, essentially. Or the normative power of morals I guess you could also say. Great post and topic.

Yes, I often say if you want to know about a place, don’t ask a local. Or at least, be very careful who you ask. A few times I’ve seen tourists in Edinburgh being given the most awful advice and information, laden with prejudices, cynicism, and basic ignorance. — Jamal

:100:

No one is more cynical than the believer who failed to find what they wanted. I stopped clinging to jobs like that was all that there was and started proactively redirecting the energy from legitimate dissatisfaction. But I only learned to do that because my boss dropped dead one day and my job of 11 years disappeared without a trace, since his programming was the company. If I started to feel unappreciated at a job, I didn't complain, I just started looking. My dad kept telling me to just stick with it, but after four jobs in five years I ended up in a real keeper, and because of the location I was able to visit him frequently during the last year of his life and to be with him at his bedside when he passed, because I worked right next to the hospital.

So I feel the same about where you are. If it isn't working don't complain, either make it work or try something else.

↪Pantagruel Why not a Scandinavian country instead? If you want a better and working socialistic environment, then England doesn't seem like the best choice? — Christoffer

As a member of the Commonwealth my pensions and benefits are more straightforward than some other places, for one. My grandfather was born in England. I speak the language.

Interesting, possibly a romantic view. From an Australian perspective, everyone I know who wants to emigrate, wants to go to Canada - England being regarded as dysfunctional and a broken ruin, — Tom Storm

Yes, and I had a feeling that some of that was coming, and a few different degrees of it already have. But here's a suggestion in return. Do you think you can know too much and become jaded about something? Because, likewise, Canada has equally dire problems and drawbacks, as I see them, and live them. And maybe bringing a romantic optimism to a new context will succeed in injecting some positive energy into that context and changing it for the better?

South Germany near the French border is the way to go then or even France itself. Great summers (I studied there in Strassbourg, French side). Think Karslruhe, Frankfurt am Main, maybe as far as Stuttgart. Houses are affordable, — Benkei

:chin:

where the hazards of climate change are, and will be for the foreseeable future, minimal. — 180 Proof

I'm not so sure about that.

Normally it's about -5 here this time of year. Last couple of days it got up around 15 and all the snow melted. Now, the temperature is plummeting, going down to -10 and we are getting up to 35 cm of snow in the next 24 hours. Then it is going back up to 8 on Friday.

edit: forgot to mention the 80 kph winds....

True. Geologic time-scale events become less foreboding as one's lifespan dwindles however. I wouldn't want to be 30.

Hadn't considered New Zealand. Quite a hike! BC is so expensive and seems like climate change might be more of a problem there. My wife lived and taught english in Puerto Vallarta for years and we also considered that, but the summer heat is already crazy and then you have to factor climate change in again....

We will look into New Zealand though. As long as it isn't as burning hot as Australia!

Thanks for the suggestion :)

:up:

We are going to take some short trips to England soon, possibly one later this year, to get a feel for things and check out different regions.

A very beautiful area. — Jamal

Which is high on our requirements list. It seems like everywhere has its major flaws. I suspect that happiness is mostly about the motivation and energy you bring with you.

We are also considering the Wye Valley.....

My wife has German citizenship so we have talked about Germany also. Cold is something we are trying to avoid though!

Wow. Thanks for all the information guys. This is why we ask.

I'm not sure that the critical reviews aren't just a symptom of global decline though. I would have thought Canada was the place to be, but we are reeling under crippling inflation and we lack the deep cultural foundation to combat the malaise that is modern man. At least the UK (and Europe) has that. Moreover, we are just too close to the US for comfort. We don't want to go there, we don't want to hear about the awful shit that's going down there.

Lots of food for thought though. I'm concerned about the availability of healthcare for sure. Mind you, this is a serious problem in Canada also. The only upside for me is I just retired from the healthcare industry, so I know all of the family doctors in our region, and their staff, which can help.

It also appears that the price of a house has reached the point where it is almost impossible for a single salary family to buy. — Sir2u

It's absolutely impossible in Canada. Home prices here are sky-high. Home prices in England are at least 10-15% lower. Plus we would be moving to a more rural location, definitely not a city.

Are you from Banos de la Encina?

Thanks for replying Javi! We are mainly going by climate, a little drier and sunnier, so the southwest, or northeast, like Suffolk. We are pretty flexible and hoping to find something nice since we are free to resettle where we want!

I'm just reducing faith down to its main part, I understand it's not a black and white concept that you can't have some uncertainty in a judgement, what do you think military intelligence is? — Vaskane

Exactly. Only the most trivial and mundane of things can be known without doubt. The volume of water in that glass is 300 ml. As soon as you begin to contextualize a fact, uncertainties begin to accrue. Will 300 ml quench my thirst? I have to do a long drive, will I have to take a bathroom break? The notion that "science" eliminates uncertainty is ludicrous. Human contexts are rife with uncertainty, which means that there must always be a certain element of trust in our own beliefs demanded of us in living our lives. So what some people derisively call faith is obviously both real and crucial.

I think your example of courage is also an excellent one.

If you're referencing Chomsky's preference of language for thought over language for communication, I agree with your assessment. If there's anything essentially inter-personal and essentially communicative, its language, isn't it? Also, I'm guessing the infant learns to hear words and repeat them (or see visual patterns and connect them with ends) before forming intentional thoughts within a linguistic medium, whether verbal or visual. — ucarr

:100:

If anything, I'm more inclined to view thought as fundamentally social-collective than to view language as fundamentally idiomatic.

This hypothesis doesn't seem valid to me even on its face, due to the fact that the individual has no existence independent of the collective (species). It's interesting insofar as individuality is created and defined within and through the mechanisms of thought and language. To me, this is yet another example of the dialectical nature of the universe, an ongoing balancing act between contrary forces.

I don't understand: could you please elaborate? — Bob Ross

Well your theory is about conduciveness to harmony as a kind of ideal. Kant's theory about the inherent morality of duty is expressed eloquently through his categorical imperative, "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The content and meaning of the theory and its expression are synonymous.

So how does your theory contribute and conduce to what the theory describes? As I've observed, judging by the responses in this thread, it falls far short of producing any kind of harmony. If it doesn't either reflect or contribute to what it describes, of what value is it?

Just to clarify, I am not claiming that morality is just about ‘what is morally good’: this is, indeed, an invalid oversimplification. — Bob Ross

Indeed it is not, it is the essence of morality to be prescriptive.

However, as a final note, I will say that, if your theory is accurate, it ought to be conducive to harmony (otherwise what is the point?) In fact, it appears to have had the exact opposite effect. Which tends to testify against its validity.

I mean the peaceful congruence of all parts of a thing, when I say a thing is in 100% self-harmony. This is not equivocal to being the synthesis of two extremes. — Bob Ross

Yes, that's not the least bit abstract....

Natural systems do not exist in a state of "peaceful congruence." Natural systems if anything exist in a state of far from equilibrium meta-stability governed by non-linear dynamics.

I don't disagree with your desire to promote and investigate the idea of "harmony," and if that is all you are claiming, ok. But you need to step back from the many expansions and reductions and focus on one thing. What comes across is an attempt to foist a common-sense, naturalized umbrella encompassing everything that you feel aligns in some way with the notion of goodness, that does not in any way do justice to the notion of morality.

You cannot weld the objective quality of fitness for a purpose onto morality through the mere fact that we refer to both using the term goodness. They are not equivalent. Furthermore, the quality of being "harmonious" does not serve as a good identifier. How are we supposed to understand the meaning, by analogy with music (it's primary definition and origin)? How does that work for people who are tone-deaf? I think you need to re-think what you think it is you are proving, and to what end.

Morality is and always has been about human actions, it is the essence of morality:

The domain of morality is the domain of duty. Duty is prescribed behaviour. (Durkheim, Moral Education).

I'll go with Emile Durkheim lecturing at the Sorbonne any day as one of my authoritative views on the basic nature of morality:

(Moral) authority does not reside in some external, objective fact....it consists entirely in the conception that men have of such a fact; it is a matter of opinion, and opinion is a collective thing.

Any and every virtue ever considered in a serious manner by people, especially experts in the field of study (even prior to there being a formal field of study for it), is virtuous in virtue of cultivating a character that habitually strives towards universal harmony and unity. — Bob Ross

I literally just gave you the virtue of duty, including the sense in which actions can be considered deontologically virtuous meaning they are intrinsically valued, independent of their consequences.

The fact that you can ex post facto provide an explanation for something as being "harmonious" is not surprising, is it? With your penchant for creative definition your ability to explain almost anything would not surprise me.

Is virtue (arete) unrelated to perfection? — Leontiskos

Not at all. However I believe the more literal interpretation is "to excel", which certainly aligns with the fact that moral value aligns with actions.

Yes, we aspire to live in a human world of hopes and fears and joys and sorrows. You can't simplify that. People do good because they are or aspire to be good. Sincere actions can and do have value, regardless of their relative success, that is the tragi-comedy of the human existence, the disparity between what we expect and what happens, between what we deserve and what we get.

Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. — Bob Ross

Your entire OP is based upon a false definition followed by an unending stream of equivocation between goodness and perfection, which are manifestly not the same thing, as pretty much everyone has agreed, except for you. Trying to further equivocate with harmony only makes your reasoning more precarious.

The primary historical meaning of goodness is not perfection, it is virtue, which is understood to be independent of pragmatic concerns. This is why it is possible to do good, to do the right thing, even in the face of overwhelming odds, even when the right or good actions fail. This is the entire significance of deontological ethics. Indeed, many philosophers believe (and I agree) that actions which are done out of pragmatism do not qualify as moral; rather, only those actions which are done out of the sense of duty.

I just do not see any examples of perfection in real life, and this makes me think that they do not exist, which I don't think is unreasonable. Now of course, I could be wrong. But so could you. Which person would i prefer to be wrong? — Beverley

And also, this whole notion that there is some kind of behaviour-transcending "perfection" can be utilized to justify any action that the believer believes is consonant with it. ie. it is a rationality which is conducive to the abuses of extremism. Very dangerous.

New Arabian Nights
by Robert Louis Stevenson

The human race, being capable of the greatest capacities of rational behavior, are not more anti-thetical to universal harmony; in fact, they are essential to upholding and enacting such a world. — Bob Ross

So you are assuming that rationality has a universal value. Ok. What about aesthetics? What about sentimentality? What about the inherent value of free-will? Perhaps the inherent value of free-will is the culmination of "harmonious value" - qua the material product of the evolutionary process. In which case, the most harmonious universe is actually the one filled with the greatest degree freedom.

All else not being equal, a nuclear weapon is not something that would be in the best of possible worlds because it is anti-thetical to universal harmony — Bob Ross

As I put it, however, it is not clear that this is anti-thetical to universal harmony. The human race is arguably more anti-thetical to universal harmony than would be its elimination.

This is really the point, your position is absolutely rife with assumptions, which are value-laden. Which is the larger point. So even from a pragmatic standpoint, we require guidelines to conduct that are thought to be valid, hence moral normativity.