Consider assigning a time frame such as another 10,000 years, where will AI be then? — universeness

Simulating "pocket" universes. :nerd:

Do you really think AI will remain a mere human appendage?

If and when strong – self-aware – AGI 'emerges', human intelligence will be obsolete.

:100:

Btw, on an adjacent topic which you might be more willing – able – to answer directly: the conception that is most consistent with your metaphysical outlook / commitment is

A. The universe emerged from intelligence.

B. Intelligence/s emerged from the universe.

C. The universe emerged from 'infinite' intelligence, then 'finite' intelligence/s emerged from the universe.

D. The universe itself is intelligent.

E. Either the universe or intelligence or both are illusions (maya).

As a naturalist I find that B is most consistent internally as well as with all that we know scientifically – publicly – so for about narure.

I say that beings are subjects of experience, which is a simple fact. — Wayfarer

So "simple" that you can demonstrate this and yet haven't bothered to – why? Just because you keep saying it doesn't make your definition a "fact". :roll:

Quoting a secondary source in no way refutes H's conspicuous use of the terms which I pointed out; also, your post doesn't even address how your idiosyncratic usage of "being", as @Jamal has argued, is justified in public discourse.

:100: :smirk:

Assuming 'self-referential phenomenological processes' constitute subjectivity ...

... Subject-things
Object-things

Objects with subjects¹ (e.g. persons)
Objects without subjects² (i.e. things).

The term 'being' (Sein) seems superfluous and anachronistic. Anyway, I agree with @Jamal and – no surprise – disagree with @Wayfarer's usage. Consider Heidegger's anti-cartesian denotations:

Da-sein (existence, in-der-Welt-sein)¹
Seiendes (beings, things)²

Or if one prefers:

subject-beings¹
nonsubject-beings²

Ask Wayfarer about his terminology. I tried to tease out the implications that call his terms in question, but not to much effect.

You'd have to read Wayfarer's post from which I quoted and responded to with my post.

If you ask whether the person is still a person to themselves when they are not conscious, I don't think the question makes any sense. — T Clark

I agree, and this is not the question I've asked.

"It's moving but it's not sentimental."

How do you get to the belief that the concept of God is nonsense? — Moliere

Speaking for myself, I start and then stop at 'what we say about g/G', that is, 'what religious scriptures attribute to (the) deity', and assess them as claims which are either true, false or incoherent. I don't bother with addressing g/G itself. As far as I can discern it, theism – its sine qua non claims about g/G – consists of both false and incoherent claims; and an idea (e.g. theism) of a deity ascribed false or incoherent properties is a nonsensical idea, no? So theism is not true, to my mind, whether or not '(the) deity is real'.

I suspect where we land often boils down to people's aesthetic experience of the world. The idea of a transcendent being (magic man) seems right and beautiful to some folks, wrong and ugly to others. — Tom Storm

Yet isn't applying "aesthetic" (like epistemological) preferences to answering ontological questions a category mistake to begin with?

What is computation? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Here's the first in a series of lectures by one of the founders of 'quantum computational theory' David Deutsch which explains in summary the fundamental nature of computation as a quantum process underlying all classical processes like e.g. the 'Universal Turing Machine'.

It would be prudent to avoid that presumption. — Wayfarer

And likewise also prudent to dismiss your statement about a "non-conscious being" which implies such a presumption.

becoming as difference — Joshs

Explain how this "idea" follows from a distinction of "existence and being".

Does it count that I once dreamt I was a toilet? — Joshs

Possibly. :sweat:

:cool: :party:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557684

A non-conscious being is not actually 'a being' but an object or a thing — Wayfarer

So while sleeping or comatose, a person is just a "thing", and not a "being", like a sofa or toilet?

I think Carl is paraphrasing Descartes. Like Descartes, it appears he has it ontologically backwards. — Mikie

Idealists (i.e. spiritualists) like Jung just ignore Sartre's pre-cogito maxim "existence preceeds essence".

:clap: :cool:


"Shake" (2:35)
Otis Blue, 1965
writer Sam Cooke, 1964
performer Otis Redding

Friday, peeps! .. and missing all "my ex-wives" :yum:

Besides quoting @universeness, Albert Einstein and myself out of context in order to bark at shadows of strawmen dancing on the walls of your thin-skinned thick skull, sir, it's also fair and reasonable to remind you that your "Enformer"-of-the-gaps dogma is in no way remotely comparable logically or metaphysically to what Einstein loosely refers to as "the God of Spinoza". :cool:

Every snakeoil charlatan strives to "bedazzle 'em with bullshit" but, of course, only you, O Sage "Enformer" of this site's Quantum-Woo Crew, are bedazzled. :sparkle: :sweat:

There is of course the basic dualistic character of Kant's philosophy in the sense of phenomena/ noumena or for us/ in itself, but that just reflects the ineliminably dualistic nature of all our thinking, and in no way entails substance dualism. — Janus

I read Kant's "dualistic thinking" as (an attempt at) 'ontologizing epistemology' (i.e. reify knowing) by designating "for us" the tip "phenomena" of the iceberg "in itself" above the water line "noumena". So on what grounds does Kant posit the "in itself" from which he then conjures-up the "for us" to 'retro-construct' with various "transcendental" sleights-of-mind?

God doesn't exist. Sure. So why in the world does this idea have so much influence today, and why did it have influence before? — Moliere

Read e.g. Zapffe's "The Last Messah", Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity or Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ... to start.

Good luck trying to explain something that is beyond human experience and understanding [Non-manifest Image] in terms of human experience and understanding [Manifest Image]. — Janus

:up:

Maybe you can succinctly explain to me, Janus – what @Wayfarer obviously can't (re: ) – the function of "transcendental idealism" in contrast to "empirical realism".

The only thing with intelligence in the entire galaxy is humanity. — Leftist

What rational grounds do you have to make such a statement? Filling a bucket with sea water, as we have with our massive, powerful telescopes in the last century or so since Edwin Hubble, and not finding a whale in it, does not entail there aren't any whales in the sea, does it?

Note -- I look forward to the next smirking reply from ↪180 Proof satirizing Einstein's spooky woo-woo nature-worship. — Gnomon

The only thing "spooky woo woo" about Einstein is your (willful?) misunderstanding of him and his work which suits your "Enformer"-of-the-gaps tilts at windwills. :sparkle:

I acknowledge that "possibilty", I even imagine it's dramatized at the end of 2001 (re: "nano sapiens / transcension" if you recall).

:up:

Juju (42:07), 1965
Wayne Shorter - ts (d. 2023)
McCoy Tyner - p
Reggie Workman - b
Elvin Jones - d

Another non sequitur. :clap:

I don't kid you. Check out Wayfarer's non-response to this . :smirk:

a myth which orients me, rather than a truth — Moliere

Philosophy aims to tell truth-based myths no?

Logic, like math, is "addressed to everyone", yet illogic and innumeracy prevail.

That said you [@Wayfarer] also need to explain clearly what you mean by saying that humans are intrinsic to the universe, and then provide a cogent argument for why we should believe that. — Janus

:yikes:

the part of philosophy I still have no idea what to do with. (the mythic) — Moliere

Elaborate.

Can we agree on properties that give beauty or harmony in objects, humans, artworks and phenomena? — Eros1982

If we can, how about the property of 'novel / nested symmetries'?

Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness may result from certain features and/or properties?

I think "certain features and/or properties" (e.g. symmetries) make it easier – less costly in calories for a CNS – to have an aesthetic response – and get a reward system spike! – from attention to those "features and/or properies". Imagine a (i.e. your favorite) sonnet, natural vista, woman's walk, man's hands, musical composition, logical argument / mathematical proof.

So if every human has a metaphysic [grammar], then should philosophy [theories of the real] address itself to every human? — Moliere

As Freddy Zarathustra subtitles his hymn to the "the meaning of the Earth" (TSZ), philosophy is "for all and for none". Indeed, my friend, some are only born posthumously and die many times while still alive. :fire:

Caveat: "a philosophy" that would "address itself to every human" soon becomes a religion (or political myth). :mask:

:fire:

Well, sir, what non-trivial (non-epiphenomenal) difference does Kantian 'subjective time' (and/or 'subjective space') make against the background of the "empirical realism" of spatiotemporality (e.g. Einsteinian relativity of simultaneity)?

Do you see this as a serious existential risk on the level of climate change or nuclear war? — Marchesk

No.

Do you think it's possible a generalized AI that is cognitively better than all of humanity is on the horizon?

Yes.

If such a thing is possible and relatively imminent, do you think it's risky to be massively investing in technologies today which might lead to it tomorrow?

All technocapital investments are "risky".

Even if you don't think it's an existential threat, do you worry that we will have difficulty aligning increasingly powerful models with human values?

"Worry"? That depends on which "human values" you mean ...

Or maybe the real threat is large corporations and governments leveraging these models for their own purposes.

In other words, humans – the investor / CEO class.

What makes alignment a hard problem for AI models? — Marchesk

I don't think this "alignment problem" pertains to video game CPUs, (chat)bots, expert systems (i.e. artificial narrow intellects (ANI)) or prospective weak AGI (artificial general intellects). However, once AGI-assisted human engineers develop an intellgent system complex enough for self-referentially simulating a virtual self model that updates itself with real world data N-times per X nanoseconds – strong AGI – therefore with interests & derived goals entailed by being a "self", I don't see how human-nonhuman "misalignment" is avoidable; either we and it will collaboratively coexist or we won't – thus, the not-so-fringy push for deliberate transhumanism (e.g. Elon Musk's "neurolink" project).

Who gets to decide what values to align?

Or maybe: What gets to decide ...

@universeness :nerd:

:up:

Thanks, but I'll pass. Shooting fish in a barrel like that ain't fun anymore. :halo:

rationality Vs theism. — universeness

I.e. sound defeasible reasoning vs woo-of-the-gaps fairytales. :wink:

All I'm doing is "a little speculating" about the prospects for a posthuman (even post-posthuman (e.g. nano sapien à la "the Monolith")) future. As for "theists", from what I can tell, uni, they don't speculate nearly as much or as often as they rationalize / fantasize (e.g. woo-of-the-gaps).