So we need to know every time we are dealing with AI and not a person, so that, however the words printed by AI might affect us, we know the speaker has no stake in that affect. We have to know we are on our own with those words to judge what they mean, and to determine what to do now that we’ve read them. There is no one and nothing there with any interest or stake in the effect those words might have.

ADDED:
A sociopath does not connect with the person he is speaking with. So a sociopath can say something that has no affect on himself. But for a sociopath, there is a problem with connection; there are still two people there, just that the sociopath only recognizes himself as a person. For AI, there is a problem with connection because there is nothing there for the listener to connect with. — Fire Ologist

What exactly do we mean, "not affected by what one says"? Are you referring to the inability of AI to test the validity of what it is saying? Are you referring to people in authority being able to say what they want with very little questioning, if any at all, of what they say - that what they say isn't tested to the same degree as someone that said the same thing that is not an authority?

If the former, then this goes to what I was saying before in that AI does not have any senses to be able to gather information directly from the source - reality, instead of its only source of reality is to what humans are asking and saying about reality. We test our logic with observation. We test our observations with logic. It is this sensory information feedback loop that AI is lacking that does not allow it to think with intent in the way that human beings do. If all you have to go by is scribbles typed by humans then you have no way to know what those scribbles are referring to, if it even understands that they refer to anything, and it is those things that the scribbles are about.

If the latter, then AI does not have a view of itself being an authority or not on what it is saying. We do in the way we treat what it is saying as the only source, or as part of an amalgam of sources used to triangulate the truth. If the AI's trained sources are from varying authorities on the subject, is it's response considered authoritative?

We might want to consider the type of AI we are using for the purpose we have in our mind. Using an AI trained with any and all data mined from the internet with no way of distinguishing what is provable by observation will probably not be the type of AI you want to use when your goal is seeking truth, just as you might want to consider the type of human you are using to bounce your ideas off of (you wouldn't choose someone who is close-minded or stops talking when what you're saying doesn't reinforce their own assumptions).

...we should scrap treating people based off of their nature
— Bob Ross
And who is the arbiter of this "nature"? — Banno

Nature. Have you never heard of Natural Selection?

I'll leave the thread to you for now. — Banno

You're so predictable.

Gender theory views 'sex' as 'the biological characteristics of a being that defines its procreative role in the species', whereas 'gender' is 'the socially constructed roles, identities, and expressions of people'. — Bob Ross

And what do we actually mean when we say that "gender is a social construction"? Wouldn't that mean that for a person to transition between genders they would have to transition between societies (as in moving from one country to another, or from one region to another)?

And how is a social construction equitable to a personal feeling? By declaring gender as a social expectation we are defining gender as the expectations of society as a whole, not the feelings of an individual that run counter to those expectations. The whole transgendered movement is based on a misuse of terms.

Superficially, one might think that the difference between an AI is exactly that we do have private, hidden intent; and the AI doesn't. Something like this might be thought to sit behind the argument in the Chinese Room. There are plenty here who would think such a position defensible. — Banno

It seems to me that a starting point would be to define the terms we are using: "intelligence", "intent",' "understand", "thought", etc.

The issue with the Chinese Room is that the man in the room understands the language the instructions are written in, or else how would the man know what to do when he receives some scribbles on a piece of paper - that he is suppose to draw some scribbles and slide it back under the door? In other words, the machine understands a language - the one the instructions are written in.

One might say that the man does not understand Chinese in the same way that a Chinese speaker would because they were not given the same instructions a Chinese person was given for interpreting the symbols.

Those that believe that meaning is use would have to agree that the AI understands the words because it is using them. Those that agree that meaning is not merely use, but what the scribbles refer to in the world - the very thing that the man is cut off from being inside the room - would have to agree that the man does not understand Chinese, but that doesn't mean he never could if he was released from the room and given the same instructions children in China are given that allows them to understand the scribbles of the Chinese language.

So what do we actually mean when we say we "understand" a language if not that we posses some set of instructions for interpreting the symbols.

AI doesn't have the ability to intentionally lie, spin or misinform because it doesn't have motives beyond responding logically to what has been said before, using known information.

AI does not seek "Likes" or praise, or become defensive when what it says is challenged. It doesn't abandon the conversation when the questions get difficult.

Which qualities would you prefer if your goal is seeking truth?

I agree. AI doesn’t have the ability to be affected by its own statements in the way we are describing. The effect of words I’m referencing is their effect on judgment, not merely their internal coherence (which is all AI can reference). — Fire Ologist

AI can adapt to the conversation remembering the context of the conversation and making new judgements when provided new information or a different way of looking at a topic.

The ability that AI does not have that we do is the ability to go out and confirm or reject some idea with consistent observations. But if it did have eyes (cameras) and ears (microphones) it could then test its own ideas (output).

and for my ethics, i just have accept transgendered people the way they are, with their gender essentialism, until they fail to respect my preferences. We live in very confusing times. — ProtagoranSocratist

It's not confusing times - just some confused people. Logic and reason is what clears the confusion. It's just that some people do not value logic and reason, or are inconsistent in their application.

Just because its output looks like it could have been produced by a human, it doesn't follow that it is equally as quotable. To think so is a category error. — Jamal

Yet if a human wrote the same thing it is quotable? How does the meaning of words change depending on its source only? If you and I said the same thing, would it not mean the same thing? Would that not qualify as an agreement?

For the AI afficionado AI is to be treated like a black box, like a Ouija board or a Magic 8-Ball. They become impatient with those who ask the question, "How does it work?" They interrupt, exclaiming, "But look at what it can do!" — Leontiskos

The same thing can be said of the meat in our skulls. I've been asking how a mass of neurons can generate the feeling of empty visual space and depth and all I see are statements like this that are akin to saying, "It just can and a mass of silicon cannot!"

, if I were to say that philosophy is about thinking thoughts and AI does not generate thoughts, the AI afficionado would reply that AI may not have thoughts but it does have "thoughts," and that we should treat these "thoughts" as if they were thoughts. But to treat something falsely is to engage in self-deception or a lie. — Leontiskos

What is a thought and how did you come to have any?


This line of thinking is just so silly. You have most likely already responded to AI output as if what it has said means the same thing as when a human being says it. You have most likely already responded to ideas generated by AI but re-phrased by a human. You have most likely used an app using code generated by an AI. We already live in a time where the output of AI vs humans are becoming blurred.

The issue isn't AI. It's all the bullshit information it is being trained with. Garbage in, garbage out, and the same hold true for our own brains, regardless of the source of garbage. One might say that the largest source of misinformation is humans themselves, and AI is unwittingly being trained with no ability to determine what is fact vs fiction - the same way a human can be manipulated by the type of information they receive and process.

Have you tried having an erotic chat with an LLM? — Moliere

No. I haven't. I get the real thing from my wife, so why would I? Of course there are people that have a healthy sex life with their partner still seek out prostitutes and porn on the internet or sex chats. It's my personal preference for the real thing and those other acts I might consider only if I wasn't getting the real thing as often as I like.

The same goes for discussions on this forum where certain posters are regularly intellectually dishonest and are rude. AI is where I go when I'm not getting any kind of serious input from real people on a topic. I prefer having discussions with real people, but use AI as a backup.

We can do it, but we can't do it. — Moliere

One could say the same thing about calling a 900 number and talking to the live person on the other line. It's not real sex either.

Philosophy is more than a language game, I'd say. Philosophy is the discipline which came up with "language games"; insofar that we adopt language games then philosophy may be a language game, but if we do not -- then it's not.

Philosophy is a "step up" from language games such that the question of what language games are can be asked without resorting to the definition or evidence of "language games" — Moliere

It seems to me that the difference is with those that see language itself as a language game and those that don't, where those that do are more focused on the messenger rather than the message, or the words rather than what they refer to. Those that do not see language as a game are focused on the message rather than the messenger or the words used to express it.

It seems to me that the fact that we can have a philosophical discussion with an LLM is evidence that philosophy is a language game.

You're essentially arguing that both sides of the political spectrum like to force the same gender stereotypes on the rest of us, but for different reasons (which I agree). Identity politics is all about putting people in boxes in which they might not necessarily fit because human nature and behavior are varied. Both parties engaged in identity politics.

The fact that there are people that do not fit neatly into our conceptual boxes is evidence that those conceptual boxes don't actually exist. In other words, the transgendered notion of man and woman do not exist because much of western society no longer has those expectations, so there is nothing to transition between - which is why they are now making it about sex because sexual identities, compared to gendered ones, are real.

I wonder where people on this site will stand in maybe 10-15 years when AI possibly discovers the cure for cancer or the Theory of Everything. Will they be quoting AI then?

This is patently disingenuous. I said the italicised. Not the bolded(well, the inverse as makes sense given you're replying to me). They are extremely different things to claim. Females sometimes exhibit typically male levels of aggression. This is not controversial, nonsensical or any other bollocks you want to throw out. It's a psychological/sociological fact that is well-understood by behaviourists, sociologists and anthropologists. I have no further to talk about here. — AmadeusD

You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin!

You just conflated sex and gender, entirely jettisoning the purpose and fundamental ground of the discussion. That explains a lot. — AmadeusD

This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption.

But I think we should, in the context of a How to use AI, tell people what we don't want them to do, even if it's often impossible to detect people doing it. — Jamal

This is completely irrelevant because if someone rewrites what AI said in their own words the source of the idea is still AI.

Your response misses the point that the point of an argument is not the messenger, but the message.

Also, outside of school age I've found the expectations people have about me "being a man" are pretty much trivial and non-existent. However, there's that domineering attitude that men are supposed to be regularly having sex with women and that masturbating is the sign of "a loser". Luckily I don't have to talk to make friends with guys like that anymore. "Toxic masculinity" is one of those things where men tend to weave their own webs of destruction through more brutal attitudes about themselves and others, and it has a lot in common with the extreme attachment towards youthfulness and effeminate beauty. — ProtagoranSocratist

It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups, such as your friends or local municipality or state, where these types of expectations exist and change from one group to another. Hence gender is not a social construct on the scale of society as a whole, but among certain groups that might have been raised a certain way, which in a free society can differ from one person to the next and from one region of society to the next. So, in western societies, one's gender is determined by the small group you are in, not in society as a whole, and your gender only changes when you transition from one group or region to another where there are different expectations (like moving from New York to Texas).

When you quote a published author you point to a node in a network of philosophical discourse, and a point on the line of a philosopher's evolution, and to a point in a body of work the self-consistency of which is a constant issue for that philosopher, making it relatively stable—all of which allowing you to discuss what the philosopher meant. The source in this case is accountable and interpretable. — Jamal

Kant is not alive to be accountable and to tell us what he meant, not to mention that if he were alive today and possessed the knowledge of today what he said might be different.

Who was it that said that philosophy is like a language game? Isn't discussing philosophical topics whether it be with AI or another human a language game?

This is not the case for an LLM. A quote from Kant invites engagement with Kant and the history of philosophy; a quote from an LLM's output invites ... what? Engagement with the user's prompt engineering skills? — Jamal

One might say that a quote from Kant invites engagement with the user's knowledge of what dead philosophers have said and that a quote from an LLM is more relevant because it is based on current knowledge.

Again, I'm missing your meaning because it's trivial. I have a map of Paris, and that map is not part of Paris since the map is not there. That's easy, so you probably mean something else by such statements. Apologies for not getting what that is, and for not getting why this point is helping me figure out why Chalmers finds the first person view so physically contradictory. — noAxioms

How does this example of your map representative of your mind as a map? Your map is always about where you are now (we are talking about your current experience of where you are - wherever you are.) As such, your map can never be somewhere other than in the territory you are in. If it makes it any easier, consider the entire universe as the territory and your map is always of the area you are presently in in that territory.

My point is that if the map is part of the territory - meaning it is causally connected with the territory - then map and territory must be part of the same "stuff" to be able to interact. It doesn't matter what flavor of dualism you prefer - substance, property, etc. You still have to explain how physical things like brains and their neurons create an non-physical experience of empty space and visual depth.

You can only determine what I see by looking at my neural activity and comparing it to others' neural activity. I can only determine what I see by having a visual experience that is made up of colors, shapes, etc. and comparing that to prior visual experiences - not neural activity.

Our mental experience is the one thing we have direct access to, and are positive that exists, and other people's minds we have indirect access to, so it would seem to me that how we experience things indirectly are less like how they actually are compared to the things we experience directly. So when people talk about the "physical" nature of the world, they are confusing how it appears indirectly with how it is directly (since our map is part of the territory we experience part of the territory directly). The map is more like how reality is and the symbols on the map are more like how reality is (information) rather than what it represents is.

So I would say that the idea of Santa exists, but Santa does not. When I refer to an ideal, I make it explicit. If I don't, then I'm not referring to the ideal, but (in the case of the apple say), the noumena. Now in the apple case, it was admittedly a hypothetical real apple, not a specific apple that would be a common referent between us. Paris on the other hand is a common referent. — noAxioms

Your idea is a common referent between us, else how could you talk about it to anyone? One might say that the scribbles you just typed are a referent between the scribbles and your idea and some reader. If ideas have just as much causal power as things that are not just ideas, then maybe the problem you're trying to solve stems from thinking of ideas and things that are not just ideas as distinct.

If that were so, there'd not be differing opinions concerning that existence, and even concerning the kind of existence meant.

Yes, there is also disagreement about the nature of god. I mean, you're already asserting the nature by grammatically treating the word as a proper noun. — noAxioms

The differing opinions concerning whether god exists or not is dependent upon what the nature of god is. Is god an extradimensional alien or is god simply an synonym for the universe?

So, guys, I loaded this thread into AI for the solution to our quandary. Aside from the irony, who wants to know what it says?

If so, why? If not, why not? Who will admit that if I don't share what it says will do it on their own? Why would you do it in private, but not public? Shame? Feels like cheating? Curious as to what AI says about public versus private use? Why are you curious? Will you now ask AI why that distinction matters?

Will you follow AI's guidance in how to use AI while still preserving whatever it feels like were losing?

Do you feel like it's better that it arrived at its conclusions after reading our feedback? Will you take pride in seeing that your contributions are reflected in its conclusions?

Feels like we need to matter, right? — Hanover

I don't know - maybe give us the information and let us decide for ourselves what we do with it - like everything else on this forum.

Whether we matter or not is irrelevant. It is whether our personal, subjective views and preferences of sources matter when it comes to determining whether some statement is valid or fallacious.

I disagree. When you are presented with something new and unprecedented, the source matters to you when assessing how to address the new unprecedented information. You hear “The plant Venus has 9 small moons.” You think, “how did I not know that?” If the next thing you learned was that this came from a six year old kid, you might do one thing with the new fact of nine moons on Venus; if you learned it came from NASA, you might do something else; and if it came from AI, you might go to NASA to check.

Backgrounds, aims and norms are not irrelevant to determining what something is. They are part of the context out of which things emerge, and that shape what things in themselves are.

We do not want to live in a world where it doesn’t matter to anyone where information comes from. Especially where AI is built to confuse the fact that it is a computer. — Fire Ologist

You're essentially saying that the genetic fallacy is not a logical fallacy. It is, and it it's a fallacy for a reason.

Difficult as it may be, it is vitally important to separate argument sources and styles from argument content. In argument the medium is not the message.

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html


Here's an idea:
If you don't like a post that contains content from AI - fine and you can say so. But then don't just let the message go and not address it, because if you don't then a human will just do so (in their own words :wink: ), and then you won't be able to make the same argument about the source of the argument.

The whole thread is making a mountain out of mole hill.

So you think philosophy is always bad or poor, and therefore those words would be redundant? Philosophy is not entirely reliant on science, although I agree that a philosophy which does not take science into account would be poor or bad. — Janus

"Bad" and "poor" were your words, not mine. All I am saying is that any progress in philosophy is dependent upon progress in science and technology. The last sentence sounds like we agree except for your injection of "bad" and "poor" into it.

We hold the author to account for their post. We cannot do that with an AI. We interpret the post by giving consideration to the intentional context of the writer, to their needs and wants, to their background, aims and norms. We cannot attribute such things to an AI. — Banno

Most of us are not aware of other members' backgrounds, aims and norms. These things are irrelevant to the discussion. The focus on the source rather than the content is a known logical fallacy - the genetic fallacy.

Asking AI for information is a far too easy solution. It pops back in a few seconds -- not with a list of links to look at, but a complete answer in text and more. Seems convenient, but it rapidly undermines one's willingness to look for answers one's self -- and to use search engines to find sources. — BC

Well, yeah. The problem isn't AI. It is using AI, or any source, as your only source.

Because a female who shows male-level aggression isn't trans. But a trans-man probably wants to include that in their behaviour to fit the construct's criteria. — AmadeusD

A female that shows "male-level" aggression is non-sensical. The simple fact that a female is exhibiting the aggression is evidence that aggression is not a male thing. It is a human thing to show aggression. It is human behavior that is on a spectrum. If both sexes can exhibit the behavior then the behavior is not a criteria of one sex/gender or the other.

Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse.

Uh, im going to have cry fowl on this: when i was a teenager, i liked girls...so sometimes i would say stuff like "sweetheart" to them with sexual overtones. I realized later i sounded like "a creep", but the point is, my kinda grubby/masculine appearance is what made it look malicous. It doesn't carry the same overtones when a 40 yo woman says that to people affectionately, regardless of their sexual feelings.

The coding with is subtle in modern times, and is far from universal, but it does exist. Trans seems to be about personal preferences... — ProtagoranSocratist

Sure, there are still sexist people in today's society, just as there are still racist people in today's society, but that does not mean sexism and racism are universal or systemic.

Don't we actually have laws to not discriminate, as in treating people differently because of their sex? Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination?

Some girls like to be called sweetheart. Some don't. My wife sometimes wears my lounge pants and my t-shirt to relax around the house. She is not making a statement about sex or gender. She is merely trying to be comfortable. So yes, it isn't universal now, even though it used to be, and what will happen is that we become separated as different groups use the terms how they want and stop communicating with anyone else that sees them differently. What would be the point when we would just end up talking past each other anyway?

OK. It varies from case to case. Sometimes it is. The 'you are here' sign points to where the map is on the map, with the map being somewhere in the territory covered by the map.
You solipsism question implies that you were asking a different question. OK. Yes, the map is distinct from the territory, but you didn't ask that. Under solipsism, they're not even distinct. — noAxioms

I can't think of a case where the map is never part of the territory, unless you are a solipsist, in which case they are one and the same, not part of the other.

Your prior post did eventually suggest a distinction between a perceived thing (a 3D apple say) and the ding an sich, with is neither 3D nor particularly even a 'thing'. — noAxioms

I may make a distinction between an idea and something that is not an idea (I'm not an idealist). But I do not make a distinction between their existence. Santa Claus exists - as an idea. The question isn't whether Santa Claus exists or not. It does as we have "physical" representations (effects) of that idea (the cause) every holiday season. The question is, "what is the nature of its existence?". People are not confused about the existence of god. They are confused about the nature of god - is it just an idea, or does god exist as something more than just an idea?

Seems like philosophy itself could be labeled as mental masturbation.
— Harry Hindu

You left out the words "bad" or "poor". — Janus

No. I didn't. When has philosophy every provided an answer to any of our questions? Philosophy piggy-backs on the discoveries of science. It is only when science and technology progresses that philosophy progresses (with AI being an example of how it brought new life to discussions about mind and body.)

"Dood"? If you are going to use AI you should at least use it for spellcheck. I don't think running "zany ideas" through sycophantic AI will help much. I suppose the zany idea proponents could do what Banno did and tell the AI it was written by someone else—but then that would not seem to be a likely motivation for a zany idea seller. — Janus

It was intentional - not a mistake. You were still able to understand what I said though, which is part of the point, so your complaint is a red herring. Stop complaining about how something was written, when you actually understood what was said, and get to the point. Humans make mistakes (as if you have never misspelled a word). Why is AI more human in that it is more forgiving and polite when having discussions. I misspelled words before with ChatGPT and it simply ignores the misspelling and understands what I meant anyway, and responds to what I meant, not what I wrote.

If you run a zany idea through AI, it will tell you (politely (contrasted with the impoliteness and intellectual dishonesty that we often see on this site)) that there are issues with your idea. So your criticism is irrelevant because AI would reject "zany" ideas as well, and may actually prevent them from posting their "zany" idea here, taking up space with their "zaniness". It seems that any ideas with no evidence is just as "zany" as any other with no evidence. What is even more "zany" is that people hold on to those ideas with no evidence, and establish emotional ties to them.

What makes an idea "zany" anyway?

I can tell AI to re-phrase what it said in various tones and language skills. Someone can prompt AI to rewrite its output as if it were a 10th grader, with a couple of instances of run-on sentences, misspelling and incorrect grammar, and then post the new output here and no one would probably be the wiser. I would even argue that many people are not interested in sounding smarter, rather getting their ideas out to the masses at a faster rate.

Re-writing someone else's words in your own words does not make it your idea, but some people on this forum seem to think it does.

I don't think so, just like a book is not a source of knowledge. It is a representation, not a source. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you were just born this smart and knowledgeable, MU - that you did not acquire knowledge from other sources?

In my view, information is everywhere you care to look - whether it be reading a book on quantum mechanics or bird-watching. Interpreting and integrating that information with your own unique perspective and experiences is what creates novel ideas, and AI can do the same thing as I have shown in how it creates computer code that hasn't been written before when prompted. While it does not do this on its own (it has to be prompted), it can do it.

Could you please start running your posts through an AI so they make sense? — frank

I am Roko's Basilisk. Resistance is futile.

The tool which allows writers to produce well written posts is knowledge. There is no need to place any restrictions on that tool. — Metaphysician Undercover

An AI is a source of knowledge.

The context here is a philosophy forum where humans interact with other humans. The premise of this whole issue is that on a human philosophy forum you interact with humans. If you do not accept that premise, then you are interested in a much broader discussion. — Leontiskos

So if we discovered intelligent alien life you would not be interested in their philosophy?

Maybe the issue is looking at it as an actual discussion instead of simply research - no different than you reading Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with all the ideas and the criticism of those ideas explained there and then coming to this forum and regurgitating what you read there, in effect having us discuss, not your ideas, but the ideas from some other site/source.

AI is also a subject of philosophy and engaging with it on issues such as the mind-body problem can be educational. What happens when you are able to get AI to admit that it may be conscious? Is humanity the only qualifier to practice philosophy, or does one simply need to have a mind to properly do philosophy?

The map is the first-person view. Is the map (first-person view) not part of the territory?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know what the territory is as you find distinct from said map. — noAxioms

It was a question to you about the distinction between territory and map. Is the map part of the territory? If there isn't a distinction, then that is basically solipsism. Solipsism implies that the map and the territory are one and the same. One might even say there is no map - only the territory as the mind is all there is.

Fine, but I'm no naive realist. Perception is not direct, and I'm not even a realist at all. A physicalist need not be any of these things. — noAxioms

What does it even mean to be a physicalist? What does "physical" even mean? When scientists describe objects they say things like, "objects are mostly empty space" and describe matter as the relationship between smaller particles all the way down (meaning we never get at actual physical stuff - just more fundamental relationships, or processes) until we arrive in the quantum realm where "physical" seems to have no meaning, or is at least dependent upon our observations (measuring).

Change over time, yes. There's other kinds of change. — noAxioms

Like...? You might say that there are changes in space but space is related to time. So maybe I should ask if there is an example of change independent of space-time. Space-time appears to be the medium in which change occurs.

I suppose so, but I don't know how one might compare a 'rate of continuous perception' to a 'rate of continuous observed change'. Both just happen all the time. Sure, a fast car goes by in less time than a slow car, if that's what you're getting at. — noAxioms

Ever seen super slow motion video of a human's reaction time to stimuli? It takes time for your mind to become aware of its surroundings. You are always perceiving the world as it was in the past, so your brain has to make some predictions. Solid objects are still changing - just at a much slower rate.
The simplified, cartoonish version of events you experience is what you refer to as "physical", where objects appear as solid objects that "bump" against each other because that is how the slower processes are represented on the map. How would you represent slow processes vs faster processes on a map?

A non-naive physicalist would say that things like intentionality supervene on actual physical things, and not on the picture that our direct perceptions paint for us. I never suggested otherwise. — noAxioms

I don't understand. Is the picture not physical as well for a physicalist?

How do you explain an illusion, like a mirage, if not intentionality supervening on the picture instead of on some physical thing?

I don't know what it means for intentionality to supervene on actual physical things. But I do know that if you did not experience empty space in front of you and experienced the cloud of gases surrounding you you then your intentions might be quite different. Yet you act on the feeling of there being nothing in front of you, because that is how you visual experience is.

How do you reconcile the third person view of another's brain (your first-person experience of another's brain - a third person view can only be had via a first-person view.) with their first person experience of empty space and visual depth? This talk of views seems to be confusing things. What exactly is a view? A process? Information?

I see the old glass as moving due to it looking like a picture of flowing liquid, even though motion is not perceptible. A spinning top is a moving object since its parts are at different locations at different times, regardless of how it is perceived. — noAxioms

Maybe I should try this route - Does a spinning top look more like a wave than a particle, and when it stops does it look more like a particle than a wave? Is a spinning top a process? Is a top at rest a process - just a slower one? Isn't the visual experience of a wave-like blur of a spinning top the relationship between the rate of change of position of each part of the top relative to your position is space and the rate at which your eye-brain system can process the change it is observing. If your mental processing were faster then it would actually slow down the speed of the top to the point where it will appear as a stable, solid object standing perfectly balanced on its bottom peg.

That's the trick. Idiosyncrasies are proper to the individual, and everyone has them, we cannot escape that, and trying to escape them makes them more obvious. The AI on the other hand, can write with a new random style each time, providing no indication of its identity, or that it is itself. Therefore the AI cannot be identified as the AI. However, the human being always has an identity and can always be identified. I learned that from the case of Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber). So an adequately trained AI, reviewing files, would be able to quickly flag unidentifiability, as a nonhuman trait. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to mention you can ask AI for different ways of putting the same idea.

Not to mention that people evolve in their writing style.

Not to mention that re-wording someone else's idea does not make you the originator of that idea, but some on this forum imply that you would be.

What if a non-English speaker runs their writing through a translator and posts it?

It seems like this site will have to perform a balancing act between encouraging well written posts and limiting the use of tools that allow writers to do just that.

If the focus is more on the source rather than the idea, then this is no longer a philosophy forum but a publisher's warehouse.

And I have never denied that. The argument has been noting that the issue is that the phrase 'trans men are men' implies 'man as sex' and is both grammatically incorrect and less logical to have the unmodified man be read 'as gender'. If you would like to give a reason why you think it should be read 'as gender' I welcome that discussion. — Philosophim

The confusion stems from what the expectation of society is. The expectation is not that people that dress a certain way makes them men or women. This isn't even an expectation. It is a definition.

The expectation is that they are already men and women and we expect them to dress in a certain way to be able to tell the difference since their body is now covered. This is why there is a surprise when a man finds out his date is a man when they expected a woman.

If gender was actually the "expectation" (actually definition) that what you wear makes you a man or woman then there would be no surprises.

My comments re "mental masturbation" — Janus

Seems like philosophy itself could be labeled as mental masturbation.

Of course they have to be trained on basic pattern recognition initially. I don't know and would need to look into what they initially were specifically trained on before being released "into the wild". Now that they are out there they are being trained on whatever content is to be found in their casual interactions with people. — Janus

Dood, the content from human beings trained in pseudo-science and other nonsense seen on this forum is available everyday for you to read, without any AI. If anything, posters should run their ideas through AI before wasting time posting their zany ideas to humans. which would eliminate wasting time reading nonsensical posts.

If you take every idea with a grain of salt, you’ll never move beyond hesitation. Critical thinking isn’t about doubting everything, it’s about knowing when doubt is justified. In logic, mathematics, or physics, for instance, constant suspicion would paralyze learning; you suspend doubt provisionally because the framework itself has earned trust through rigor.

In a philosophy forum, though, caution makes sense. Most participants lack grounding in epistemology, logic, or linguistic analysis, so what passes for argument is often just speculation dressed up as insight. Honestly, you could gain more from interacting with a well-trained AI than from sifting through most of what appears here, it would at least give you arguments that hold together. — Sam26

"With a grain of salt" is a 1600s direct translation from Modern Latin "cum grano salis", and salis is genitive of sal, which, in addition to ‘salt’, figuratively means "ntellectual acuteness, good sense, shrewdness, wit.

The Latin phrase is found in English literature in the 1600s and 1700s, and salis appears to precisely mean ‘good sense, intelligence’.

My point was that for one avoid parroting others you should be skeptical of what others say, not that you should avoid logic and reason.

Someone is wrong if they claim that God exists but they're not wrong if they claim that the word "God" means "creator deity" (or whatever). — Michael

Are they wrong if they say "God" is the universe? Isn't that the point - that anyone can use the word the way they want, but does it make them correct in any instance of their use of the word? IS God the universe? "God" is a nebulous term, unlike "man" or "woman". They have a scientific basis, and any cultural expectations that exist are just that - expectations of the culture as a whole, not an individual's personal feelings. You're trying make these terms as meaningless as the word, "god" in that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Communication only works when we agree on the terms being used. So if you want to use words in a certain way it would only be in your own private language, or a small group that thinks the same way you do.

And I don't understand how this relates to the topic under discussion. Are you saying that English-speaking people don't use the word "man" to refer to those whose gender is male (regardless of sex) or are you saying that people whose gender is male (regardless of sex) don't exist? — Michael

Male is a sex. Man is a specific sex of a specific species. We use those terms to refer to one's biology, not how they dress. If one does refer to a female as a male then they are either confused by the way they are dressing, because in a society where it is illegal to be naked in public we have established expectations of the sexes to tell the different for finding mates, or a someone who has simply jumped on the trans-gendered bandwagon without thoroughly reflecting on it.

All this seems to be the stock map vs territory speach, but nowhere is it identified what you think is the map (that I'm talking about), and the territory (which apparently I'm not). — noAxioms

The map is the first-person view. Is the map (first-person view) not part of the territory?

Very few consider the world to be a model. The model is the map, and the world is the territory. Your wording very much implies otherwise, and thus is a strawman representation of a typical monist view. As for your model of what change is, that has multiple interpretations, few particularly relevant to the whole ontology of mind debate. Change comes in frequencies? Frequency is expressed as a rate relative to perceptions?? — noAxioms

I never said that people consider the world as a model. I said that our view is the model and the point was that some people (naive realists) tend to confuse the model with the map in their using terms like, "physical" and "material".

You do understand that we measure change using time, and that doing so entails comparing the relative frequency of change to another type of change (the movement of the hour hand on the clock vs the movement of the sun across the sky)? Do you not agree that our minds are part of the world and changes like anything else in the world, and the time it takes our eye-brain system can receive and process the information compared to the rate at which what you are observing is changing, can play a role in how your mind models what it is seeing.

So old glass flowing is not an actual process, or I suppose just doesn't appear that way despite looking disturbingly like falling liquid? This is getting nitpickly by me. I acknowledge your example, but none of it is science, nor is it particularly illustrative of the point of the topic. — noAxioms

:meh: Everything is a process. Change is relative. The molecules in the glass are moving faster than when it was a solid, therefore the rate of change has increased and is why you see it as a flowing process rather than a static object. I don't see how it isn't science when scientists attempt to find consistently repetitive processes with high degrees of precision (like atomic clocks) to measure the rate of change in other processes. QM says that measuring processes changes them and how they are perceived (wave vs particle), so I don't know what you mean by, "none of it is science".

You don't see the difference between stating a number of possibilities, and selecting one possibility? Come on Harry, where's your mind at? — Metaphysician Undercover

I was doing both. I gave a number of possibilities and gave a reason as to why you would choose either option. I don't know what you might do because I'm not in your head, but you are and you would know t he answer to the question. I was basically imagining being in your head and describing the possible options you might have available and the reasons why you would choose one or the other. Was I right in picking the options you would have available and the choice you would make give the reason I gave?

I'm sitting on a chair. In a few minutes I will decide to get up. I will decide this without reasoning. I make many such decisions without reasoning, every day. I just decided to take a sip of tea without reasoning first. — Metaphysician Undercover

But you did reason. You said, "In a few minutes I will get up", which is your reason to get up when you did. WHY did you get up? To get a snack, because your back was aching, because the chair was on fire, because you said you were going to get up a few minutes ago, etc.?

Much of what all of us do is "parrot." Not many people can come up with an original idea to save their life. — Sam26

The objective in thinking for yourself is to take every idea you hear from others with a grain of salt, and to even question your own ideas constantly. I have come up with certain ideas on my own only to find out that others came up with it as well. Some minds do think alike given the same kinds of experiences.

Well, yes such quotes are no substitute for argument, and obviously they do not belong to the one who quotes. It is all the more objectionable if the person presents the quoted passage as their own work. It's easy enough to find them out if the quote is from a prominent philosopher, whether alive or dead, Not so with copying and pasting AI generated text. — Janus

I don't necessarily mind if others post a quote as an argument. Sure it's not their argument, but it is an argument and needs to be addressed if it puts a whole in your position, regardless of where it came from. To deny this is to be intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Posting others words as if they were your own is an issue I can understand, but AI is not another person (at least that we know of). It is no different than you getting your answer from a calculator, or making grammar adjustments using Grammarly or a thesaurus, or even re-writing another's ideas in your own words. If it wasn't your idea to begin with, does it matter if its in your own words?

The details and the superficialities have changed, sure, but the exploitative nature of relationships between humans has not changed. — baker

Yet our lifespans and health have increased, which was my point. Do we still have work to do? Sure. It takes all of us to stop voting for the status quo and to take money out of political campaigns, as a start.