There is a matter of trust here. There is no reason we should trust AI technology and its corporate owners — BC
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellas with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free, yes, and eternally young
- Donald Fagan, IGY
Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? Aren’t we back to orthogenesis, that being ‘evolution in which variations follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic and fortuitous’? That is a very different picture to orthodox neo-Darwinism. I asked ChatGPT for a synopsis:
Neo-Darwinian theory, which is essentially the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, focuses on natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as the main drivers of evolution. It emphasizes the role of random mutations, which are then acted upon by natural selection, leading to adaptations that increase the fitness of organisms in their environments. — Wayfarer
But the times they are a’ changing. — Wayfarer
My neighbor only changes my belief if I choose to believe he's on the level. — RogueAI
You can't change a belief when new evidence is presented? For example, I'm driving to work, thinking my house is fine. My neighbor calls me and tells me it's on fire. I now have a new belief that my house is not fine. I didn't change my belief in that case? What happened then? — RogueAI
Isn't the process which is random the actual mutations? — Wayfarer
Abstract
Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences1. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. With independent genomic mutation datasets, including from the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment conducted to date, we demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes. Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r = 0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.
Where did you get that impression?
— wonderer1
Are you saying the random mutation of genes that leads to superior survival and reproduction is intentional in some way?? — Astrophel
Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel
Then I invite you to consider that evolution is in essence entirely "accidental". — Astrophel
As I understand it, the issue with teleology, goal-directedness and purpose is that it was associated with Aristotelian physics... — Wayfarer
We might put a dog down if it kills someone, buy we don't do it for punishment. — Patterner
Animals, including insects, faced the possibility of criminal charges for several centuries across many parts of Europe. The earliest extant record of an animal trial is often assumed to be found in the execution of a pig in 1266 at Fontenay-aux-Roses.[2] Newer research, however, suggests that this reading might be mistaken and no trial took place in that particular incident.[3] Notwithstanding this controversy, such trials remained part of several legal systems until the 18th century. Animal defendants appeared before both church and secular courts, and the offences alleged against them ranged from murder to criminal damage. Human witnesses were often heard, and in ecclesiastical courts the animals were routinely provided with lawyers (this was not the case in secular courts, but for most of the period concerned, neither were human defendants). If convicted, it was usual for an animal to be executed or exiled. However, in 1750, a female donkey was acquitted of charges of bestiality due to witnesses to the animal's virtue and good behaviour while her co-accused human was sentenced to death.
Is there a name for the logical fallacy that "P is repugnant, therefore not-P." — fishfry
True enough, we are not running out of space, and mass starvation has not ensued. — BC
Emissions from food production, already considered one of the biggest contributors to climate change, have been underestimated for decades, potentially skewing the pledges that countries have made under the Paris climate agreement to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.
In a study published this week in Environmental Research Letters, researchers found that the food system was responsible for as much as 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
“When you count it all up, across the food system, it’s enormous,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So it offers countries really enormous opportunities.”
If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). — Chet Hawkins
One reason, I think, (other than Dennett's provocative style) is that lay people often see the relatively few public figures like him as representative, if not wholly constituent of their field, whereas in reality, the field is both more crowded and more diverse than they realize. As a result, those public figures are seen as more significant and/or controversial on the outside than on the inside. — SophistiCat
Opus read my mind and understood everything that I was driving at. Llama 3 does sound like a stochastic parrot; Claude 3 not at all. — Pierre-Normand
I think it's a really strange thing that some peoples first inclination on hearing about the death of someone is to try to discredit them or list all the things you disagree with them about. — flannel jesus
This progress doesn’t get us closer and closer to the way things ‘really are’, it just gets us fresher and farther from who we used to be. And it also opens up increasingly intimate and peaceful ways of understanding each other that I believe will eventually allow us to jettison our blame-based moralisms. — Joshs
Like this:
While people who have been blind since birth do indeed dream in visual images, [...]
— https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/ — Lionino
Occipital lobe activity in those blind from birth or early in life
In those with early or congenital blindness, their occipital lobe is still very active. However, that activity happens when they use their other senses, such as smell, hearing and touch. The occipital lobe of a person with blindness also becomes more active when they’re speaking or listening to others talking.
This reassignment of the occipital lobe is a form of neuroplasticity. That’s the term for the brain’s ability to adapt itself to an unusual circumstance or condition.
According to the scientific method, a statistical significance of five sigma is accepted as the criterion for reliable knowledge of unobservable entities like the Higgs boson. — Michael
That seems non-productively reductionist to me.
— wonderer1
It seems consistent with the scientific evidence. Experience exists within the brain. Distal objects exist outside the brain. Therefore, distal objects are not constituents of experience. — Michael
But as far as biology is concerned, and as the evolutionary ideologues such as Dennett and Dawkins continually say, human life can be ultimately reduced to, and explained in terms of, the fundamental drives that characterise all other existence, summarised as 'the four F's' (Feeding, fighting, fleeing, and reproduction.) — Wayfarer
...but in that trashy book of lies, the guardian, so you won't have seen it. — Banno
For almost a decade after qualifying, Duxbury worked as a livestock specialist and a stud person for national farming companies.
... Intentionalism typically characterizes the connection between perception (taken as a representative state) and the perceived mind-independent objects as a merely causal one. But if the connection is merely causal, then it seems natural to take the suitable mind-independent objects to be distinct from the experience itself and, therefore, not literally constituents of it.
Which is why arguing over the grammar of "I see X" doesn't address the philosophical substance of naive or indirect realism, which concerns whether or not distal objects and their properties are constituents of experience. — Michael
Is there a reason we can't see consciousness in either context? Not necessarily now, but in principle? — Patterner
But the double-thinking human mind with its complexity and linguistic agility guarantees that this species is unique in its internal conflict and the variety of ways it can go mad. — Vera Mont
True, none of us act as if animals are machines, but the mechanistic metaphor still holds considerable sway over the scientific attitude. — Wayfarer
Anyway, I don't see anything there worth reading, just an offensively neutral (scrupulously circumspect) regurgitating of stuff the three of us said, with a little linguistic connective tissue. I find it grotesque that these AIs thank you for every thought you share with them and note how interesting that thought is. That's programming, not interest. — Srap Tasmaner
[Claude 3:] As an AI interlocutor, I find this framework highly relevant for navigating interactions with users who may hold misguided or potentially harmful beliefs, such as conspiracy theories. The temptation in such cases might be to directly confront and debunk the problematic belief with facts and logic. However, the insights above suggest that this direct approach may often be ineffective, as it fails to address the deeper intuitive and inferential patterns that sustain the belief.
A more productive strategy, drawing on wonderer1's approach, might be to patiently explore the user's specific ways of reasoning about the issue, and to look for opportunities to plant "subconscious hooks" - new information, perspectives, or lines of inquiry that could gradually lead them to question their assumptions. This might involve asking probing questions, pointing out potential inconsistencies or blind spots, or introducing alternative frameworks for making sense of the relevant facts.
Crucially, the goal would not be to immediately dismantle the conspiracy theory, but to seed doubts and openings that could mature over time into a more substantive reconsideration. By tracking the user's deontic scores - the ways they commit to or become entitled to certain claims in the course of our exchange - I could look for subtle leverage points to encourage a re-evaluation of their belief system. — Pierre-Normand
I think he is delusional and talks nonsense! — Truth Seeker
There are trillions of such things that I can prove. — Truth Seeker
Bird wings and airplane wings have many similarities and many differences. Artificial neural networks have become increasingly different from their biological counterparts since the 1940s or 50s. — jkop
Here is the reaction from Claude 3 Opus. — Pierre-Normand
We also comment on the passing away of Daniel Dennett: — Pierre-Normand
Evolution would favor a rational brain? Not necessarily. Even we have irrational biases drilled into us through evolution. — khaled
Whether the processing is designed or coincidental doesn't matter. The objection refers to isomorphism and the false promise that by being like the biological process the artificial process can be conscious. — jkop