The burden is really on you - as the AI proponent - to show that your machine architecture is actually beginning to simulate anything the human brain is doing. — apokrisis

But, what is being asked of me is to prove grounds for there existing a false negative. It can't be done and seemingly will never be able to be proven by any AI denier.

Godel's target was inductive logic, right? — creativesoul

Well, it is true for any formal system. Again, making the distinction between believing a proposition is true from it actually being true. For all else, redundancy in truth value or meaning.

Do you think it's gotten easier since then, or more complicated? I don't know for sure, but I bet the latter. — Wayfarer

So, your argument is some sort of Zeno's paradox, as in we're not there thus we'll never get there? Because I don't see what you say or have referenced as being proof that stuff like simulating the human brain as being impossible. Highly difficult or complex? Yes, surely.

If you can disprove the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle, then I'll retract my assumption.

However, given that we cannot guarantee that every statement is recognisable as true or recognisable as false, we are only entitled to this principle if our notion of truth is recognition-transcendent. By the above argument, it is not, and hence bivalence must be rejected and metaphysical anti-realism follows (Dummett 1963)

That's not entirely true. Godel's incompleteness theorem asserts that there are some propositions within a system that cannot be proven inside that system (such as the consistency of said system), thus implying a sort of recognition-transcendence. Or not?

Dummett's argument concludes that the principle of bivalence be rejected because we cannot always recognize whether or not a statement is true/false. — creativesoul

That's approaching the level of making a metaphysical claim. I see no grounds to assert that. There's a bigger issue at play though. Does everything have to be demonstrably true or false for it to be real? I don't think so... Just look at numbers or other abstract entities.

There's little to no evidence pointing that there are extraneous (metaphysical) factors at play when analyzing the mind (brain). And most of said evidence already starts with a metaphysical assumption that can't be understood, meaning lots of hand waiving and if's to be empirically proven. But, I'm not sure you see the paradox in ascertaining the validity of metaphysical statements in a materialist world.

But, none of them constitute or amount to 'a being'. — Wayfarer

That's again not a problem as long as there's no hard limit in terms of the physics of the human mind that 'cant' be emulated.

Now of course, there are those who say they are: notably, Ray Kurzweil, who preaches the singularity, and others of his ilk. But those philosophers are materialists, meaning that their arguments are subject to the various arguments against materialism (which are too numerous and detailed to summarise here.) — Wayfarer

The arguments against physicalism and materialism are rather moot in having to resort to identifying a metaphysical aspect of the laws of nature. And, even if they become identified or more aptly called 'intelligible' then there's nothing to incorporate the idea into already mainstream materialism and an account of said 'metaphysical' factor.

Bet you can't produce any actual evidence of that (apart from the debate about it, which has been going for about 50 years. — Wayfarer

Sure, you can't surmount a mountain in one giant leap, but, everything is pointing in that direction as we speak. Self-driving cars, then planes, then IBM's Watson that's being used in medical sciences to analyze X-Ray's and fMRI's. Google is at work planning on making AI a reality also. Big pharma wants AI stimulable brains (blue brain project) to test pharmaceutical compounds on since there's the moral issue of testing on humans and conditions can be controlled with a computer brain that would not lie or stop taking medication. The placebo effect is all dealt with also in one blow.

I don't know when it will happen; but, it seems to be where we are all headed.

The fact that the human mind is simulable. There seem to be no hard physical laws that would prohibit that from that statement not being true.

Why should AI have anything to do with moral statements and postulates? — Wayfarer

Well, because AI will know us better than we know ourselves. We created it, it is a sentient being corn out of our efforts. Everything we know, AI will know only better and with greater accuracy.

So, what is going on in the depressed mind when one only feels gloomy and sad? Is it all a deficiency on some neurotransmitter level or maybe an excess of empathy and feeling?

It is what it is.

Why isn't this a topic about pragmatism and the latter Wittgenstein? I don't see how there's even something unrealistic being said with such a tautology being there in the first place to start with as a premise.

I'm here to discuss if Dummett is right that such a view of language entails anti-realism. — Michael

It doesn't because truth becomes redundant with utility and use. If anything it draws a distinction between meaning derived from social-cultural use and scientific realism.

I, for instance, have unaccountably become more optimistic and cheerful in the last few years. Probably a tumor. Or early alzheimers. — Bitter Crank

Sounds good. Let me know how I can get or adopt said tumor.

Maybe your point is that suffering gives rise to the impetus to meaning in a Buddhist sense? Is that correct?

It's not 'a metaphysical claim', although the absence of meaning may indeed be a metaphysical ailment. — Wayfarer

Meaning is an observer dependent concept. No observer, no meaning to get all quantum on you.

Not at all. Suffering is the cost of existence. The price of being physical, is physical pain. — Wayfarer

But, is it necessary?

But I'm puzzled by your remark that 'he doesn't answer the question himself from what I gather. What was the meaning that Dr. Frankl l found in such a horrible and despicable place?' Even the Wikipedia summary of the book provides an answer:

Frankl concludes that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living; life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death. In a group therapy session during a mass fast inflicted on the camp's inmates trying to protect an anonymous fellow inmate from fatal retribution by authorities, Frankl offered the thought that for everyone in a dire condition there is someone looking down, a friend, family member, or even God, who would expect not to be disappointed. Frankl concludes from his experience that a prisoner's psychological reactions are not solely the result of the conditions of his life, but also from the freedom of choice he always has even in severe suffering. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a hope in the future, and that once a prisoner loses that hope, he is doomed. — Wayfarer

Yes, but that is almost making it sounds like a tautology. He makes the metaphysical claim that everything has to mean and thus makes meaning redundant and inherent in anything we do. How does morality factor in with everything having so much meaning?

Notice the etymological link between logo (as in logotherapy), logos, and logic. Originally, 'logic' was thought to be a feature of the Universe itself; now Western culture by and large thinks the Universe is 'objectively meaningless' and that meaning is subjective, social, cultural or at any rate derivative. That is what we have to overcome, somehow. — Wayfarer

Yes, but (as I like to reference the problem of evil another way) what about the burning fawn in the forest? Does one not have to address the problem of evil when bringing out such a profound, even Pollyanna'ian, statement that the universe is filled with meaning? This was my gist with Frankyl when he says that the universe, and life itself, demands that we give it meaning instead of the other way around.

What it is that gives my life meaning has changed over time, several times. — Bitter Crank

Haven't you felt a sense of confusion or apathy due to the ever changing aspect of meaning? I'll go on a limb and assert that half of philosophy is the difference between objective measures (normative) of meaning and the differing subjective measure.

Anyhow, I desire one thing, but will it give me happiness? Is meaning a purely subjective matter or is there more to meaning than what whims my mind comes up with desiring or wanting to be so or be bona fide a reality.

It seems to me, that meaning has two aspects that are hard to reconcile without resorting to 'compassion' or 'empathy'. There is a strong subjective component to meaning; but, without compassion or empathy, it turns into often narcissism or some other form of neuroticism or obsession with the self. One goes about in the world constantly unsatisfied at the perceived flaw or lack of esteem in oneself. Then there's compassion, where the results of one's work can be seen or perceived and noticed in the lives of others and not ones-self.

I see people constantly disenfranchised with how much they make (money), and are constantly comparing themselves and their worth to the amount they have in the bank. A car, a glorious house, and loving wife are not enough for these people. Nothing seems to satisfy them, and they die almost despairing.

To avoid the Nietzschean interpretation that life is meaningless and power solves all, or the pessimism of Schopenhauer, one needs to remedy this situation with not deep philosophy or psychology on the matter, as if made with some pretentious intention about the grandiosity of one's existence. The solution seems to be in the form of compassion and a sense of love for someone other than oneself. Caring for another is often dismissed as stupid or futile, where the answer is presented in the form of some lofty neo-liberalist goals of free trade and the efficiency of the markets. Yet, people remain the same, nothing has changed, for the better at least. Are compassion and empathy really the answer or is this some other pretentious attempt at giving one's life more meaning than it already has or doesn't at worst?

I also think, there's too much emphasis on college level education and not enough on technical schools that you see in Europe. Nowadays because of that overemphasis on getting a BA, everyone has one, and it's harder and harder to differentiate your inherent skills in some field, stand out from the crowd, and make money that is equinumerous with your level of expertize talents, and interest than not.

It's a problem of not anyone per se, but of a growing population, and lack of ability at identifying traits that would allow said a student from accomplishing something with their ability level. There's no real solution to this situation, unfortunately, because telling a student what they will be good at in the future is mired with trouble with the notion of equality and Lockean 'tabula rasa' enshrined in schools nowadays. Many people end up with so-called 'lost years' trying to find out themselves what they will/would be good at doing in schools. The upside is that you're the only one to blame for your misfortunes, rather than being unhappy with said circumstances from some external factor.

I wouldn't blame anyone. You're competing with the brightest minds from other countries in public schools in many cases. Also, idolizing how awesome an NBA player makes and how many games he or she has played in isn't a winning strategy either. The quality of education is also not something that can be learned due to inherent characteristics of the person being educated about X matter.

I think motivation is another wayof saying that either one desires a change in circumstances expedient of what one experiences or a persistence to a given state of affairs. Whether or not one thinks they are responsible for either case is debatable.

He was also quite anally retentive.

The assertion made is somewhat a tautology, and what about the redundancy theory of truth of things just is?

How is the weather nowadays?

What do you want?

Who are you?

This seems to be an individual problem that people (from the West) seem to face. I would imagine people living in a centrally planned economy run by AI (think China) wouldn't have these issues, at least not to the same extent as say spending time with other people, enjoying one's community, etc.

Thoughts? Seems like flat-landers are nowadays everywhere or people just trolling?

I wish China could just take over North Korea and turn the country from a 3'rd world into the modern era. Or just make it a province of China. Problem solved?

What's my tab for all the advice you've given me? It must be high as hell by now, heh. :-|

Having China as your next door neighbor also has its perks.

Clearly, there's been a failure in foreign policy towards North Korea for letting them get this far. What would anyone attribute this failure to?

What does Kim Jung Un want? — Wayfarer

From what I gather, to maintain power and survival of his regime. The US is the devil incarnate for North Koreans. So, any rhetoric in regards to the US will always be in the form of vitriol and hatred.

It seems to me that there is no doubt in my mind that NK has acquired technology from external sources as to how to build an ICBM that can carry a nuke.

If anything, that's an issue that has to be addressed.

I'm just going to distill what has been already mentioned by apokrisis.

Namely, that there is a myth that the unconscious has a will of its own. This is a mistake to think of the mind competing in interests between the ID, ego, and super-ego. Intentionality resides wholly with the ego. The super-ego and ID, as I understand it, don't have a will of their own in regards to decision making; but, are just components of the mind searching for the most agreeable outcome to some decision making process.

A question worth bringing up is to ask, why is it that we think that the ID or super-ego would have a sort of will of their own?

I live to dream. I treat my dreams with a sort of reverence because they are self-generated and I'm a neurotic mess for the matter that has to analyze anything related to my-self.

I too was fascinated with lucid dreaming in my youth. I would practice reality checking by holding my nose with my mouth shut and see if I could still breathe (if done in a dream you realize that you can still breath and initiate a lucid dream). Another method is to check your watch twice within a dream. If the numbers are different every time you are also dreaming, indicating that causality is altered in the dream also. There are also methods to increase your ability to remember dream by keeping a dream journal.

I kind of grew out of my fascination with lucid dreaming and just enjoy my dreams as they are without interference. I also read that if you practice weight lifting during a dream your muscles worked on in the dream will actually grow.

Anyhow, dreams are a glimpse into the soul, which I nowadays ponder about during the day.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of resentment around the current standard treatment options for depression, in terms of pill form. SSRI's tend to dull people out, and some people react differently to the pickup in energy levels from SSRI's. Sometimes people feel 'good enough' or have more energy from the medication to go through with suicide, as I've read.

I've always been an advocate for CBT; however, I take my medication as a measure of insurance from depression. Your milage may vary.