(2023-05-30, 09:29 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.
There are some materialists that are skeptical of AI though. One of their main objections involve biological systems being fundamentally different from machines, but also like to compare transhumanism the "fantasy" of immortality that religions revolve around according to them (ignoring the belief systems that had eternal oblivion, something equivalent to it, or a bleak afterlife)
(2023-05-30, 11:59 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't strongly disagree there. But I feel a need to distinguish between individual human lives and the larger picture of some more general description or at least perspective on things. I don't particularly spend time dwelling on those individual human lives - it isn't the aspect which illuminates understanding for me, except to the extent that they may have looked beyond themselves too.
[It is possible that we have differing definition or concepts of the term 'theism' so there's probably no need to dwell too long on this.]
Admittedly it does matter how one looks at Psi. Are they natural powers of the world, or a sign that we ourselves share a part of our Being with the Divine?
Quote:Did Buddha's teachings survive and thrive because he was more attractive or charismatic than most, or because he was a great teacher and a tireless advocate of the poor? Or— and here's the core question I'll explore in detail— was it because he was an enlightened being with profound insights into the nature of Reality, and because he possessed supernormal abilities?
We might ask the same questions about Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Milarepa, or a host of other historically prominent figures associated with special illumination, wisdom, or grace. Did these people just sport great tans and know how to work a crowd, or did they understand something genuinely deep about the human condition, about consciousness, and about our capacities, that are not yet within the purview of science?
Asking such questions about revered religious icons is asking for trouble, so we may consider a more contemporary figure. The Dalai Lama regularly hosts discussions between scientists and Buddhist scholars as part of an ongoing series of dialogs sponsored by the Mind and Life Institute. Do the scientists who compete for a coveted slot at one of those celebrated meetings secretly believe that the Dalai Lama is a backwards country bumpkin, and they're just humoring him long enough to get their photo taken with a famous Nobel Laureate so they can post it on their Facebook page? Or does the Dalai Lama know something that science ignores publicly but is fascinated by privately?
This presentation will offer answers to these questions based not on opinion, but on analysis of decades of experimental data collected in dozens of laboratories around the world,and regularly published in scientific journals.
(2023-05-30, 11:16 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]That particular avenue seems to depend on a very particular definition of consciousness. For example, what if a primary requirement of consciousness was the ability to at least occasionally demonstrate psi?
Certainly for me, one of the big kick-starts in the exploration of consciousness as distinct from either material or cold mathematical logic was the observation in my own life of events which were neither.
That seems an odd response to what I wrote, and perhaps we have crossed lines.
My point was, that to drive one a car one absolutely has to understand a lot about what it is to be human. If a robot could master that task without accessing a non-physical realm, then presumably materialism would be enough to explain the world.
However, I have long argued that the opposite is true - that AI can't possibly drive a car safely.
Garry Marcus, an AI scientist has written a book that illustrates exactly what is wrong with AI as it is - with lots of amazing examples:
https://www.amazon.com/Rebooting-AI-Buil...1524748250
Anyone who thinks AI is making steady progress, should read that book.
He seems to be a materialist because he claims that AI must be possible since the the brain can manage the task. His view seems to be that AI has got stuck on an approach that can only go so far. It works best on things like generating lists of videos/books/products that might interest you. It doesn't really matter if many of these are irrelevant if there are a few interesting items.
Driving is most certainly not like that!
David
Old but interesting video about the subject. While the author is agnostic, the criticism is coherent with some materialist objections to AI
(2023-05-22, 11:50 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]You appear to define the word soul as meaning nothing more than the human self, which of course in physical life is drastically limited through its occupancy of the physical brain with all its vulnerabilities.
That seems to be a common complaint, that I misunderstand what is meant by the soul.
I could argue that everybody misunderstands what is meant by the soul. For there is often endless confusion over terms like soul, mind, spirit and self, with people often bouncing back and forth between definitions. Sometimes they use these terms interchangeably. Sometimes one is defined as a part of another, and then, in the next paragraph it is described as something distinct from the other or as the same as the other. Such confusion of terms makes it difficult to make any progress in discussions.
Anyway, as
has posted, I do describe what I think people mean when they use the term
soul at
https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/ . In particular, the picture that
posted here represents what I am hearing when I hear people describe the soul. Does that match what you think it is?
I realize that the very concept of the soul allows for an existence independent of the brain. That is why I show two pathways in that diagram that show the soul interfacing with the world without using the brain. But, as I contend in that post, I don't think the physical evidence is consistent with such a soul existing in the role described in that diagram.
[
attachment=321]
(2023-05-31, 11:07 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes one is defined as a part of another, and then, in the next paragraph it is described as something distinct from the other or as the same as the other. Such confusion of terms makes it difficult to make any progress in discussions.
Could you provide some examples of what you are talking about?
Getting confused by the terms. Some quotations actually said about the soul as part of or distinct from the "other" would be very helpful.
(2023-05-31, 10:24 AM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]My point was, that to drive one a car one absolutely has to understand a lot about what it is to be human. If a robot could master that task without accessing a non-physical realm, then presumably materialism would be enough to explain the world.
I don't think this follows at all David. You're making a massive volume of assumptions here.
I fully expect driverless vehicles to be likely and to ultimately be utterly mundane.
(2023-05-31, 11:07 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]That seems to be a common complaint, that I misunderstand what is meant by the soul.
I could argue that everybody misunderstands what is meant by the soul. For there is often endless confusion over terms like soul, mind, spirit and self, with people often bouncing back and forth between definitions. Sometimes they use these terms interchangeably. Sometimes one is defined as a part of another, and then, in the next paragraph it is described as something distinct from the other or as the same as the other. Such confusion of terms makes it difficult to make any progress in discussions.
Anyway, as has posted, I do describe what I think people mean when they use the term soul at https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/ . In particular, the picture that posted here represents what I am hearing when I hear people describe the soul. Does that match what you think it is?
I realize that the very concept of the soul allows for an existence independent of the brain. That is why I show two pathways in that diagram that show the soul interfacing with the world without using the brain. But, as I contend in that post, I don't think the physical evidence is consistent with such a soul existing in the role described in that diagram.
I like your diagram! Can you further specify the object or process that is represented by the screen?
The nervous system is believed to command and control muscles, in a physicalist flow chart. Maybe the output from the screen object is
intent which commands and controls the nervous system. Intent as meaningful instruction can be measured by information theory, logic and behavioral science metrics.
I like to sort my metaphysics from science data and analysis.
(2023-05-30, 11:16 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]That particular avenue seems to depend on a very particular definition of consciousness. For example, what if a primary requirement of consciousness was the ability to at least occasionally demonstrate psi?
Certainly for me, one of the big kick-starts in the exploration of consciousness as distinct from either material or cold mathematical logic was the observation in my own life of events which were neither.
Insightful comments.
I suggest that Psi is a natural phenomena, and detectable as bioinformation processes. I am unsure about its relation to consciousness, because much of Psi phenomena appear to be subconscious. Most people lose capability the harder they try. Many seers use trace states, again moving away from consciousness
I think what is meant by consciousness is the totality of self-aware experience. We can directly sensate (1) materials, (2) forces and intuit (3) logical structure in doing things. Add to that the (4) meaningful thought processes underlying essential behavior. Four sources - all come to conscious minds. IMHO, consciousness is a sum total, rather than a separated object.
Materials, mathematics and logics are structural. Mind and experience are more like energy and communicated meanings, where the natural action is happening.
(2023-05-31, 02:21 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this follows at all David. You're making a massive volume of assumptions here.
Here is an illustrative example of AI in action:
Quote:On March 23, 2016, Microsoft released Tay, designed to be an exciting and new chatbot, not hand-wired entirely in advance, like the original chatbot, Eliza, but instead developed largely by learning from user interactions. An earlier project, Xiaoice, which chats in Chinese, had been a huge success in China, and Microsoft had high hopes. Less than a day later the project was canceled. A nasty group of users tried to drown Tay in racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic hate. Vile speech in, vile speech out; poor Tay was posting tweets like “I fucking hate the feminists” and “Hitler was right: I hate the Jews.”
OK that is not about automatic driving, but automatic driving is hard to discuss in detail because all you are left with is A bumped into B and the damage was...
When you think about the above example bear in mind that:
1) This was newly released by Microsoft.
2) Something similar had been in use in China.
3) The thing simply took whatever was being discussed, and riffed on the theme completely uncritically.
4) The product wasn't fixed, the project was cancelled. That strongly suggests that the fault was impossible to fix.
Obviously it could have been 'fixed' by excluding certain words, but that would leave plenty of other unsavoury topics, the point is that it
didn't have a clue what it was talking about.
David