Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Dubious]

The "mystic atom" as you call it depends on not anyone's fundamental predicates. The nature of the atom is denoted within the precincts of science which has no problem revising its views upon further information. Knowing the "mind of god" is in a perennial state of upgrade.

If the atom depended on some idiot's "fundamental predicates" we'd either have a runt universe or no universe at all.

Science explains the atom, that is true. But it does not, and I don’t think it can, explain its existence nor what it is. Nor what anything is nor what we are.

I don’t think I’d disagree: “Knowing the "mind of god" is in a perennial state of upgrade.”

You get wiser by the post!

Why would it need to? Is there anything value-added if there were such an explanation beyond what we already know and have? Are you really going to question that in its long sequence of development the inanimate merges into the animate eventually causing awareness to ignite as in our case and other cases unknown?

Entropy creates the complexity which allows for these vast morphological changes to take place. Why should it in any way be a detriment to our existence in knowing that having reached the flash point of awareness through serendipity and not intent, it's all based upon that which has no awareness of its own...a collusion of forces which assembles in slow time like a picture puzzle of a billion pieces with each such piece inserted once a year collating with the others though never concluding in a final product.

As for me getting wiser by the post, I can no-longer tell whether you're attempting another sarcasm though I think the latter more probable. I merely reiterate what I stated most of the time I posted here to which both you and Seeds, among others, strenuously object.

Whoever reads it can take it or leave it. One or the other, its influence is nil, so I really don't care how it's regarded.

[seeds]

Clearly, your inane and contentious banter with AJ has got you in a mood for insulting people.

Was it only me that was inane and contentious?

No, sorry, I didn't mean that the way it sounded.

Honestly, I'm no-longer in the least interested in your inane metaphysical claptrap which tells one nothing; explains nothing and decides nothing.

Claptrap?! Claptrap?!! How dare you? I'll have you know that I produce some of the finest baloney in the world.

And just for the record, you made it quite clear to me on several occasions throughout the years that you never were interested in any of my metaphysical claptrap.

However, I thought we had at least reached a point where we could carry on a conversation without overtly insulting each other. To which I must remind you that you are the one who initiated this recent spat by calling me "f-ing bonkers".

But I do admire your ability to expand your pico-second allowance in time into some kind of forward moving revelation of continuance.

I can't make head nor tail of that sentence.
_______

[Dubious]

But I do admire your ability to expand your pico-second allowance in time into some kind of forward moving revelation of continuance.

I can't make head nor tail of that sentence.

I'm surprised that someone with your outstanding ability to think abstractly can't decipher the sentence.

Let me clarify!

Your existence, my existence, etc., etc., is a nullity within the time frame of the universe...a "pico-second" allowance of time granted to you. The rest I think flows as an obvious absurdity compared to your actual physical encounter in the field of time which amounts to an almost instantaneous in and out; an infinitesimal flanked by two eternities, or considered otherwise, an interlude in only one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why would it need to? [explain what ‘stands behind’ the manifestation of our world, ourself, Reality] Is there anything value-added if there were such an explanation beyond what we already know and have?

Certainly there is. And the epistemology of the physical sciences is very limited and offers us very little (in my view). But that is not my real point since I do not disagree with your descriptive picture.

I simply said that for some, perhaps many ultimately, and certainly Ancient Seers, saw or realized, inductively, that behind all manifested stuff is something unexplainable. Maybe the questions are irrelevant to you but they have never been so for mankind on the whole.

But I do acknowledge that a metaphysical dream involves many problematic layers. I.e. murky dreams or clear, sober dreams.

What I do notice is that the view you present, about which you are so adamant (and humorless!) seems to determine an attitude within which you live. I don’t judge you for that. It is more that I notice it. Whenever anyone explains what they really feel to be true in irreducible terms, there our “metaphysical dream of the world” is revealed. And you surely have one!

A man's religion is the chief fact with regard to him... By religion I do not mean here the church-creed which he professes, the articles of faith which he will sign... We see men of all kinds of professed creeds attain to almost all degrees of worth or worthlessness under each or any of them... but the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion.

Thomas Carlyle

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dubious, can you share any musings you have about our political and social world and circumstances? I created a thread for that. I am interested in how you see things.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Another interesting quote from The Revolt of the Masses, certainly relevant to all of us here, taking notice of a mass-dictated ideational culture from which, out of which, we speak (either carefully and introspectively, or as noisy jibber-jabber).

Is it not a sign of immense progress that the masses should have “ideas,” that is to say, should be cultured? By no means. The “ideas” of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. An idea is a putting truth in checkmate. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-men can have recourse. There is no culture where there are no prin-ciples of legality to which to appeal.

There is no culture where there is no acceptance of certain final intellectual positions to which a dispute may be referred. There is no culture where economic relations are not subject to a regulating principle to protect interests involved. There is no culture where aesthetic controversy does not recognise the necessity of justifying the work of art.

When all these things are lacking there is no culture; there is in the strictest sense of the word, barbarism. And let us not deceive ourselves, this is what is beginning to appear in Europe under the progressive rebellion of the masses. The traveller who arrives in a barbarous country knows that in that territory there are no ruling principles to which it is possible to appeal. Properly speaking, there are no barbarian standards. Barbarism is the absence of standards to which appeal can be made.

The varying degrees of culture are measured by the greater or less precision of the standards. Where there is little such precision, these standards rule existence only grosso modo; where there is much they penetrate in detail into the exercise of all the activities.

[Gary Childress]

Another interesting quote from The Revolt of the Masses, certainly relevant to all of us here, taking notice of a mass-dictated ideational culture from which, out of which, we speak (either carefully and introspectively, or as noisy jibber-jabber).

Is it not a sign of immense progress that the masses should have “ideas,” that is to say, should be cultured? By no means. The “ideas” of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. An idea is a putting truth in checkmate. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-men can have recourse. There is no culture where there are no prin-ciples of legality to which to appeal.

There is no culture where there is no acceptance of certain final intellectual positions to which a dispute may be referred. There is no culture where economic relations are not subject to a regulating principle to protect interests involved. There is no culture where aesthetic controversy does not recognise the necessity of justifying the work of art.

When all these things are lacking there is no culture; there is in the strictest sense of the word, barbarism. And let us not deceive ourselves, this is what is beginning to appear in Europe under the progressive rebellion of the masses. The traveller who arrives in a barbarous country knows that in that territory there are no ruling principles to which it is possible to appeal. Properly speaking, there are no barbarian standards. Barbarism is the absence of standards to which appeal can be made.

The varying degrees of culture are measured by the greater or less precision of the standards. Where there is little such precision, these standards rule existence only grosso modo; where there is much they penetrate in detail into the exercise of all the activities.

"Barbarism" is not a neutral word to most. The term comes from the Greeks who thought the peoples to the east of them spoke in a manner that resembled, "bar, bar, bar" when the Greeks listened to them. It generally denotes a lack of sophistication or whatever to a people. Judging from the Platonic dialogues concerning Socrates and other things I've read, it sounds to me that the Greek city-state of Athens in its zenith was closer to the description of what the writer above describes as "barbarism". Athens was much more democratic than many surrounding states and much of the "rules" were left to the discretion of those who voted in their assembly. In effect, the primary rules involved how decisions concerning justice were made by the populace and not rules on HOW one ought to behave or think. The former is closer to the American model (or at least used to be).

[iambiguous]

Okay, okay: I admit it. I still take pleasure in reducing insufferable pedants like AJ here down to truly embarrassing posts like this.

::: AJ sulks away in shame, wounded, crestfallen :::

That's supposed to be clever -- ironic? -- isn't it?

But, seriously, let's discuss the extent to which AJ is basically a pedant here. In his various "wall of words" posts I really do get the sense that [like Satyr at KT] he is far more intent on being thought of as a "serious philosopher" than in taking his intellectual contraptions out into the world encompassed in, say, newspaper headlines? As though if only "up in the academic clouds" he wants others to marvel at just how learned and erudite he is.

Similarly, it may well be possible to create a machine intelligence that is indistinguishable from Kant. But let's see how this AI entity reacts to the points I raise in my signature threads here and on other threads.

AJ simply dismisses them as, what, "jibber-jabber"?

That way, given a particular context, he doesn't have to pit his own generally abstract, theoretical assessments against my own considerably more existential moral philosophy.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

“Bar bar bar!”

[iambiguous]

_______

Picture that scene in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" when the ape-like hominid discovered that a bone could be used as a tool (or a weapon) and then tossed it into the air where it is suddenly transformed into a space vehicle, thousands of years into the future...



Well, that kind of loosely represents how far we've come with AI.

Yes, but this progress still only revolves around the extraordinary accomplishments made over the years in regard to science and the either/or world.

Can AI intelligence bring about another entirely more extraordinary level of accomplishment here?

Yeah, almost certainly.

But what about the part I am most intrigued by...AI and conflicting goods. AI and all the moral conflagrations that still beset us. After all, where's the equivalent of scientific progress among the ethicists?

Will AI lead to a revolution in moral philosophy? Will there be machine intelligence such that when confronted with this question...

"How ought men and women choose to live in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

...the One True Path emerges?

Any chatbots those here are familiar with come close to pinning that down?

[Flannel Jesus]

But, seriously, let's discuss the extent to which AJ is basically a pedant here. In his various "wall of words" posts I really do get the sense that [like Satyr at KT] he is far more intent on being thought of as a "serious philosopher" than in taking his intellectual contraptions out into the world encompassed in, say, newspaper headlines? As though if only "up in the academic clouds" he wants others to marvel at just how learned and erudite he is.

Would you be surprised to learn people view you quite similarly? Wall of words, up in the clouds, apparently expecting people to marvel at how learned are erudite you are...

[iambiguous]

But, seriously, let's discuss the extent to which AJ is basically a pedant here. In his various "wall of words" posts I really do get the sense that [like Satyr at KT] he is far more intent on being thought of as a "serious philosopher" than in taking his intellectual contraptions out into the world encompassed in, say, newspaper headlines? As though if only "up in the academic clouds" he wants others to marvel at just how learned and erudite he is.

Similarly, it may well be possible to create a machine intelligence that is indistinguishable from Kant. But let's see how this AI entity reacts to the points I raise in my signature threads here and on other threads.

AJ simply dismisses them as, what, "jibber-jabber"?

That way, given a particular context, he doesn't have to pit his own generally abstract, theoretical assessments against my own considerably more existential moral philosophy.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

“Bar bar bar!”

Of course, all I can hope for is that no future AI objectivist allows itself to be reduced down to, uh, “Bar bar bar!”?

Even pedantry is preferable to embarrassing jibber-jabber like this.

[iambiguous]

But, seriously, let's discuss the extent to which AJ is basically a pedant here. In his various "wall of words" posts I really do get the sense that [like Satyr at KT] he is far more intent on being thought of as a "serious philosopher" than in taking his intellectual contraptions out into the world encompassed in, say, newspaper headlines? As though if only "up in the academic clouds" he wants others to marvel at just how learned and erudite he is.

Would you be surprised to learn people view you quite similarly? Wall of words, up in the clouds, apparently expecting people to marvel at how learned are erudite you are...

Unless, of course, he's wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

But, seriously, let's discuss the extent to which AJ is basically a pedant here. In his various "wall of words" posts I really do get the sense that [like Satyr at KT] he is far more intent on being thought of as a "serious philosopher" than in taking his intellectual contraptions out into the world encompassed in, say, newspaper headlines? As though if only "up in the academic clouds" he wants others to marvel at just how learned and erudite he is.

Would you be surprised to learn people view you quite similarly? Wall of words, up in the clouds, apparently expecting people to marvel at how learned are erudite you are...

Unless, of course, he's wrong.

Who is "he"? Wrong about what?

[iambiguous]

Would you be surprised to learn people view you quite similarly? Wall of words, up in the clouds, apparently expecting people to marvel at how learned are erudite you are...

Unless, of course, he's wrong.

Who is "he"? Wrong about what?

I'll just hope that the chatbots are considerably more astute than you are, Mr. Stooge.