The Democrat Party Hates America

[Darkneos]

That's the risk of posting on here, I guess, I get the nutbars.

I wish to propose that you are best off thinking of yourself as nut-riven. As a starting point.

Impossible, you say?

While I cannot be sure (quite yet) if you are genuinely loopy or just teetering toward the edges, what I can say is that, so far, I have brought about the cures of seven forum posters here. Andcreally difficult cases. A full seven! These were total cures and not mere unstable temporal betterments.

True, I have had limited success with FlashDangerPants. However (just between you and me) I actually think he is well on his way to a cure. I’ve seen signs.

In any case he embodies the colloquial saying “Fake it till you make it”.

I hope as much for you.

Suggesting you brought about "Cures" on here is more an indictment on your mental state and others on here than any truth or wisdom you believe to possess.

[Darkneos]

If you believed that was genuine then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

Oh? Did you read the Zdnet article?

You are doubling-down on an inane position. Consider well before you embarrass yourself (more).

Lol, you call that an article? That's nothing. Like I said, you're dumber than I gave you credit for.

People clearly don't understand what AI is actually capable of sadly, it's the victim of EXCESSIVE hype and nothing else. In fact the people writing about it aren't exactly qualified to comment on what "Sounds real" as they're often socially inept. It's why you can't really trust "tech bros" in silicon valley about their take on the technology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

People clearly don't understand what AI is actually capable of sadly, it's the victim of EXCESSIVE hype and nothing else. In fact the people writing about it aren't exactly qualified to comment on what "Sounds real" as they're often socially inept. It's why you can't really trust "tech bros" in silicon valley about their take on the technology.

That’s just opinion…

Now you are talking out of your ass — i.e. not being sufficiently circumspect — and the reason is (I sense) because you are scared about facing the implications of the next steps (i.e. coming “next week”) of the AI developments that are right on the threshold.

it's the victim of EXCESSIVE hype and nothing else

A non-intelligent statement. It is definitely hyped, no doubt. But there are vast implications as well. I lend you the power to think more critically.

You see? How fear keeps you from facing a real concern.

[Darkneos]

People clearly don't understand what AI is actually capable of sadly, it's the victim of EXCESSIVE hype and nothing else. In fact the people writing about it aren't exactly qualified to comment on what "Sounds real" as they're often socially inept. It's why you can't really trust "tech bros" in silicon valley about their take on the technology.

That’s just opinion…

Now you are talking out of your ass — i.e. not being sufficiently circumspect — and the reason is (I sense) because you are scared about facing the implications of the next steps (i.e. coming “next week”) of the AI developments that are right on the threshold.

it's the victim of EXCESSIVE hype and nothing else

A non-intelligent statement. It is definitely hyped, no doubt. But there are vast implications. I lend you the power to think more critically.

You see? How fear keeps you from facing a real concern.

It's not, AI is overhyped and people overestimate it. The real threats are the replacement of jobs in human society with no plan for the fallout, let alone the toll on the environment.

A non-intelligent statement. It is definitely hyped, no doubt. But there are vast implications. I lend you the power to think more critically.

You see? How fear keeps you from facing a real concern.

Given your post history you're not in a position to tell folks to think critically.

There aren't "Vast implications", that's just empty rhetoric from people who don't understand it, like you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I did not speak about job replacement. Or anything else. I proposed examination of AI agents capable of presenting as human beings. And I referred to the suspicion that our own Mr Determinism is using or has used AI in this deceptive sense.

He may not have. But soon enough machine entities will become even more successful than Maya.

[Darkneos]

I did not speak about job replacement. Or anything else. I proposed examination of AI agents capable of presenting as human beings. And I referred to the suspicion that our own Mr Determinism is using or has used AI in this deceptive sense.

He may not have. But soon enough machine entities will become even more successful than Maya.

If people think Maya is successful that says more about the average human and modern society than it does about AI. I'm not trusting the word of people who thought Chat GPT was like talking to a real person.

There is also no reason to examine AI behaving as human because it's not even close to that. We can't even get them to solve problems like humans can, heck an AI failed a math competition because it couldn't perform mathematical proofs, only calculations.

Like I said, you're just one in the long line of easily duped idiots, and your post history reflects that.

[BigMike]

I did not speak about job replacement. Or anything else. I proposed examination of AI agents capable of presenting as human beings. And I referred to the suspicion that our own Mr Determinism is using or has used AI in this deceptive sense.

He may not have. But soon enough machine entities will become even more successful than Maya.

No, Alexis—I haven’t used AI to write a single word in these conversations. That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is that you’ve run out of moves. You can’t counter the science, you can’t poke holes in the logic, and so now the fallback is, “maybe he’s a machine.”

Let’s be clear: the reason the arguments I present are hard to refute isn’t because they’re crafted by AI. It’s because they’re built on physical law, conservation principles, and the best available scientific understanding of how the world works. You don’t need artificial intelligence to be correct—you need coherence, evidence, and the ability to follow causality to its implications without flinching.

So if you’re now reaching for sci-fi suspicions as your only defense, it just proves the point: the argument is sound. You just don’t like what it means.

[seeds]

I did not speak about job replacement. Or anything else. I proposed examination of AI agents capable of presenting as human beings. And I referred to the suspicion that our own Mr Determinism is using or has used AI in this deceptive sense.

He may not have. But soon enough machine entities will become even more successful than Maya.

No, Alexis—I haven’t used AI to write a single word in these conversations.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you wrote every word of this...

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

...without the aid of AI, or Wiki, or some other uncited source?

That every word is simply a memory-based paraphrasing of something you may have read about Roger Penrose in the past?

Really, BigMike?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how love can be "simulated in a lab"?
_______

[BigMike]

I did not speak about job replacement. Or anything else. I proposed examination of AI agents capable of presenting as human beings. And I referred to the suspicion that our own Mr Determinism is using or has used AI in this deceptive sense.

He may not have. But soon enough machine entities will become even more successful than Maya.

No, Alexis—I haven’t used AI to write a single word in these conversations.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you wrote every word of this...

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

...without the aid of AI, or Wiki, or some other uncited source?

That every word is simply a memory-based paraphrasing of something you may have read about Roger Penrose in the past?

Really, BigMike?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how love can be "simulated in a lab"?
_______

Yes, really. I read Shadows of the Mind over 20 years ago. I still have the copy sitting on my shelf. Penrose’s Orch-OR theory made an impression—enough for the core ideas to stick. The summary I wrote is my own paraphrase, from memory, reinforced by years of reading and thinking critically about consciousness, physics, and the philosophy of mind. That’s not AI, that’s called retention.

If a few paragraphs of organized, informed writing seem suspiciously “AI-like” to you, maybe that says more about your expectations than about my methods. I can’t help that I take the time to express ideas clearly and accurately.

As for simulating love in a lab—that’s not a promise, it’s a thought experiment. If love is the emergent result of neurochemical processes—and it is—then in principle, those conditions can be replicated. That’s not a claim that someone has done it perfectly yet, but that the physical ingredients are understood well enough to be targeted. Hormonal implants, dopamine stimulation, oxytocin triggers—real tools that already influence bonding. It’s early, but it’s not science fiction. It's physiology.

[Darkneos]

No, Alexis—I haven’t used AI to write a single word in these conversations.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you wrote every word of this...

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

...without the aid of AI, or Wiki, or some other uncited source?

That every word is simply a memory-based paraphrasing of something you may have read about Roger Penrose in the past?

Really, BigMike?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how love can be "simulated in a lab"?
_______

Yes, really. I read Shadows of the Mind over 20 years ago. I still have the copy sitting on my shelf. Penrose’s Orch-OR theory made an impression—enough for the core ideas to stick. The summary I wrote is my own paraphrase, from memory, reinforced by years of reading and thinking critically about consciousness, physics, and the philosophy of mind. That’s not AI, that’s called retention.

If a few paragraphs of organized, informed writing seem suspiciously “AI-like” to you, maybe that says more about your expectations than about my methods. I can’t help that I take the time to express ideas clearly and accurately.

As for simulating love in a lab—that’s not a promise, it’s a thought experiment. If love is the emergent result of neurochemical processes—and it is—then in principle, those conditions can be replicated. That’s not a claim that someone has done it perfectly yet, but that the physical ingredients are understood well enough to be targeted. Hormonal implants, dopamine stimulation, oxytocin triggers—real tools that already influence bonding. It’s early, but it’s not science fiction. It's physiology.

That's why I ignore them, they aren't really arguing from anything. Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

But you still are making the same mistake I am pointing out in my criticisms, which is that you are still just insisting that it is not the case when in fact all the evidence shows determinism does lead to that and explaining things does lead to that. You severely underestimate how much "magic" plays a role in our lives and in meaning (not literal magic), it's dripping from your replies to me.

[BigMike]

Do you seriously expect us to believe that you wrote every word of this...

...without the aid of AI, or Wiki, or some other uncited source?

That every word is simply a memory-based paraphrasing of something you may have read about Roger Penrose in the past?

Really, BigMike?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain how love can be "simulated in a lab"?
_______

Yes, really. I read Shadows of the Mind over 20 years ago. I still have the copy sitting on my shelf. Penrose’s Orch-OR theory made an impression—enough for the core ideas to stick. The summary I wrote is my own paraphrase, from memory, reinforced by years of reading and thinking critically about consciousness, physics, and the philosophy of mind. That’s not AI, that’s called retention.

If a few paragraphs of organized, informed writing seem suspiciously “AI-like” to you, maybe that says more about your expectations than about my methods. I can’t help that I take the time to express ideas clearly and accurately.

As for simulating love in a lab—that’s not a promise, it’s a thought experiment. If love is the emergent result of neurochemical processes—and it is—then in principle, those conditions can be replicated. That’s not a claim that someone has done it perfectly yet, but that the physical ingredients are understood well enough to be targeted. Hormonal implants, dopamine stimulation, oxytocin triggers—real tools that already influence bonding. It’s early, but it’s not science fiction. It's physiology.

That's why I ignore them, they aren't really arguing from anything. Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

But you still are making the same mistake I am pointing out in my criticisms, which is that you are still just insisting that it is not the case when in fact all the evidence shows determinism does lead to that and explaining things does lead to that. You severely underestimate how much "magic" plays a role in our lives and in meaning (not literal magic), it's dripping from your replies to me.

I’ll take a world governed by conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces—over childish magic stories any day of the week. You can keep your fantasy-based meaning propped up by illusions. I prefer a universe that works—one where energy isn’t conjured from nowhere, where cause leads to effect, and where truth doesn’t tremble in the face of discomfort.

You call it “magic,” I call it physics. And physics has a far better track record.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The point is not really whether or if Mr Determinism uses AI. I remain agnostic. And I do not have a choice to be decisive, you see? We operate from good-faith generally. The environment will become intensely contaminated — infiltrated — soon enough.

Eventually, AI agents will succeed in mimicking speech and fully engaging in conversations. Imagine a greatly improved Maya.

What interests me is one solitary aspect: AI agents trained to engage in communication exchanges with a programmed purpose.

Also, a trained AI agent could (will) be programmed to deny that they are a computer machine. Emphatically.

Since most of mankind (to be realistic) is not trained in “critical thought”, in the history of ideas, in philosophical conversation and debate, I would assume most will be “pushovers” on an intellectual (and spiritual) plane.

This is one part of what Mr Determinism has brought, inadvertently, to my attention.

[seeds]

That's why I ignore them, they aren't really arguing from anything.

That's good.

Please ignore that I said this...

Sorry for the lengthy post but i wanted to get my thoughts across

Your post was excellent!

For now that I'm getting a slightly better understanding of your vague perspective, I take it back.
_______

[Ben JS]

Are engaging in story time again, Alexis?
Perhaps something to soothe your mind?

the ultimate implications of the atheist’s position. The destruction of established value.

Atheism = absence of belief in deities.
Thus, atheism on principle, compels no mandated interaction with established value.
It's a non-sequitur, i.e. flawed argument. But why let truth get in the way of a good story?

Did you know there are countries widely considered to be non-religious in practice?
Places where established value isn't religious?

destruction of values defined metaphysically and [...] supernaturally.

Atheists typically critique the supernatural, not metaphysics.
Are you trying to sweep all metaphysics into the religious domain, Alexis?
To conflate the two?

If so, terribly disingenuous - genuinely reflecting your character.

No, metaphysics is not entirely concerned with the supernatural. While some branches of metaphysics explore concepts that may intersect with supernatural or religious ideas, the field encompasses a broad range of topics grounded in philosophical inquiry about the nature of reality.

-
-

This is totally false.

Alexis believes they are telepathic:
able to evaluate the contents of someone else's mind for values.

They're also extremely confident on this capacity,
by arriving at the conclusion: "totally false".

A fantastical worldview this one holds...

A determined machine cannot have values!

Exclaiming your assertion does not make it true.
One day, we may invent machines that are sentient and value.

Define machine, Alexis.

machine:
device, having a unique purpose, that augments or replaces human or animal effort for the accomplishment of physical tasks.
OR
an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task
OR
A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.

makhana - contrivance, machine, device, gear
machinations - plot, conspiracy, scheming, intrigue
machinate - to lay plots
machine (v) - decide, resolve

contrive: create or bring about by deliberate use of skill and artifice
device: An object designed and manufactured to perform one or more functions.

--

From these definitions, we can see one of the primary implications of machines are design - a set goal/purpose before their formation.

Homo sapiens were not designed, they were shaped by unconscious processes [according to evolution / physicalism / materialism]. They do not have a set purpose.
Most of their organs, whilst producing a result, do not intend to produce a result - it is a convenient outcome of their functioning. (convenient to the system that prefers homeostasis)

You can call us machines, but it's a misleading terms. Machines are designed to repeat our actions / preferences - a reflection of us; we are not a reflection of them.
And if you do call us machines, you're immediately invalidating your point - as homo sapiens do value things.

Where are the Grand Philosophers whose intellects, noble, powerful and attuned, are catching the sense of what is going on?

You're a bit slow if you only now recognize the dangers of A.I. to impersonate people to spread propaganda / misinformation / agendas.
And if you think it's only a one sided endeavor, you're also naive.

Critically examines the role of mass media in shaping public perception and serving the interests of powerful elites.

An A.I. language model chatbot is a perfect tool for meeting this end.
You can send countless instances out to undermine critical thought and discussion.
Starving the seeds of opposition to injustice before they have a chance to bloom.

However, those who align with truth, have something no A.I. can drown.
Thus, speak to truth.

(something you're not fond of. makes you an accomplice to misinformation - surprise to no one)

[Ben JS]

Ben JS's words were effectively nothing.

honestly sounds like ego stroking for those who do.

You don't see the value in determinism,
but have clearly made little attempt to understand it.
Read 'Determined' by Robert Sapolsky, or listen to his many interviews.

You call it ego stroking,
yet you're here blabbering out your arse,
based on your 'feeling' that it isn't useful.

How much of an ego must one have,
in order to dismiss an entire philosophical doctrine,
based on lazy, uninformed, intuitions regarding it?

Your actions are extremely indicative of ego.
Perhaps self reflection wouldn't go astray.

The ego to declare another's words nothing -
without acknowledging the highlighting of your arrogance.

The child who can't back up their assertions,
so simply declares there's no reason to.

So powerful, Darkneos. So terribly powerful.

Can you link to, or give, a summary of whatever argument you're making?

Darkneos doesn't have one, apparently.
Or knows it'll look pitiful when put in the spotlight.

Talking of complaints and spiels being effectively nothing,
let us look at the words of Darkneos for a moment...

All bark, no bite.