The Minds of Machines

[Arising_uk]

Happy New Year MQ,

like selfish genes or memes evolution also do or should do? the evolution think, act and have intentions?

I think Dawkins regrets both these phrases. There is no entity named evolution that thinks, acts or has intentions.

and those are also natural things? are we also part of nature that we can imitate?

Depends what you mean by "natural"? But yes, we are a part of nature that we can attempt to imitate.

sounds nice. reminds me the ancient principle of harmony. like when you have to have harmonic circles in all planetary movement like they once had in ptolemaic system. elliptical orbits was out of the harmonic questions. so be it if you say so.

Not quite if I say so but it make reasonable sense to me as a method for thoughting and thinking.

is it so that all scientific theories are functional theories, also dna based evolution theory, and not the last word in field?

I think so but it'd depend what you mean by something being the last word in a field?

and do softwares and machines copy grandmasters approach well or could those do it even better, like human novice players try to copy grandmasters approach by learning to be better and better with support of other players, books and all chess culture coders they can get?

For me that would depend if there are time constraints, although I'm not sure which way they would affect the outcome, as what the grandmaster beater programs have done is to copy their ability to notice classes of chess states and their possible outcomes, thus eliminating the need to brute search the game-space(which was how the coders first thought they'd win but still kept loosing to the very top-levels) by discarding whole chunks of game-space(at least this is my memory).

you dont think time has much to do with evolving things? why? is human race as new as bible seems to say to many atheists and some theists, some 27 000 years from first man and maybe 6000 years from planet earth? and how much time are you giving to AI developers to fulfill your thoughts about AI? thank you for all that.

I think mutations is what drives things evolving but accept that time plays its part in who survives in the end. I thought the Australian Aborigines have been around for about 40,000 years? Man much longer? I think AI developers won't be building my 'brain' anytime soon as what need?

yes, they might be "tomorrows machines now", thats a good point but what they might be tomorrow? think about stone age people thinking about new iphone in mammoth leather case.

I think they'll still be the same chess-playing machines they are today. I think the iphone not much different than the original telephone or wireless. I think the information revolution still the industrial one.

chassises are made for last certain amount of power. non-drivable and 2fast4your wallet wearing out chassis is no good. you need to tune up your minis whole body, believe me. i have playstation 2 and some driving games to drive mad my neighbours. original body with huge power is thirsty, slippery, dangerous and breakable piece of bull shit. no offence. teens have those do-it-yourself time bombs with burning rubbers.

I agree but you'll still be beating your mates in their minis.

are you maybe reasoning unreasonable? how is unreasonable unreasonable if you can reason it?

Fair point and I regret the end of my sentence. My point was that terms are not where logic lies, that lies in propositions.

if there are any AI according to you then there are any AI to you if there are some AI to some other people?

Show me one?

[zinnat13]

duplicate

[zinnat13]

Sorry MQ,

I am late again due to the illness of my father.

You said- "your argument may hold in some religions but in philosophy it is common way to rationalize, justify your believes, is it not? in science belives rely more on testing, is it not so?

MQ, let me tell you that religions are also based on empiricism. There may be some intrusions here and there as they are very old but scriptures are not fairy tales. But that will be a different line of discussion and let us avoid that.

My friend, my argument is valid in philosophy as well.

You rightly said that science relies on testing. I am not opposing it. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that this notion should be applicable to the religions also.

So, where is the justification of your belief of the possibility of AI?

Your whole argument is that the science will do it one day. MQ, is this empiricism?
It is nothing more than a prediction. You are sounding just like a hardcore theist declaring that the Judgment Day will come for sure and the God will sit on the throne and decide the fate of souls.

Yet, I am ready to accept your argument as a prediction, assumption and even reasoning, but, not as a proof.

You said- and what you mean by "their own capasity"? does autonomous robots not have your "own capasity"?

I think that answered it already. Here it is once again.

‘Their own capacity’ means without the help of anyone else; humans.

Let us think of an imaginary situation where all human inhabitance of the earth is destroyed for some reasons and this planet is left with the machines and robots only. Now, if machines will be able to develop more, then we can say that their development is autonomous, otherwise not. I do not think that is possible. Is it?

You said- so, you dont think that evolving animals dna is no storage system like humans for information?
so what if humans have brains, dont some other animals have brains too? and social learning and history too? what you mean by "deficiency"?

MQ, you are telling me just what I said. If you look once again at my previous reply, then you will find that I very clearly mentioned Darwinism there. But, it is a very slow process as it takes millions of years not decades and centuries.

Yes, animals have brains as well. I am not denying it. All I said that they do not have any other storage system of knowledge than DNA. Humans have more means on transferring the knowledge like verbal communication, books, pictures etc. That’s why their speed of evolution is far more that the animals and they are dominant and we like to call earth the planet of humans not the apes. I think it is clear enough to point out the deficiencies of animals with reference to their mind and knowledge.

You said- philosophy may be a good example about deficiency but what about this famous phrase: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"? plato who, you ask?

This may be true for some ones. The most part of philosophy is concerned about some major issues so sometimes it may looks repetitive. But, even being repetitive, it tends to add something.

Courtesy to some learned members of the forum like you, I am aware of Plato, thus, I will not ask who?

You said- so, why we have weather broadcasts in tv and who on earth can tell you what is happening now, today or what happened yesterday, without reasoning and with facts(if "we cannot predict future, because it is reasoning not fact")?

MQ, the weather forecasting is a much generalized kind of prediction. Furthermore, it is done for very short period of time; valid for some hours only. We cannot predict weather for decades in advance.

You are missing a very important point here that weather forecasting is done and based on past experience; like low pressure will attract clouds. We cannot use this kind of prediction for such phenomena, which have not happened earlier like AI.

You said- please, repeat yourself. because i have to ask what fact is to you if not only reasoning; what you have seen or what you think fact is?

The difference between fact and reasoning is that a fact could not be wrong but a reasoning can. Reasoning is just an explanation of fact, thus, the possibility of ambiguity will always remain.

The fact is we live here, in our present form at earth, right now. And, the reasoning is various explanations of that; God, big bang and Darwinism too.

The fact is that the apple use to fell on the ground, not in the opposite direction. Gravity is reasoning.

The fact is that all living creatures take birth, grew old and ultimately die. I am not sure whether there is any reasoning for this phenomenon or not.

You said- there has been talking about genetically engineered babies for wealthy parents as a whole new business and better birth control plans and technology also for educated people and overpopulated earth.

Yes, you are right, but, we are just helping the course; not inventing it.

You said- are we not part of biology too? if not then what AI has to do with doing the same as biology do? is there wild AIs in the forest? and what is biology if not a branch of science?

I owe you an apology here. Actually, by ‘biology’ I was referring the ‘nature’; not ‘biology’, which we use to refer as a stream of science.

MQ, so far in our discussion, I see you are relying only one argument that the science would be able to invent AI I the future and let us give it sufficient time for that. I feel that you confusing thinking with abstract or conclusion.

Let me quote some portions of my posts to clear the things-

Before forming an opinion on AI, it is essential to understand knowledge and information first, otherwise we could misunderstand the subject.

Let me take an example. Every mathematician is familiar with Pythagoras theorem of a2 + b2= c2 and he uses it to solve problems. He can carry on successfully from this theorem further inventing many new theorems but his knowledge is incomplete just because of a simple reason that he has borrowed Pythagoras theorem and many other established formulas for his work without going through the process of inventing those so the effort and pain taken by his predecessors is missing from his experience.

There are two different phenomena; knowledge and information. I feel that sometimes we tend to overlap both of them. There are two types of knowledge; borrowed and earned. The former could be named as information. Information means that type of knowledge which is not learned by the owner. Owner receives it from any other source; other than himself. On the other hand knowledge has to be learned by the owner. It is all about the process. Process of learning is the phenomenon that distinguishes knowledge from the information. Process enables the owner of knowledge to feel and experience it. We generally rely on information in general as it easy attain.

I want to make this issue clearer by using very common and easy examples. There are many cases in our daily life in which we experience knowledge even without noticing it. Let us take colors for instance. If we ask a five year child to explain the blue color, what will be his answer? We all know that he has the knowledge and understanding of blue color but he would not be able to explain it. The explanation of blue color is equally difficult for adults just because it needs to be seen or experienced. There is no other way of knowing it. Furthermore, it is one of those types of knowledge that do not have any counterpart in our world so one would not be able to explain it to anyone else through an example. This is what I would like to call knowledge. It is not transferable because words cannot describe it.

A blind man by birth cannot understand how blue color looks even if the wisest person in the world spends his whole life explaining because due to the lack of visibility, the blind man will only get information not knowledge. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon in our daily life. Without experiencing the whole process one can get only information and we generally misunderstand information with knowledge in day to day life.

Knowledge is complete phenomenon while information is only an abstract of end result.

Let me take one more example. The great Einstein formulated general theory of relativity first but he was not able to explain gravitation at that moment. Sometime later he tried cope it with the concept of cosmological constant but could not succeed. Then, after 15 years since general relativity, he became able to come up with the solution in the form of curved spacetime and general relativity. In that span of 15 years, Einstein must have thought of numerous solutions, would have examined them from different angles and then negated them for one reason or the other. At last he gave the right version. Now, one can think that he or she knows relativity by reading it but it is not true as they have not gone through the process. We do not know those endless ideas those used to pop up in the mind of that great scientist. We do not know on which grounds he rejected all of them. We are only familiar with the appropriate version but he knew all the unfit versions also besides the right one so his understanding and knowledge had covered much more space in comparison of a person who knows the end result only.

A truth, even if it is truth, is never complete for the sake of knowledge, until and unless one does not know what is not truth.

Let us assume that we know that a work could be done or a problem could be solved in a certain way and we can say that is a truth or fact. So, it could be said for sure that for each and every way other than aforesaid right one is not the appropriate way and this saying is also truth or fact.

Hence, we must understand that there are two types of facts; positive facts and negative facts. The number of negative facts will always much larger than the positive facts as we all know that there could be endless ways of doing a work wrongly while the proper way is only one but one could not know the all wrong ways unless and until he tries for the right way. Knowing the wrong ways is equally important otherwise we miss almost all other facts and left with only one which is the right version. So, we see that knowledge is not just a single truth but it comprises of endless facts and those could be acquired only if we go through the process. Hence, the process is more important than the result even if it (process) is not fruitful. Knowledge is long event instead of an instant type phenomenon.

I also want to put it mathematically because we often tend to believe more in numbers than the text in today scientific world. Einstein took 15 years to reach the end version. 15 years means 5475 days or 782 weeks or 180 months. Given the versatility of that genius, we can safely assume that he got at least one idea in a month if not more and negated it in his mind. It means that he would have thought of 179 more ways of postulating the theory. In other words, we can say that he knew 179 wrong and one right version. Even if we take the most conservative approach by picking only one idea in a year, his knowledge stands at 15 times more than the others.

So there is absolutely no comparison between the information and the knowledge. Information is just a drop of the ocean of knowledge.

Now let us talk about the machines and examine them. In my opinion, there is no fundamental difference between super sophisticated computer which can beat world chess champion and a simple calculator.

The basic problem with the computers is that they are open only to the information. There is no way of enriching them with the process of learning. The entity which is required to go through the process of learning is intellect or mind and without it acquiring knowledge is not possible. The functions and outputs of any other system other that mind are limited to the extent of the information supplied to it. All physical informative systems work on a very simple give and take rule.They just return or show what we feed them; not less not more.

We can force a 7-8 child to learn the definition of curved spacetime and he will pronounce it in the exact words of Einstein but in real terms he does not know anything.

Although sometimes it appears that they ate able to think, like in the case of world chess champion beating computer, but it is not true. If we look carefully then we find that in this case, the world champion is not playing against a single computer but all the chess playing minds those programmed the software consuming years. Actually, in objective view, it is clear that the super computer is doing nothing besides playing a role of a middle man between the world champion and the programmers. The actual game is being played between the champion and those programmers. The knowledge of the programmers is reflecting in the computer in the form of information. Computer may win the game but it does not proof that it (computer) has more thinking power or knowledge than the champion but win will be due to the reason that the total information fed by the programmers exceeds the knowledge of the champion. Sometimes, when information fed to any system becomes extraordinarily huge and pervasive, it (system) gives the impression to be intellectual. I think Searle missed this point.

All informative systems, super computers which can talk and ultratech robots, even those which are in the wraps of the future, no matter how advanced and sophisticated those would be, will be informative only. I do not have any doubt in my mind whatsoever that we could not make those to think simply because we would never be able to provide intellect as it is not a physical thing and we cannot create it.

There is a lot of talk about the testing of thinking power of the systems also; especially Turing test. This test claims that if any machine is able to answer questions in such way that resembles human behavior then it could be said that the machine is thinking.

This test also sets a standard that if a human fails to identify the machine by reading its answers and mistaken it with human mind, then it is certain that the machine is thinking. I do not see any merit in this argument. As I said earlier, that when information of any system becomes enormous in comparison with human mind, it gives fake impression of thinking power. Given the development in computers and robotics in modern science, it is quite possible that many of them could be able to pass this test but, in my opinion, all this does not proof anything.

We have to understand the meaning of “thinking” first before setting the parameters for the test otherwise the result could be misleading.

Thinking is a mental process. It takes a start from evaluation and analysis of anything. By doing this, thinking explores both types of facts regarding the issue; positive and negative. At first, it looks carefully at the first hand information of the subject, and then roams around the periphery of the core point. In the process, it collides with the other facts; it sometimes accepts them, sometimes amends them, sometimes negates them and sometimes adds to the tally by finding new ones. There are two basic characters of thinking; evaluation and evolution. Any system, which claims that it can think or has intellect, should be able to meet these standards. A thinking entity should have the capacity of testing, modifying and adding to the information provided to it without any help from outside the system.

Now let us judge machines. Machines cannot test the information. They accept it in Toto. There is no challenge from their side. If we replace all intelligent moves with silly and wrong move in the programming of chess playing super computer; it will not refute it; no matter how advanced chips it could have. It will try to play accordingly to the programming when the situation will arise. On the contrary, even an average chess player will not accept silly moves if anyone asks. Yes, computer can compare between two sets of information very precisely but it cannot decide by itself which set of information is right or wrong. If we tell it that the wrong version is right, it will act accordingly and vice verse. A thinking and intellectual entity will never do it. So there is clear-cut difference between thinking systems and informative systems. Machines do not fulfill even the other two conditions as neither they can amend the information nor add anything new to it by themselves. So, I am sorry to say but no physical system other than mind is able to cross the bar.

To summarize the issue we can say that information is not an alternate of knowledge simply because in the absence of intellect and wisdom, no entity in the universe, can absorb any kind of knowledge. So, there could be no such phenomenon in the world that could be called artificial intelligence; neither strong nor even weak.

With love
sanjay

[Mark Question]

I think Dawkins regrets both these phrases. There is no entity named evolution that thinks, acts or has intentions.

there is also no entity named human that thinks, acts or has intentions? human is only a general term, too?

Depends what you mean by "natural"? But yes, we are a part of nature that we can attempt to imitate.

depends what you mean by "we"?

Not quite if I say so but it make reasonable sense to me as a method for thoughting and thinking.

harmony? why?

I think so but it'd depend what you mean by something being the last word in a field?

are there any theories that will stand correct forever?

For me that would depend if there are time constraints, although I'm not sure which way they would affect the outcome, as what the grandmaster beater programs have done is to copy their ability to notice classes of chess states and their possible outcomes, thus eliminating the need to brute search the game-space(which was how the coders first thought they'd win but still kept loosing to the very top-levels) by discarding whole chunks of game-space(at least this is my memory).

so you see how the AI software and machines have really learned new tricks with their teachers? do you also need many years of learning, testing and rebuilding your thinking to learn how to be grandmaster of academic games?

I think mutations is what drives things evolving but accept that time plays its part in who survives in the end. I thought the Australian Aborigines have been around for about 40,000 years? Man much longer? I think AI developers won't be building my 'brain' anytime soon as what need?

so, "anytime soon" is how many thousand years to you? and thank you for your time to AI.

I think they'll still be the same chess-playing machines they are today. I think the iphone not much different than the original telephone or wireless. I think the information revolution still the industrial one.

and stone age guys still would think that the iphone would be some kind of a miracle, not from this world like they know it and are able to reason it out? like cars are still wagons with one or couple horse power, or slave power?

I agree but you'll still be beating your mates in their minis.

like you still be beating your mates if you jumped from the highest building without parachute?

My point was that terms are not where logic lies, that lies in propositions.

so, terms dont lie in propositions, like in any lexicon or in any point we try to make?

if there are any AI according to you then there are any AI to you if there are some AI to some other people?

Show me one?

show you one man that think there is some AI? do you believe it is mission impossible to me if i can show you easily many man that think there is a god?

[Mark Question]

Sorry MQ,
I am late again due to the illness of my father.

there is no hurry in philosophy and thats why i like it. lets be terrorists in the world of hurry (and good morning echelon!)

MQ, let me tell you that religions are also based on empiricism. There may be some intrusions here and there as they are very old but scriptures are not fairy tales. But that will be a different line of discussion and let us avoid that.
My friend, my argument is valid in philosophy as well.
You rightly said that science relies on testing. I am not opposing it. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that this notion should be applicable to the religions also.

good point.

So, where is the justification of your belief of the possibility of AI?

where do you see my belief of the possibility of AI? cant i say anything without believing it?
in my mind, my point was just ask if there is any kind of belief with justification concerning AI and what kind of justifications there is.

Your whole argument is that the science will do it one day. MQ, is this empiricism?
It is nothing more than a prediction. You are sounding just like a hardcore theist declaring that the Judgment Day will come for sure and the God will sit on the throne and decide the fate of souls.
Yet, I am ready to accept your argument as a prediction, assumption and even reasoning, but, not as a proof.

yes, i used that common scientistic argument to test it against your arguments.

I think that answered it already. Here it is once again.
‘Their own capacity’ means without the help of anyone else; humans.
Let us think of an imaginary situation where all human inhabitance of the earth is destroyed for some reasons and this planet is left with the machines and robots only. Now, if machines will be able to develop more, then we can say that their development is autonomous, otherwise not. I do not think that is possible. Is it?

so, individually, humans also born and survive and learn to play chess and talk languages etc. without the help of anyone else; humans?
so, more generally, if humans needed and need some other life forms to become the humans then why not machines need also humans to make the development possible? or what do you think people do if earths ecosystem collapse and from where do you think human race has developed?

MQ, you are telling me just what I said. If you look once again at my previous reply, then you will find that I very clearly mentioned Darwinism there. But, it is a very slow process as it takes millions of years not decades and centuries.
Yes, animals have brains as well. I am not denying it. All I said that they do not have any other storage system of knowledge than DNA. Humans have more means on transferring the knowledge like verbal communication, books, pictures etc. That’s why their speed of evolution is far more that the animals and they are dominant and we like to call earth the planet of humans not the apes. I think it is clear enough to point out the deficiencies of animals with reference to their mind and knowledge.

slow process or not, whats the hurry? are people destroying the planet? some other animals have cultural or social storage too, some human animals say. what you think about that? some say too that bacteria or flora are the dominant life form in earth. what you think about that? we like to call the planet our planet but what is that telling about us then? if i like to call internet my internet then is it so to you?

You are missing a very important point here that weather forecasting is done and based on past experience; like low pressure will attract clouds. We cannot use this kind of prediction for such phenomena, which have not happened earlier like AI.

so, you dont use your past experiences, learnings and thinkings, your memory - your thinking, to predict your movements, decisions and actions in your daily life?

The difference between fact and reasoning is that a fact could not be wrong but a reasoning can. Reasoning is just an explanation of fact, thus, the possibility of ambiguity will always remain.

is it logical if fact could not be wrong but reasoning can and if reasoning is just an explanation of fact? if explanation of fact can be wrong then fact can be wrong? is fact some divine all-knowing message to us or is fact made from human reasoning?

The fact is we live here, in our present form at earth, right now. And, the reasoning is various explanations of that; God, big bang and Darwinism too.
The fact is that the apple use to fell on the ground, not in the opposite direction. Gravity is reasoning.
The fact is that all living creatures take birth, grew old and ultimately die. I am not sure whether there is any reasoning for this phenomenon or not.

in philosophy those are only propositions, are they?

Yes, you are right, but, we are just helping the course; not inventing it.

so why nature cant help other material forms to have life and mind like we have and why cant the natural helpers be in form of human? why cant we help machines to live and think?

Every mathematician is familiar with Pythagoras theorem of a2 + b2= c2 and he uses it to solve problems. He can carry on successfully from this theorem further inventing many new theorems but his knowledge is incomplete just because of a simple reason that he has borrowed Pythagoras theorem and many other established formulas for his work without going through the process of inventing those so the effort and pain taken by his predecessors is missing from his experience.

every mathematician knows today that he cant go trough all the huge mathematical field of knowledge. he needs others works, others old and new thinking and more and more, machines to calculate and prove some theorems, is it so? is whole human culture also based on others inventions, without going trough all that again and again like a pain in the ass demented old fart, or like me?

I want to make this issue clearer by using very common and easy examples. There are many cases in our daily life in which we experience knowledge even without noticing it. Let us take colors for instance. If we ask a five year child to explain the blue color, what will be his answer? We all know that he has the knowledge and understanding of blue color but he would not be able to explain it. The explanation of blue color is equally difficult for adults just because it needs to be seen or experienced. There is no other way of knowing it. Furthermore, it is one of those types of knowledge that do not have any counterpart in our world so one would not be able to explain it to anyone else through an example. This is what I would like to call knowledge. It is not transferable because words cannot describe it.

and yet you described it? if child learns what we call "blue" then is it transferable and can words describe it or not? nice logical tautology you have if you say that eye-sensed color blue in your eyes is something you have to see, no shit? why cant even child be able to explain blue like that? and we have no explainable counterpart to analogical tautologies like that in our "world"? what about "pain in the ass"? is there also different kind of pains?

A blind man by birth cannot understand how blue color looks even if the wisest person in the world spends his whole life explaining because due to the lack of visibility, the blind man will only get information not knowledge. There are numerous examples of this phenomenon in our daily life. Without experiencing the whole process one can get only information and we generally misunderstand information with knowledge in day to day life.

logically blind man have no logical reason to praise your tautology like "why dont you just see it if you dont see it?" like some fundamental believer? on the other hand or eye, how can we know if we both see the same when we see "blue"? both ateist and theist see also "god" same way?

Knowledge is complete phenomenon while information is only an abstract of end result.

sorry but your "knowledge" sounds a bit abstract.

Let me take one more example. The great Einstein formulated general theory of relativity first but he was not able to explain gravitation at that moment. Sometime later he tried cope it with the concept of cosmological constant but could not succeed. Then, after 15 years since general relativity, he became able to come up with the solution in the form of curved spacetime and general relativity. In that span of 15 years, Einstein must have thought of numerous solutions, would have examined them from different angles and then negated them for one reason or the other. At last he gave the right version. Now, one can think that he or she knows relativity by reading it but it is not true as they have not gone through the process. We do not know those endless ideas those used to pop up in the mind of that great scientist. We do not know on which grounds he rejected all of them. We are only familiar with the appropriate version but he knew all the unfit versions also besides the right one so his understanding and knowledge had covered much more space in comparison of a person who knows the end result only.

maybe the other versions was unfit to his abstract theory but does that make them more wrong than the one that fits? maybe the other versions fits to other abstract theories? whats the point? am i real pain in the ass now?

Hence, we must understand that there are two types of facts; positive facts and negative facts. The number of negative facts will always much larger than the positive facts as we all know that there could be endless ways of doing a work wrongly while the proper way is only one but one could not know the all wrong ways unless and until he tries for the right way.

are you saying that that kind of thinking makes you that much a negative thinking person, about abstract theories and words?

So there is absolutely no comparison between the information and the knowledge. Information is just a drop of the ocean of knowledge.

no comparison between abstractions? absolutely, if you say so negatively.

There is no way of enriching them with the process of learning. The entity which is required to go through the process of learning is intellect or mind and without it acquiring knowledge is not possible. The functions and outputs of any other system other that mind are limited to the extent of the information supplied to it. All physical informative systems work on a very simple give and take rule.They just return or show what we feed them; not less not more.

how you know there is no way? do you see the future?
are you saying that machines needs mind to have mind? nobel of tautologies goes to this one? i wonder, where first humans got their mind?
is humans physical informative system, mind, based on feedback loops also?

We can force a 7-8 child to learn the definition of curved spacetime and he will pronounce it in the exact words of Einstein but in real terms he does not know anything.

and do we really know anything? anybody? platos socrates?

Although sometimes it appears that they ate able to think, like in the case of world chess champion beating computer, but it is not true. If we look carefully then we find that in this case, the world champion is not playing against a single computer but all the chess playing minds those programmed the software consuming years. Actually, in objective view, it is clear that the super computer is doing nothing besides playing a role of a middle man between the world champion and the programmers. The actual game is being played between the champion and those programmers. The knowledge of the programmers is reflecting in the computer in the form of information. Computer may win the game but it does not proof that it (computer) has more thinking power or knowledge than the champion but win will be due to the reason that the total information fed by the programmers exceeds the knowledge of the champion. Sometimes, when information fed to any system becomes extraordinarily huge and pervasive, it (system) gives the impression to be intellectual. I think Searle missed this point.

thats a common case among people too. people have learned to memorize some information to show out in trivia quiz or in school or work place, is it not? or people can be just silent and we have the impression they are wise gurus or something like that. philosophy often tear down our facades. in sports or music even children can too have that middle man role between "wise" adults. where does the learning machines will do big difference in fundamental way if we compare them to other material structures like human beings, now and forever?

All informative systems, super computers which can talk and ultratech robots, even those which are in the wraps of the future, no matter how advanced and sophisticated those would be, will be informative only. I do not have any doubt in my mind whatsoever that we could not make those to think simply because we would never be able to provide intellect as it is not a physical thing and we cannot create it.

if we can create babies then why dont we can create other thinking creatures who needs not so many years of money spending, learning, protection, feeding, helping, babysitting and all?
maybe one day we can create and grow gm-humans with wings and four legs?

There is a lot of talk about the testing of thinking power of the systems also; especially Turing test. This test claims that if any machine is able to answer questions in such way that resembles human behavior then it could be said that the machine is thinking.
This test also sets a standard that if a human fails to identify the machine by reading its answers and mistaken it with human mind, then it is certain that the machine is thinking. I do not see any merit in this argument. As I said earlier, that when information of any system becomes enormous in comparison with human mind, it gives fake impression of thinking power. Given the development in computers and robotics in modern science, it is quite possible that many of them could be able to pass this test but, in my opinion, all this does not proof anything.

but how those impressions from machines differ from those impressions we get from other people? we also evaluate other people by their "dumbness", is it so? are all machines also important to us no matter how dumb they are or will be?

Thinking is a mental process. It takes a start from evaluation and analysis of anything. By doing this, thinking explores both types of facts regarding the issue; positive and negative. At first, it looks carefully at the first hand information of the subject, and then roams around the periphery of the core point. In the process, it collides with the other facts; it sometimes accepts them, sometimes amends them, sometimes negates them and sometimes adds to the tally by finding new ones. There are two basic characters of thinking; evaluation and evolution. Any system, which claims that it can think or has intellect, should be able to meet these standards. A thinking entity should have the capacity of testing, modifying and adding to the information provided to it without any help from outside the system.

so what about other forms of intelligent processes like swarm intelligence? why human thinking is the only way in your definition of human thinking(?)

Now let us judge machines. Machines cannot test the information. They accept it in Toto. There is no challenge from their side. If we replace all intelligent moves with silly and wrong move in the programming of chess playing super computer; it will not refute it; no matter how advanced chips it could have. It will try to play accordingly to the programming when the situation will arise. On the contrary, even an average chess player will not accept silly moves if anyone asks. Yes, computer can compare between two sets of information very precisely but it cannot decide by itself which set of information is right or wrong. If we tell it that the wrong version is right, it will act accordingly and vice verse. A thinking and intellectual entity will never do it. So there is clear-cut difference between thinking systems and informative systems. Machines do not fulfill even the other two conditions as neither they can amend the information nor add anything new to it by themselves. So, I am sorry to say but no physical system other than mind is able to cross the bar.

self-learning is big thing to you? and self-learning systems are impossible to create like babies?

To summarize the issue we can say that information is not an alternate of knowledge simply because in the absence of intellect and wisdom, no entity in the universe, can absorb any kind of knowledge. So, there could be no such phenomenon in the world that could be called artificial intelligence; neither strong nor even weak.[/i]

or maybe we only have strong impression that we are something special, amazing living and personal one and only persons, intellectual and the biggest and only wise guys in the whole universe? impressions? dare we take the turing test?

[Arising_uk]

there is also no entity named human that thinks, acts or has intentions? human is only a general term, too?

Nope, I'm a human and an entity that thinks, acts and has intentions. Point to this entity that is named "evolution"?

depends what you mean by "we"?

Humans but we can also model the other animals 'thinking' processes if we wish I think. And in fact I think this is where we are just now.

harmony? why?

Not sure its 'harmony' but I think I understand your thought. The why would be so that one can at least think and communicate clearly, whether that would create harmony I don't know, as a psychopath could use the method just as well as the sane.

are there any theories that will stand correct forever?

Depends what you mean? Newtons mechanics will locally stand forever I think. Euclid's and Descartes's geometries will stand locally forever as well, I think. Propositional Logic will stand universally forever I think but I'm not sure these are theories in the sense you mean.

so you see how the AI software and machines have really learned new tricks with their teachers? do you also need many years of learning, testing and rebuilding your thinking to learn how to be grandmaster of academic games?

We do but at present I think the learning processes different.

so, "anytime soon" is how many thousand years to you? and thank you for your time to AI.

You claiming to be an AI? If we managed to make self-evolving, self-aware, machines then I doubt time would be a significant factor.

and stone age guys still would think that the iphone would be some kind of a miracle, not from this world like they know it and are able to reason it out? like cars are still wagons with one or couple horse power, or slave power?

I think they'd find it miraculous but given the time I'd think they'd find them as normal as we do.

like you still be beating your mates if you jumped from the highest building without parachute?

Not quite as you have a throttle, more like a para-glider versus an old parachute.

so, terms dont lie in propositions, like in any lexicon or in any point we try to make?

The meaning of the terms don't lie in Logic. P -> Q, P :- Q. No meaning to the terms needed. Applies to all terms regardless of their meaning.

show you one man that think there is some AI? do you believe it is mission impossible to me if i can show you easily many man that think there is a god?

I think it mission impossible that any man can show me a 'god'. "Some AI" is very different form the idea of AI that I thought we have been discussing. But my point was only that I can think of a way to produce an AI, build two cybernetic 'brains' and give them bodies with senses.

[zinnat13]

Hi MQ,

I know that you would not mind, but, morally I owe you a apology for being late.

You said- so, individually, humans also born and survive and learn to play chess and talk languages etc. without the help of anyone else; humans?

Humans are allowed or rather I should say that they have enabled themselves to take help from other humans. They can even take help from that which was earned and learned by their ancestors. This is the difference between them and animals and also between the machines also.

You said- so, more generally, if humans needed and need some other life forms to become the humans then why not machines need also humans to make the development possible? or what do you think people do if earths ecosystem collapse and from where do you think human race has developed?

My dear friend, who is stopping machines from taking help from humans?

This choice is available to them but they cannot use it because they do not have will to develop. And, this is where the difference lies.

MQ, this is main issue and I am trying to draw your attention to this since our discussion started. There is no need to create AI. We just have to create will in the machines and AI would be created automatically. But, the problem is that for that we need to enrich them with mind and that is impossible as it is beyond the capacity of humans too.

As far as information is concerned, it is not an issue for machines. On the contrary, they can carry more information than humans.

Yes, humans need and take help from other species and machines also for their evolution. This choice is not closed for even for animals, but, as history suggests, they fall behind by miles from humans.

I do not know exactly what humans will do if eco-system collapses. But, I think that perhaps either their race will come to an end of will suffer very severely and a very small portion of them will be able to survive. But, who knows as it is impossible to predict future precisely.

You said- slow process or not, whats the hurry? are people destroying the planet? some other animals have cultural or social storage too, some human animals say. what you think about that? some say too that bacteria or flora are the dominant life form in earth. what you think about that? we like to call the planet our planet but what is that telling about us then? if i like to call internet my internet then is it so to you?

MQ, I never denied that animals evolve, but, their speed is so slow that it looks even stagnant in the comparison of the knowledge of humans.

I am 47 years old. I saw so many new developments in my life; landline phones, tv, computers, mission to moon, internet, cell phones, 2g, 3g, 4g and list is endless. But, my friend, the knowledge of street dog looks same to me now as it used to be when I was 5 years old. That’s why we use call it our planet in the sense that we are able to evolve much faster and to use all those things which are present on the earth.

But, this does not mean that there are not other life forms on the earth; perhaps more than humans in numbers. But, they all have limitations and use to remain within them. But, humans use to challenge their limitations and successful in their effort also to some extent. They are able to do what they are not suppose or unable to do normally.

A fish cannot live on the surface on earth because she does not have the capacity to survive there. In the same way humans do not have the capacity to survive underwater but they created means to do that. Birds can fly while humans cannot, but, once again they manage to flew in the air and even beyond the birds; even to the other planets too.

I think that is enough to understand the difference between the humans, animals and machines.

You said- so, you dont use your past experiences, learnings and thinkings, your memory - your thinking, to predict your movements, decisions and actions in your daily life?

Off course. I use my past experience to predict events, but the issue is not that.

AI is such a phenomenon that has not happened in the past, thus, we do not have any past experience about it, and thus, it is not predictable that it would happen for sure. Yes, the possibility is there in the same way as the possibility of not happening it.

You said- is it logical if fact could not be wrong but reasoning can and if reasoning is just an explanation of fact? if explanation of fact can be wrong then fact can be wrong? is fact some divine all-knowing message to us or is fact made from human reasoning?

in philosophy those are only propositions, are they?

MQ, let us leave religions and God out from our discussion.

Let me put once again what I proposed as facts-

The fact is we live here, in our present form at earth, right now. And, the reasoning is various explanations of that; God, big bang and Darwinism too.
The fact is that the apple use to fell on the ground, not in the opposite direction. Gravity is reasoning.
The fact is that all living creatures take birth, grew old and ultimately die. I am not sure whether there is any reasoning for this phenomenon or not.

MQ, where is the involvement of God or divine truths in all these? At least, I am not saying that.

These phenomena are not disputed but their reasons can.

There are not propositions, but facts. The proposition is their reasoning, not the phenomena themselves.

Here are the definitions of proposition.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

you said- so why nature cant help other material forms to have life and mind like we have and why cant the natural helpers be in form of human? why cant we help machines to live and think?

Nature is open and available to each and every one and it is not partial. All tend to use it according to their capacity.

We are helping machines as much as we can and shall continue to do so. That is not the issue. The issue is that we are trying to provide them with will or mind, which is are not physically manufacturable. Furthermore, we are yet to know exactly what mind is and it is necessary to know it in the first place prior to duplicate it.

It is myth that we know our mind completely. If it was so, then, most probably a small number of influential and powerful people like Saddam Husain, Edi Amen and Gaddafi would have enslaved their countrymen by causing required changes in their minds and would be able to rule forever. Political parties need not to spend millions on campaigns. They just have to brain-wash the populace and the election would be won.

You said- every mathematician knows today that he cant go trough all the huge mathematical field of knowledge. he needs others works, others old and new thinking and more and more, machines to calculate and prove some theorems, is it so? is whole human culture also based on others inventions, without going trough all that again and again like a pain in the ass demented old fart, or like me?

MQ, just look carefully at your words and its sense. You are telling me that humans need and use other works to carry on further. I think that is enough to understand the difference between the bacteria and humans and why we would like to call it our planet.

You said- and yet you described it? if child learns what we call "blue" then is it transferable and can words describe it or not? nice logical tautology you have if you say that eye-sensed color blue in your eyes is something you have to see, no shit? why cant even child be able to explain blue like that? and we have no explainable counterpart to analogical tautologies like that in our "world"?

logically blind man have no logical reason to praise your tautology like "why dont you just see it if you dont see it?" like some fundamental believer? on the other hand or eye, how can we know if we both see the same when we see "blue"? both ateist and theist see also "god" same way

MQ, chose your words carefully.

I am not trying to describe the blue color. On the contrary I am indicating that it is not describable precisely as each and every one sees a different blue color, even looking at a same blue thing.

A child is not able to describe blue color because it not comparable to anything else in this world. We use to explain all notions only by counterparts. But it is a difficult thing to do, that’s why we create language as it serves as the alternative of the counterparts in the broad sense.

My friend, what I am saying is neither tautology nor rhetoric. All you have to do is to pay a little more attention to the words and you will find that they all imply sense.

MQ, let us leave God of theists and atheists out of this. What we are discussing is nothing to do with God.

You said- what about "pain in the ass"? is there also different kind of pains?

MQ, now I am getting the feeling that you are running out of civilized arguments.

you said- sorry but your "knowledge" sounds a bit abstract.

I do not know that in which sense you use the word ‘abstract’ as it has a lot of meanings.

As far as knowledge and information is concerned, I seriously think that I used ‘abstract’ perfectly with its literal meaning and that is summary.

You said- maybe the other versions was unfit to his abstract theory but does that make them more wrong than the one that fits? maybe the other versions fits to other abstract theories? whats the point?

MQ, it surprises me that you are asking what the point is.

I am simply telling you the difference between the cogitation and the herculean process behind it. It is very easy to read the conclusion and comment on it, which liberty philosophy and philosophers use to take, but, it very difficult to go through the process of invention. Einstein and his theories of both relativities are perfect example of that. That’s why I take his example.

You said- am i real pain in the ass now?

How can I say that which part of your anatomy is suffering and why?

All I can do is to sincerely advise you to take a good care of your pain as it is not a good thing and certainly for that organ, which is looking very important to you as you mentioned it second time in this post.

You said- are you saying that that kind of thinking makes you that much a negative thinking person, about abstract theories and words?

no comparison between abstractions? absolutely, if you say so negatively.

It has nothing to do either with positivity or negativity.

We have only one way to acquire any kind of new knowledge; trial and error. Hence, the failures are bound to happen. Nothing can be invented in the first attempt. Any serious invention takes years to complete and quite naturally, all attempts use to go in vain, except only the one right version. But, that one right version could not be attained if we refuse to attempt all unfit versions.

But, once again, these failed versions are only in the mind of the inventor, because he attempted all those. On the other hand, others are familiar only with the appropriate version, and thus, their knowledge is limited to the conclusion of the process only. This is information, nor knowledge.

I simply do not understand why you see negativity in this process as it is happening since Stone Age.

You said- how you know there is no way? do you see the future?? i wonder, where first humans got their mind?

is humans physical informative system, mind, based on feedback loops also

Although I cannot see the future, but still, it looks to me that it is impossible to enrich them with the process of leaning. All we can do is to provide them with conclusion of the process.

Yes, human mind is also based on feedback. I am not objecting it.

But my friend, you are once again forgetting the most important point that human mind have the capacity to alter and improve the feedbacks. Machines cannot do it.

You said- are you saying that machines needs mind to have mind? nobel of tautologies goes to this one

No. I am not saying that as it is not necessary. Machines have served efficiently without the mind.

You said- and do we really know anything? anybody? platos socrates?
Let me put once again for which you replied as above-
We can force a 7-8 child to learn the definition of curved spacetime and he will pronounce it in the exact words of Einstein but in real terms he does not know anything.

I am explaining the difference between the understanding and reading something literally and it is not difficult to realize. So, please do not disturb Plato or Socrates in their graves.

You said- thats a common case among people too. people have learned to memorize some information to show out in trivia quiz or in school or work place, is it not? or people can be just silent and we have the impression they are wise gurus or something like that. philosophy often tear down our facades. in sports or music even children can too have that middle man role between "wise" adults. where does the learning machines will do big difference in fundamental way if we compare them to other material structures like human beings, now and forever?

Yes, we all take help from middle men. Agreed. But, with a difference.

You can store the whole of music, which is produced up to now, in a super computer and he will keep it forever, but, will never amend it.

On the other hand, a singer will also learn from the feedback. But, will be able to write new lyrics and new compositions as well, on his own and there is a difference.

You said- if we can create babies then why dont we can create other thinking creatures who needs not so many years of money spending, learning, protection, feeding, helping, babysitting and all?

maybe one day we can create and grow gm-humans with wings and four legs?

MQ, I replied this in my last post that we do not create babies. It happens automatically as we all are a part of the process; not the regulators. Thus, we cannot bypass the process of learning.

You said- but how those impressions from machines differ from those impressions we get from other people? we also evaluate other people by their "dumbness", is it so? are all machines also important to us no matter how dumb they are or will be?

It is not about dumbness or intelligence as both are relative parameters.

I very clearly proposed in my post that the Turing test is not the right benchmark for testing thinking. Thinking implies two phenomena; evaluation and evolution; thus, these should be the parameters of the test. The bar should be raised.

You said- so what about other forms of intelligent processes like swarm intelligence? why human thinking is the only way in your definition of human thinking(?)

There is nothing new in swam intelligence as the basics are still the same.

Human thinking is the only and real thinking because it has the capacity to add something always and on its own.

You said- self-learning is big thing to you? and self-learning systems are impossible to create like babies?

Yes.

Self learning is very big thing and perhaps the only thing that matters.

You are claiming that we will be able to enrich machines with AI in the future. Right.

Now, let me ask you whether machines will able to achieve that on their own, if they are left totally alone? Certainly not.

Then who will do AI for them? Only humans can do it.

Now, if humans cannot be able acquire more knowledge in the terms of AI; then the AI level of the machines will remain stagnant forever. Right.

Thus my friend, the development of the machines is totally dependent on the development of the humans. I think that is enough to explain the importance of self learning systems.

MQ, you are not looking at the crux of the issue. In real terms, it is not machines that are improving, but, there are humans, which are improving. The development of the mankind is reflecting in the machines.

You said- or maybe we only have strong impression that we are something special, amazing living and personal one and only persons, intellectual and the biggest and only wise guys in the whole universe? impressions? dare we take the turing test?

Yes, we are special. There is no doubt about that.

I cannot say about the whole universe but as far as this planet is concerned, it is true.

Just look at your nick name- MARK QUESTION? What does that mean and why you choose that? I think the reason is that because you like to question everything.

My friend, machines do ask questions. They do not even argue, like we are doing here regarding AI. They are not imbedded with phenomena like will, wish, emotions and thus mind.

with love,
sanjay

[adamscott]

Science and maths would one day explain everything in nature.The Scientists assumed that our brain stored discrete thoughts, ideas, and memories at discrete points, and that information is ‘found’ rather than ‘evoked’ by humans brains. In other words, the brain was a repository of symbols and rules which mapped the external world into neural circuits.

[Mark Question]

Science and maths would one day explain everything in nature.

like religions have already done that for a long long time? do religions also have their own explanations, religious ones like science have its own, scientific explanations?

Humans are allowed or rather I should say that they have enabled themselves to take help from other humans. They can even take help from that which was earned and learned by their ancestors. This is the difference between them and animals and also between the machines also.

"they have enabled themselves to take help from other humans"? how we did that? and new machines cant "take help" from old machines and old "machinery"? and theres now culture or social learning among animals?

My dear friend, who is stopping machines from taking help from humans?
This choice is available to them but they cannot use it because they do not have will to develop. And, this is where the difference lies.

who is making all the machines if not humans and machines together? did first bacteria and ancient reptiles had the "will" to become first humans? does machines today have the "will" already also?

MQ, this is main issue and I am trying to draw your attention to this since our discussion started. There is no need to create AI. We just have to create will in the machines and AI would be created automatically. But, the problem is that for that we need to enrich them with mind and that is impossible as it is beyond the capacity of humans too.

why the will would not be created also automatically, from the basic intentions and feedback loops like light seeking robot have or even basic wheel or round stone have intention to roll and feedback loops? computers are slightly more complex and what about humans, viruses, trees or animals?

I am 47 years old. I saw so many new developments in my life; landline phones, tv, computers, mission to moon, internet, cell phones, 2g, 3g, 4g and list is endless. But, my friend, the knowledge of street dog looks same to me now as it used to be when I was 5 years old. That’s why we use call it our planet in the sense that we are able to evolve much faster and to use all those things which are present on the earth.

but are you talking about accelerating evolution of humans - or machines!?

But, this does not mean that there are not other life forms on the earth; perhaps more than humans in numbers. But, they all have limitations and use to remain within them. But, humans use to challenge their limitations and successful in their effort also to some extent. They are able to do what they are not suppose or unable to do normally.

have we all limitations? are humans only doing what they are not suppose to do faster than other life forms?

A fish cannot live on the surface on earth because she does not have the capacity to survive there. In the same way humans do not have the capacity to survive underwater but they created means to do that. Birds can fly while humans cannot, but, once again they manage to flew in the air and even beyond the birds; even to the other planets too.

I think that is enough to understand the difference between the humans, animals and machines.

if other lifeforms have done space trips ages ago and lived places where human still cant live or go, is that enough to you?

Off course. I use my past experience to predict events, but the issue is not that.

AI is such a phenomenon that has not happened in the past, thus, we do not have any past experience about it, and thus, it is not predictable that it would happen for sure. Yes, the possibility is there in the same way as the possibility of not happening it.

like the possibility of first humans(adam and eve?) or earlier apes in huge universe?

Let me put once again what I proposed as facts-
The fact is we live here, in our present form at earth, right now. And, the reasoning is various explanations of that; God, big bang and Darwinism too.
The fact is that the apple use to fell on the ground, not in the opposite direction. Gravity is reasoning.
The fact is that all living creatures take birth, grew old and ultimately die. I am not sure whether there is any reasoning for this phenomenon or not.
MQ, where is the involvement of God or divine truths in all these? At least, I am not saying that.

are you saying that all people, religious ones also, share your list of facts? why?

These phenomena are not disputed but their reasons can.
There are not propositions, but facts. The proposition is their reasoning, not the phenomena themselves.

is your "phenomena" metaphysical term or what? scientific theoretic term?

we are trying to provide them with will or mind, which is are not physically manufacturable. Furthermore, we are yet to know exactly what mind is and it is necessary to know it in the first place prior to duplicate it.

are we also yet to know exactly can mind be manufactured physically and what we mean for that "physically manufacturable", if not global education systems also?

MQ, just look carefully at your words and its sense. You are telling me that humans need and use other works to carry on further. I think that is enough to understand the difference between the bacteria and humans and why we would like to call it our planet.

so bacteria are not surviving also with help of other bacteria and their mutations? so people do need more others works to survive daily life than other species do?

But, once again, these failed versions are only in the mind of the inventor, because he attempted all those.

I simply do not understand why you see negativity in this process as it is happening since Stone Age.

if i ask: is that non-failed version also only in the mind of the inventor? can the failed version be others non-failed versions? do you see your negativity in your "failed" now? how universal negativity is your "failed" in your mind? do people get "negative" results if they fail? if you fail to get food and sleep every day, is that how "positive" to you?

Machines cannot do it.

yet? did humans fly to moon when? stone age? did reptiles lived always on land or did they came from the sea?

I am explaining the difference between the understanding and reading something literally and it is not difficult to realize. So, please do not disturb Plato or Socrates in their graves.

philosophically challenging demand or what not to disturb socrates? are we learning philosophy or are we masters of philosophy when we born? i try not to treat socrates literally and thats why i ask also if socrates did not know that he did not know? like a zen koan he gave us or what? by the way, comics are less literally stuff.

MQ, I replied this in my last post that we do not create babies. It happens automatically as we all are a part of the process; not the regulators. Thus, we cannot bypass the process of learning.

maybe we are part of the proces also where new material species arise with new abilities, even mental!? like humans? or more intelligent? how we measure intelligence? money? scale and speed of overpopulation? space travels? surviving, age of the specie? what?

Human thinking is the only and real thinking because it has the capacity to add something always and on its own.

says who? you human? with your human measure sticks, because your human mind tells you that human reasoning of yours is saying the best reasons to make a universal standards of thinking for every life form in universum? nice! if all humans die do ants think that it is so sad that all those wise guys died and we ancient ones are still here? silly thinking or what?

You are claiming that we will be able to enrich machines with AI in the future. Right.
Now, let me ask you whether machines will able to achieve that on their own, if they are left totally alone? Certainly not.
Then who will do AI for them? Only humans can do it.

did i claim that? right. where? or did i only ask?
do we live humans also totally alone? ecological catastrophe will almost do that? or more alone?
can even humans do AI? what if they only help, need, live symbiotic life with it and only started the process of first evolving AIs?

Thus my friend, the development of the machines is totally dependent on the development of the humans.
MQ, you are not looking at the crux of the issue. In real terms, it is not machines that are improving, but, there are humans, which are improving. The development of the mankind is reflecting in the machines.

or the development of the humans are already totally dependent on the development of the machines and machine learning?
are you stuck inside the boundaries of those old terms "human", "machine", "will", etc.? try philosophical thinking! roll the socrates in his grave! say hi to him from me!

Yes, we are special. There is no doubt about that.

not very philosophical thinking, is it? no doubt? we?

with love,
sanjay

thanks and sorry my english.

The meaning of the terms don't lie in Logic. P -> Q, P :- Q. No meaning to the terms needed. Applies to all terms regardless of their meaning.

logical terms need no meanings? theres no meaning in "P -> Q, P :- Q"? gibberish?

[Arising_uk]

logical terms need no meanings? theres no meaning in "P -> Q, P :- Q"? gibberish?

No, I said the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q with is not contained in Logic.

[Mark Question]

logical terms need no meanings? theres no meaning in "P -> Q, P :- Q"? gibberish?

No, I said the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q with is not contained in Logic.

if the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not contained in Logic, then the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not logical. is the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q then gibberish or what? kjlkidgejiojmwqf rtwroiuiw?

[Arising_uk]

if the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not contained in Logic, then the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not logical. is the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q then gibberish or what? kjlkidgejiojmwqf rtwroiuiw?

If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw.
kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw.

The meaning of Logic.

[Mark Question]

if the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not contained in Logic, then the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q is not logical. is the meaning of whatever you replace P or Q then gibberish or what? kjlkidgejiojmwqf rtwroiuiw?

If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw.
kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw.

The meaning of Logic.

therefore, which is the meaning of P or Q? "rtwroiuiw" or "If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw.
kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw"?

[Arising_uk]

therefore, which is the meaning of P or Q? "rtwroiuiw" or "If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw.
kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw"?

There is no meaning to P or Q in Logic, they are place-holders(variables) for terms whose meaning or truth or falsity lies outside of Logic and in the world of Epistemology. The meaning of Logic is in the "If ... Then and Therefores".

[Mark Question]

therefore, which is the meaning of P or Q? "rtwroiuiw" or "If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw.
kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw"?

There is no meaning to P or Q in Logic, they are place-holders(variables) for terms whose meaning or truth or falsity lies outside of Logic and in the world of Epistemology. The meaning of Logic is in the "If ... Then and Therefores".

surely you meant to write they are "variables", not "rtwroiuiw" or "there is no meaning to P or Q in Logic, they are place-holders(variables) for terms whose meaning or truth or falsity lies outside of Logic and in the world of Epistemology." or even "If kjlkidgejiojmwqf then rtwroiuiw. kjlkidgejiojmwqf is the case therefore rtwroiuiw"?

"The meaning of Logic is in the "If ... Then and Therefores"." and the meaning of all meaningful words, variables too, lies in the meaningful thinking and logic is the study of meaningful thinking?
therefore, there is meaning to P or Q. they are variables. and every meaningful word, like "variable", have meaningful logical description?