Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:10 pm I have to admit, though, I know little about T-tests. What's the base criteria for passing?

I believe no computer has ever passed a Turing Test. In my memory, you put a human and the machine in a context. The judges have to guess which is the human and which is the machine. If the machine, I assume, gets picked 50% of the time or better, well, there you go. It's an imitation game.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:34 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:59 pmIt's just not clear to me what higher ground you think you have over henry.

Oh, biggy has what he believes is a sweet deal: he formally commits to nuthin', feels empowered to take everyone to task for their objectivism, and when called out on his own fulminations, he pleads I'm fractured! I can see the issue from all perspectives!.

Click.

Yeah, I do have a "sweet deal" in regard to discussions such as this. But it revolves far more around the assumption that "I" am not excluded from my own point of view here. In other words, given human identity in regard to conflicting moral, political and spiritual value judgments and in regard to the Big Questions like free will, I accumulated a particular set of personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. And because my own lived life may well have been very, very different from others here, why should it surprise anyone that we will come to conflicting conclusions about these things.

So, the question in a philosophy forum is this: given the at times profoundly problematic existential parameters of our lives, is there a way, using the tools of philosophy, to ascertain how all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are, in fact, obligated to think and feel about conflicting goods and the Big Questions?

The wisest conclusions?

After all, in the either/or world, we are able to come up with all manner of things we agree are objectively true for all of us.

Right?

And yet for thousands and thousands of years, here we all are as philosophers still squabbling over conflicting goods and things like determinism.

Gee, I wonder why?

It's just that, in my view, the fulminating fanatic objectivists among us have their own "sweet deal". They start with the assumption that the is/ought world is just another component of the either/or world. You either think like they do or you are a "moron", or "simply wrong". And you become their "enemy".

Then the rest, as they say, is history. Ask Vladimir Putin for example about the distinction he makes between the is/ought world and the either/or world.

And ask henry.

It's just that some include a God, the God, their God, and some don't.

Only I'm the first to admit that "I" am entirely incapable of demonstrating that myself. It's just my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 9:34 pmThis is his MO.

And he wonders why I, and others, have no substantive conversations with him.

No, I've explained my "method" above. And the irony here is this:

It is what I construe to be the "meat-minds" here and the "pinheads" there that steer clear of substantive exchanges. Just note how henry here will often respond to me in a few words or in a single sentence.

And his responses are often just his own repetitive iterations:

"If a person doesn't recognize that he is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property; if a person doesn't recognize the other guy is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, then, yeah, he's a moron."

That's his M.O.

He hurls words like this at you all the time. But it is always understood [by him] that if others don't define the meaning of these words exactly as he does, that's what makes them morons. It could be about Ukraine or abortion or guns or determinism. Or any conflicting good.

Then, as always, the truly mysterious manner in which he connects those words to his dearly departed God. A God that provided all mere mortals with the capacity to "follow the dictates of reason and nature" and, apparently, tasked henry with the job of providing us with the One True Path.

Well, here at least.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:10 pm I have to admit, though, I know little about T-tests. What's the base criteria for passing?

I believe no computer has ever passed a Turing Test. In my memory, you put a human and the machine in a context. The judges have to guess which is the human and which is the machine. If the machine, I assume, gets picked 50% of the time or better, well, there you go. It's an imitation game.

So, the sole criteria is for the machine to get its interrogator(s) to believe it's human.

A few months back a google engineer said he had discovered a true machine-person. Some chatbot that he, and others, talked to was self-aware, he said. An edited transcript of the conversations was released, and -- yeah -- it sure seemed like the conversation was between two people. No one would release the unedited transcripts. And, as far as I know, no one who wasn't associated with the project was invited to have a chat with this machine person.

Google, I think, shitcann'd the engineer and issued a release sayin' it's a chatbot, not a person.

Seems, right now, a machine needs a lotta help to pass. Unlike, as I say even the least of us here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:10 pm I have to admit, though, I know little about T-tests. What's the base criteria for passing?

I believe no computer has ever passed a Turing Test. In my memory, you put a human and the machine in a context. The judges have to guess which is the human and which is the machine. If the machine, I assume, gets picked 50% of the time or better, well, there you go. It's an imitation game.

So, the sole criteria is for the machine to get its interrogator(s) to believe it's human.

A few months back a google engineer said he had discovered a true machine-person. Some chatbot that he, and others, talked to was self-aware, he said. An edited transcript of the conversations was released, and -- yeah -- it sure seemed like the conversation was between two people. No one would release the unedited transcripts. And, as far as I know, no one who wasn't associated with the project was invited to have a chat with this machine person.

Google, I think, shitcann'd the engineer and issued a release sayin' it's a chatbot, not a person.

Seems, right now, a machine needs a lotta help to pass. Unlike, as I say even the least of us here.

We can't be sure...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... icking-you
And if some government came up with a very powerful AI, perhaps they'd test it online, for rapid learning, and not go around bragging. Companies also for that matter.

Who knows? Perhaps they walk amongst us here at ILP.

I'd keep an eye on people who rely on short answers and give mixed communication. Like a bit of philosophy, perhaps and assertion or two, then some tangent.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:27 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:16 pm
I believe no computer has ever passed a Turing Test. In my memory, you put a human and the machine in a context. The judges have to guess which is the human and which is the machine. If the machine, I assume, gets picked 50% of the time or better, well, there you go. It's an imitation game.

So, the sole criteria is for the machine to get its interrogator(s) to believe it's human.

A few months back a google engineer said he had discovered a true machine-person. Some chatbot that he, and others, talked to was self-aware, he said. An edited transcript of the conversations was released, and -- yeah -- it sure seemed like the conversation was between two people. No one would release the unedited transcripts. And, as far as I know, no one who wasn't associated with the project was invited to have a chat with this machine person.

Google, I think, shitcann'd the engineer and issued a release sayin' it's a chatbot, not a person.

Seems, right now, a machine needs a lotta help to pass. Unlike, as I say even the least of us here.

We can't be sure...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2014 ... icking-you
And *if some government came up with a very powerful AI, perhaps they'd test it online, for rapid learning, and not go around bragging. Companies also for that matter.

Who knows? Perhaps they walk amongst us here at ILP.

**I'd keep an eye on people who rely on short answers and give mixed communication. Like a bit of philosophy, perhaps and assertion or two, then some tangent.

*And we'd never know...till, mebbe, it was too late.

**Well hell: I must be synthetic, then.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:45 pm *And we'd never know...till, mebbe, it was too late.

**Well hell: I must be synthetic, then.

Oh, you go in more depth occasionally.
But, there is the issue of the chatbots not knowing they are not human.

buggy (to fishes swimming below him) wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 7:26 pm

And the two-bit hero of the piece (the piece, his piece) monologues...again.
c'mon, IWP: that there is too pithy to be machine-speak

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:46 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:45 pm *And we'd never know...till, mebbe, it was too late.

**Well hell: I must be synthetic, then.

Oh, you go in more depth occasionally.
But, there is the issue of the chatbots not knowing they are not human.

Well, the saggy, hairy, lopsided face I see in the mirror looks human. Mebbe I'm en-matrix'd, though. Just a program livin' a simulated life. If so: I want an upgrade.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:07 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:56 am Rubbish: "being compelled by your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, to not agree with something that Sculptor's brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels him to assert must be true because as a deterministic agent he is compelled to post it here."

FFS.

You are sufferings from a serious case of disabling dualism.

Being compelled by your brain is meaningless garbage.
We are not apart from our brain.
I think you might want to review your idiotic Christian ideology.

Tonight, when you go to sleep, if you dream, remember the dream.

Tell us about it.

Now, if your dreams are like mine, in the dream everything that I experience, I seem to experience as though I were not asleep and dreaming at all. Yet my "choices" in the dream are entirely compelled by my brain chemically and neurologically.

Though, sure, when I wake up, a part of me, like most of us, is convinced that the wide-awake brain is just "somehow" different.

Going back to fully understanding this part:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Anyway, bring your point above back to Mary aborting Jane. If Mary is not apart from her brain and her brain is matter and matter obeys natural laws, is Jane doomed or not?

Since I don't have a Facebook page, I can't say for certain, but I think that this forum is just as disorganized and disorderly as I imagine Facebook is. It increasingly resembles a madhouse in my eyes. I also anticipate that my decision to withdraw from here will be enthusiastically embraced, loudly applauded, passionately appreciated, and favorably received.

You're going to leave Sculptor and me alone here with these guys?

Nooooooooo

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:26 pm I also anticipate that my decision to withdraw from here will be enthusiastically embraced, loudly applauded, passionately appreciated, and favorably received.

I would think indifference would be closer to the truth for most of us. Just saying...

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:26 pm Since I don't have a Facebook page, I can't say for certain, but I think that this forum is just as disorganized and disorderly as I imagine Facebook is. It increasingly resembles a madhouse in my eyes. I also anticipate that my decision to withdraw from here will be enthusiastically embraced, loudly applauded, passionately appreciated, and favorably received.

With any luck [and in a free will world] it was something that I said.

By now even my notches have notches.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:31 pm You're going to leave Sculptor and me alone here with these guys?

Nooooooooo

Why don't you just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was compelled to leave by the "logic" of his own argument.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:28 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 11:42 am

When he refers to a "meat machine," I think he means anything along the lines of "biological with a nervous system" or "non-botanical life form." In actuality, it's nothing more than an innocent, albeit foolish, attempt to upset those who disagree with him.

BUT if there is ONLY 'determinism' and NO 'ability to choose', or in other words NO 'free will' AT ALL, then NO one HAS A CHOICE to DISAGREE, NOR AGREE, with "henry quirk". Just like "henry quirk" has NO possible way of NOT being able to choose ANY other words, AT ALL.

Just like that ABSOLUTE IDIOT and FOOL "bigmike" has absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE the MOST ABSURD and STUPID
things', which 'it' does here, continually. And, just like I had absolutely NO choice AT ALL other than to just SAY and WRITE what I DID just here, and now.

This idea that in determinism there is "no ability to choose"" requires a complete change in what 'choice' and 'choosing' means.

Where is the idea that in 'determinism' there is 'no ability to choose' coming from EXACTLY?

I have NEVER expressed 'that idea's NOR even just suggested 'that idea' anywhere.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:31 pm Let's look at how it works in a game of chess. (Why chess? Because computers can play chess and they don't have free-will.)

Why?

What does 'free will' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:31 pm If you know the rules of the game, then you know all the possible legal moves. You have the choice of all legal moves.

But a player does not consider all legal moves. Based on his experience, he will only considers moves which are useful for his goal ... checkmating the king or gaining material or securing a draw. So he gives himself a smaller set of choices.

Next he analyses those choices ... he considers what the opponent's replies could be and his own reply to the reply, etc.

Based on his experience, he evaluates the merit of each move and chooses what he thinks is the best move.

He may also be tired, he may be distracted, he may be short on time and these are all factors which influence his decision.

He has choices. He chooses. But he does not have a free choices and he does not choose freely. His choices and final decision are limited by the position on the board, his experience and his state of mind.

That's not forcing, compelling or lack of choice, unless you redefine all those words.


Next up : The idea that there is no learning in determinism.

WHERE EXACTLY is 'the idea' that there is no learning in determinism' coming from?

I have NEVER even thought of 'that idea', let alone expressed it nor suggested it anywhere.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:31 pm You can learn to play chess better. Computers learn to play chess better.

And, your point is?