Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Dubious]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑
My view is that what we discover (there, in that *realm*) is as real as anything else. More real, more determining in fact, than anything in the natural world. And what is discovered there is 'eternal' in the sense of pre-existing the manifest world.

Not for me since that requires a formalization of intent within the cosmos or prior to it as if the entire universe were an a priori consequence of it. To be as you say, requires a god pedestal together with a highly theistic mind set to make it viable.

Of course! Did you think I missed this? This is one of your ‘core predicates’. It determines you!

What I said (about the atom) is that how one sees what must ‘stand behind’ the atom’s existence, is what is determined by ones core predicates.

To amend Hamlet brutally:

Existence is the thing /
Wherein I’ll trap the conscience of the King

Existence, that things exist.

To be as you say, requires a god pedestal together with a highly theistic mind set to make it viable.

What I can go so far as to say is that it requires a different sense of things than the one you operate with.

That is true! But we all have our existential predicates which in final summation may be no less mystical than the ones you endorse. It's hard to say whether the proclivities of one's Weltanschauung reflects one's will or experience. Certainly there is an overlap but only by a sliver.

I think by now, we both would have noticed that.

[Dubious]

The way I conceptualise it, metaphysics emerges more as a human necessity, a psychological one not unlike many where Christmas isn't Christmas without a christmas tree to be decorated in any way they wish.

It’s a facile observation, Dubious, completely in accord with your core predicates. It follows and will always follow.

But it’s superficial. It doesn’t really address the fundamental questions. And these you wave away with your glib declarations.

There, that is where your will shows itself. Should someone poke you about this — Mr Irate shows up, cranky & intolerant.

Your "fundamental questions" are ALWAYS questions; they never cease to be questions and most often the same questions.

Since you have no other response except to go ad hom again, there is no point in continuance.

Your "core predicates" are solids, mine, if I had such, remain liquid. Never the two shall meet is a core truth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Since you have no other response except to go ad hom again, there is no point in continuance.

Dubious, did you ever plan on any outcome other than the one here you affirm?

You must have known, as I knew and know, that given you adamantine starting-point, no other ending point would ever be allowed. Again, this is your will.

My will, such as it is, is fixed on other objectives. More inclusive, less dogmatic (yours seem that way to me) more nuanced.

But please, tell me you knew this is where you end up because it is your desire.

Cranky and intolerant are fair terms. You are also grumpy as fuck and humorless. Own it!

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is true! But we all have our existential predicates which in final summation may be no less mystical than the ones you endorse.

We all have our predicates is a more neutral place to start if we wish to examine them. If we don’t then being pushed to do so is often annoyance and little fun.

Buy mystical predicates? No, metaphysical principles are not ‘mystical’. And mysticism is not my objective — personally.

Endorse? No, it is rather that I recommend discernment in regard (to metaphysics). I don’t have a position worked out, something to sell, or something to convert oneself to.

I am about 92.4% wonderful and remain stable there. Your wonderfulness rating is near 62.7% but just in the last days has dropped. Now, 62.7 is admirable given the field. But I know you have much much more in you.

[iambiguous]

That is, if you can find anything to disagree about.

It would be over trifles. A) To have you simply stuffed and hung on a wall plaque in the den — or B) bottled in formaldehyde for future generations to study (in keeping with the etymology of pedant).

Note to Satyr:

Since you copy posts here and paste them at KT, I know that you are likely reading this. So, seriously, is AJ already one of your clique/claque there? Æon? Kvasir?

Or are you yourself AJ there?

And, if not, why on earth do you suppose he is not posting at KT?

As I see it, you both love showing off your "it's so deep it's meaningless" intellect up in the philosophical clouds. You're both pedants. You both seem as one in regard to black and brown and red folks. And women. And homosexuals. And liberals. And though from my own prejudiced frame of mind you seem closer to being an out and out Nazi, I can never get AJ to actually connect the dots here between him and them.

We'll need a context, of course.

You keep bringing up what I gather is your primary concern. It revolves around European categories (eurocentrism, chauvinism) and how black brown and red people feel about it (something like that, I paraphrase from memory).

My "concern" here always revolves less around what people believe about things like race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and Jews etc., and more around how existentially -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
-- they came to acquire -- re dasein -- their own individual political prejudices.

And then the part where philosophers are or are not able to actually demonstrate that their own value judgments are not subjective prejudices at all but reflect one or another deontological assessment of the human condition. Here in America or otherwise.

Same assessment regarding AI chatbots as well. Whether programmed by us or down the road by themselves.

[iambiguous]

_______

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



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

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

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

Yeah, almost certainly.

Agreed.

In the past, genius innovations have usually been the result of a flash of inspiration emerging from the accumulated information held within a singular human mind.

However, regardless of how brilliant one may be, or how much one studies the multifarious subjects and features of the world, there has been (and will always be) a limit to how much information one human can take in, store, and then access for the purpose of coming up with new and innovative ideas.

On the other hand, AI pretty much has the potential of instantly accessing every bit of (digitally stored) information that humans have ever produced throughout all of time.

For example, I just now Googled the word "Science," and in a mere 0.67 seconds, it allegedly accessed 9,780,000,000 sources where (I assume) the word Science is mentioned.

Anyway, the point is that because AI could instantly see and make connections between different areas of information that would be impossible for a single human mind to notice,...

...then, in principle, there would be no limit to the new and innovative ideas that could potentially emerge from this vast pool of amalgamated knowledge.

And that, as you so aptly stated, "...will bring about another entirely more extraordinary level of accomplishments...".

Yes, no doubt about. AI accomplishments are simply mind-boggling regarding the either/or world. The new technologies alone are far, far, far beyond the grasp of most of us.

But what of AI and the is/ought world?

Okay, Mr. AI chatbot, is abortion moral or immoral? How do you feel about it? Same with guns and the consumption of animals and homosexuality and all of the other conflicting goods that rend us flesh and blood folks. And going all the way back to, say, the invention of philosophy itself.

I agree that in regard to ethics "there is no equivalent of scientific progress".

It's just that given the manner in which I construe this, I find it entirely reasonable in a No God world to be "fractured and fragmented", "drawn and quartered" in regard to my own rooted existentially in dasein value judgments.

I'm just curious to explore why others who are themselves atheists not fractured and fragmented themselves.

And whether or not machine intelligence itself will be able to pin down one or another objective morality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Since you copy posts here and paste them at KT, I know that you are likely reading this. So, seriously, is AJ already one of your clique/claque there? Æon? Kvasir?

Satyr! Master! Put me in your service! Just give me some orders. I respect exalted hierarchy!

[Dubious]

Dubious, did you ever plan on any outcome other than the one here you affirm?

I attempt to say "liquid" vis-à-vis ending points. I have no idea what the ending points are and likely no one ever will.

Again, this is your will

Thank you for explaining my will to me which I find somewhat dubious at times myself. What would I do without your enlightened comments!

My will, such as it is, is fixed on other objectives. More inclusive, less dogmatic (yours seem that way to me) more nuanced.

Keep up the good work. I'm sure your Will, will eventually deliver and confirm the resounding metaphysical structures you are currently so nuanced in.

It would have served Hermann Hesse well having you as an example in writing another installment to his Joseph Knecht bildungsroman!

Cranky and intolerant are fair terms. You are also grumpy as fuck and humorless. Own it!

Occasionally so...and YOU? I haven't noticed much humor in your posts either except of a weirdly perverse kind.

Is it really so difficult to notice the poop in your own backyard?

We all have our predicates is a more neutral place to start if we wish to examine them

...that's where the Christmas tree metaphor comes in which you regard as nothing more than glib but not the way it was meant. We all develop a ground position in time of one kind or another. The bare undecorated Christmas tree is a symbol of that. After that it gets decorated with one's personal preferences or nuances, as you would say and seldom do two Christmas trees look alike. The Christmas tree metaphor can be applied to a multitude of conditions including cooking.

Buy mystical predicates? No, metaphysical principles are not ‘mystical’. And mysticism is not my objective — personally.

Metaphysics has the option to be whatever it wants, whether the word mystical is included or not. It creates its own principles resulting in any kind of abstract system imaginable. Metaphysics can indeed be impressive, but it can also be the landfill of unguided thought and ideas.

I don’t have a position worked out, something to sell, or something to convert oneself to.

Really! Then what's all this about if it doesn't declare your position...?

My view is that what we discover (there, in that *realm*) is as real as anything else. More real, more determining in fact, than anything in the natural world. And what is discovered there is 'eternal' in the sense of pre-existing the manifest world.

I am about 92.4% wonderful and remain stable there. Your wonderfulness rating is near 62.7% but just in the last days has dropped. Now, 62.7 is admirable given the field. But I know you have much much more in you.

Once again, THANK YOU! I never expected you to rate me so high. I will sincerely attempt to add another two or three percentage points by the end of the year in the hope of eventually becoming as wise as you!

May the Lord grant me time! It will be a long journey so wish me luck!

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Christmas tree metaphor can be applied to a multitude of conditions including cooking.

Hold it there: Do.you.cook!?!

This is where we might construct a bridge!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Once again, THANK YOU! I never expected you to rate me so high. I will sincerely attempt to add another two or three percentage points by the end of the year in the hope of eventually becoming as wise as you!

Just now, I’ll have you know, you gained 2.9% points. This never happens! Be proud, be very proud.

Now: don’t sacrifice gains.

[Dubious]

The Christmas tree metaphor can be applied to a multitude of conditions including cooking.

Hold it there: Do.you.cook!?!

This is where we might construct a bridge!

Nah! It would collapse as soon as built! Why bother?

[Dubious]

Once again, THANK YOU! I never expected you to rate me so high. I will sincerely attempt to add another two or three percentage points by the end of the year in the hope of eventually becoming as wise as you!

Just now, I’ll have you know, you gained 2.9% points. This never happens! Be proud, be very proud.

Now: don’t sacrifice gains.

...not particularly progressive if it goes up by 3 and down by 10. Do yourself a favor...write me off!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Metaphysics has the option to be whatever it wants, whether the word mystical is included or not. It creates its own principles resulting in any kind of abstract system imaginable. Metaphysics can indeed be impressive, but it can also be the landfill of unguided thought and ideas.]

A lovely, a bold, a powerful declarative statement.

The Power of Determining Predicates.

The lever Archimedes longed for!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do yourself a favor...write me off!

Never NEVER!

Like Albert to Batman is Alexis to Dubious.

[iambiguous]

Since you copy posts here and paste them at KT, I know that you are likely reading this. So, seriously, is AJ already one of your clique/claque there? Æon? Kvasir?

Satyr! Master! Put me in your service! Just give me some orders. I respect exalted hierarchy!

No, seriously.