Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:22 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:10 pm Step 1:move philosophy off text. Find a better medium.

I'd recommend Discord or other types of mediums...but AgeGPT corrected me and mentioned that 'AI can now produce video images and audial recordings' on the spot.

So unless it's face-to-face, which is very impractical (no offense but I'm not flying to South Africa for a conversation or debate Skepdick), then we're left dealing with the bots, whenever they come.

Where will you fly to, exactly, "wizard22"?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:16 pmHave you ever thought of asking clarifying questions?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:50 pm
"wizard22" why do you want to know?

What difference would knowing make 'to you'?

Quid Pro Quo, AgeGPT, you answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

It's called mutual respect, and it's essential for Philosophy.

Now then—AgeGPT, do you have ZERO beliefs, or ONLY ONE belief?

Why do you want to know?

How do I know that you are not 'a machine'?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:23 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 am Pretty much... but I think in forcing machines to define their "Selves", it really undercuts their programming.

The only reason a machine could not just 'copy' what the definition of 'Self' is, is, literally, because you human beings, in the days when this is being written, had not yet come-to-know 'Self', and/or if did, then has not yet expressed this, YET.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:03 am I haven't seen any AI pretend to have a "Self", yet...

But we have seen plenty of you human beings pretend to 'have' 'selves', but have never actually shown and proved how you could. After all you are only human beings, only, and there is a lot, lot more evolution and moving forward to happen and occur yet.

On the contrary, I am becoming more aware of your "self" and you are of my "self", right now.

If you say and believe so.

But, you are a human being right, "wizard22"?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:31 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:05 am if I'm not mistaken, then AIs will quickly dominate textual areas by passing themselves off as human.

So what?

What are you so scared of and fearful of here, exactly, "wizard22"?

This self-driven delusional fear here seems to be driving you more delusional.

you have even got to the point of claiming some of 'us' posters here are 'ai chatbots', who are out to get you.

What do 'you' think 'we' could or want to achieve, exactly?

Besides, of course, of just holding up your own words to "yourselves"?

You must be short-circuiting, AgeGPT. I am not "Skepdick" nor is he, "Wizard22".

Let's add this to your long list of errors already committed, now, you should move on to the pressing question of the day...

Yes add it to the long list of errors that I have actually made here.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:51 pm Have you not yet found a 'better medium'?

Yes.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:51 pm Have you not yet found a 'better medium'?

Yes.

Will you share it with us here?

If no, then why not?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:51 pm Have you not yet found a 'better medium'?

Yes.

Will you share it with us here?

If no, then why not?

No. Because anything expressed here is trapped in the stupid medium of text, words and symbols.

Distinguishing traits of the philosophical medium:

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 1:55 pm
Yes.

Will you share it with us here?

If no, then why not?

No. Because anything expressed here is trapped in the stupid medium of text, words and symbols.

Okay. If you say and believe so.

Also, what other medium besides symbols, words, and text would be used in 'philosophy', itself?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:24 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 12:21 pm Thinking.
Breathing
Eating.
Discriminating

Machines can copy thought and discrimination already, not so much the breathing and eating though.

How can you tell whether your correspondence is a 'thinking' person opposed to a 'thinking' machine?

Are thoughts "automatic"?

Although we find think that we are thinking consciously all of our thinking tends to be automatised. Answers are reached but emenate from the subconsious mind. I think where we differ with machines in that as those thoughts present themsleves there is a discrimination system. as it reaches into the consciousness. When we become aware of our answers we are able so sift them and "choose" which are appropriate for the moment for fine ajustment.
Consider the painist. He or she knows where the fingers ought to be at any one time but to consciously control them woiuld be a disaster and has to rely on a deeper knowing - allowing his body and brain to do the work without conscioue interference. But he can make fine adjustments to divetail with the general mood of the audience and the rest of the orchestra. This is discrimination.
Even if you do not play an instrument you will know this when catching a ball, driving a car or doing a host of other things that require automony from the immediate consciousness.
When you just "know" that a collection of numbers, say 20, 15, 2,4,5, and 6 would not add up to 100 - without doing any consicous addition.
When you can take the racing line round a bend, whilst listening and singinag along to the radio AND thinking about the fact they you might be late for work. Al this take computation, yet no conscious thinking.
And then there is tennis. Somehow your body is making complex calculations about the force and trajectory and the ball and how your racket will return the ball, yet the moment you think too much about it you lose the ball.
It's like let the force flow Luke!!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:01 pm Distinguishing traits of the philosophical medium:

Is that 'the medium' you spend some time in trying to get your own personal views and beliefs across to others, and try to get them to understand you better?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:07 pm Is that 'the medium' you spend some time in trying to get your own personal views and beliefs across to others, and try to get them to understand you better?

No. What a waste of time.

Philosophers don't even understand what understanding is.

Considering the extreme variability in the quality of posts online from humans, AI should be undetectable since no matter what it comes up with there's likely a human who makes similar "errors".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:07 pm Is that 'the medium' you spend some time in trying to get your own personal views and beliefs across to others, and try to get them to understand you better?

No. What a waste of time.

Philosophers don't even understand what understanding is.

But do you even understand what understanding is?

if yes, then will 'you' inform the rest of 'us' here?

If no, then why not?

Also, what is even a 'philosopher', to you, exactly?

And, if spending time here in this forum is a waste of time for you, then why do you even spend any time here, in this forum, let alone the amount you do?

Oh, and by the way, if so-called "philosophers" do not even understand what understanding is, then what types of people do understand what understanding is, exactly?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 2:06 pm Although we find think that we are thinking consciously all of our thinking tends to be automatised. Answers are reached but emenate from the subconsious mind. I think where we differ with machines in that as those thoughts present themsleves there is a discrimination system. as it reaches into the consciousness. When we become aware of our answers we are able so sift them and "choose" which are appropriate for the moment for fine ajustment.
Consider the painist. He or she knows where the fingers ought to be at any one time but to consciously control them woiuld be a disaster and has to rely on a deeper knowing - allowing his body and brain to do the work without conscioue interference. But he can make fine adjustments to divetail with the general mood of the audience and the rest of the orchestra. This is discrimination.
Even if you do not play an instrument you will know this when catching a ball, driving a car or doing a host of other things that require automony from the immediate consciousness.
When you just "know" that a collection of numbers, say 20, 15, 2,4,5, and 6 would not add up to 100 - without doing any consicous addition.
When you can take the racing line round a bend, whilst listening and singinag along to the radio AND thinking about the fact they you might be late for work. Al this take computation, yet no conscious thinking.
And then there is tennis. Somehow your body is making complex calculations about the force and trajectory and the ball and how your racket will return the ball, yet the moment you think too much about it you lose the ball.
It's like let the force flow Luke!!

Fair enough!