For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You sure about that...?accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 5:45 pmI was referring to that particular post. His posts aren't all Ai. AI doesn't have a sense of humour or a personality. I'm pretty sure they can't write books by themselves.
I haven't seen any evidence of it. It took billions of years for the universe to evolve human intelligence so it seems a bit arrogant to think we could 'create' it any more than we could make a whale from scratch.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:13 pmYou sure about that...?accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 5:45 pmI was referring to that particular post. His posts aren't all Ai. AI doesn't have a sense of humour or a personality. I'm pretty sure they can't write books by themselves.
AI can destroy the best chess players in the world; computers make Magnus Carlsen look like a toddler at chess.accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:50 pmI haven't seen any evidence of it. It took billions of years for the universe to evolve human intelligence so it seems a bit arrogant to think we could 'create' it any more than we could make a whale from scratch.
That's chess. Doesn't require a lot of personality or humour...Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:57 pmAI can destroy the best chess players in the world; computers make Magnus Carlsen look like a toddler at chess.accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 11:50 pmI haven't seen any evidence of it. It took billions of years for the universe to evolve human intelligence so it seems a bit arrogant to think we could 'create' it any more than we could make a whale from scratch.
...so this shouldn't be a surprise anymore. AI is already out-pacing humanity on every other level. Obviously they're coming after "Philosophy" next.
How long did AgeGPT run on this website before SOMEONE (hint: me!) called it out??accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:09 amThat's chess. Doesn't require a lot of personality or humour...
I said I thought 'he' was a 'bot' right back when he started. I did start to doubt that when he showed a humourous side and the fact that he posted a link to some books he said he wrote, although fishpi pointed out that it was likely a combination human/AI. I don't recall you ever saying it was AI. Who cares anyway?Wizard22 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:13 amHow long did AgeGPT run on this website before SOMEONE (hint: me!) called it out??accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:09 amThat's chess. Doesn't require a lot of personality or humour...
I'm glad at least you caught BigMike quickly though...
Literal everybody, when people wake-up to the fact that AIs can out-dialogue and out-argue the smartest humans on the planet...?
Really? Has he convinced anyone on here re his 'deterministim when it's not determinism' assertions? I've had a lot to do with very convincing people in the 'real world'. The ones who 'know everything' (always male). They can be very destructive. One even caused a friend to lose all his money because he convinced him that some stock investment was 'foolproof'.
Here? ...maybe not, yet.accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:31 amReally? Has he convinced anyone on here re his 'deterministim when it's not determinism' assertions? I've had a lot to do with very convincing people in the 'real world'. The ones who 'know everything' (always male). They can be very destructive. One even caused a friend to lose all his money because he convinced him that some stock investment was 'foolproof'.
I like him. I find him hilarious actually.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:43 amHere? ...maybe not, yet.accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:31 amReally? Has he convinced anyone on here re his 'deterministim when it's not determinism' assertions? I've had a lot to do with very convincing people in the 'real world'. The ones who 'know everything' (always male). They can be very destructive. One even caused a friend to lose all his money because he convinced him that some stock investment was 'foolproof'.
Outside here, very likely. He/It does appear very intelligent, organized, and convincing to Normies.
The Soviet Union defined "critical thinking" as the ability to use communist theory to criticize capitalism.
Presumably truth will prevail whether we like the truth or not. Children can be indoctrinated in falsehoods, however, they cannot be hermetically sealed away from truth. And when naturally inquisitive children discover that their parents sheltered them from truth, they may become angry at what their parents did.godelian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:40 amThe Soviet Union defined "critical thinking" as the ability to use communist theory to criticize capitalism.
Evaluation one set of foundations against another one, is obviously silly. That approach is clearly stupid. However, it is substantially less stupid than how atheists criticize religion. Atheists base their criticism on some elusive alternative foundations without even being able to document them.
The undocumented atheist approach is clearly inferior.
In fact, proper critical thinking is about using the law of noncontradiction to point out inconsistencies in a particular foundational theory. That is never what atheists do.
Furthermore, what so-called evidence do atheists even have against religion?
As Aristotle pointed out in "Posterior Analytics", all foundations of knowledge are dogmatic.
For example, the foundations of arithmetic theory are definitely a dogma. The vast majority of the world population is indeed not capable of questioning the foundations of Peano Arithmetic Theory, let alone, that children would be able to do it. At best, they merely learn to use them, if even.
If you want to indoctrinate children with your own alternative dogma, then make these children by yourself. Trying to indoctrinate someone else's children with dogmas that their parents object to, will merely lead their parents to rigorously deploying countermeasures. It amounts to crossing a red line. At that point, we do not debate. We do not discuss. We do not negotiate. We simply attack and destroy. All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.
Concerning the truth, let's start with the Curry-Howard correspondence (CH). A proof is a program and a program that terminates, is a proof.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:48 am Presumably truth will prevail whether we like the truth or not. Children can be indoctrinated in falsehoods, however, they cannot be hermetically sealed away from truth. And when naturally inquisitive children discover that their parents sheltered them from truth, they may become angry at what their parents did.
But of course, it doesn't matter to point this out. It will or will not happen in a child's lifetime based on the causal chain.
It therefore means that there is model-theoretical truth that successfully interprets Islamic theory. In other words, Islam is firmly and undeniably associated with its truth.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X08706839
Model Existence Theorem
This chapter presents model existence theorem. The two basic results for L are the compactness theorem (If Σ is a set of sentences of L and every finite subset of Σ has a model, then Σ has a model), and the Upward Löwenheim-Skolem-Tarski theorem (If a set Σ of sentences of L has an infinite model of power α, then it has models of all powers β > α).
As an "expert beginner" I guess you have lost me. I'm not really following your argument. It's possibly far beyond my level of comprehension. But I'm not so sure that matters or is of importance. If all is determined and there is a God, then I suppose God prefers that I not understand your argument.godelian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 4:04 amConcerning the truth, let's start with the Curry-Howard correspondence (CH). A proof is a program and a program that terminates, is a proof.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:48 am Presumably truth will prevail whether we like the truth or not. Children can be indoctrinated in falsehoods, however, they cannot be hermetically sealed away from truth. And when naturally inquisitive children discover that their parents sheltered them from truth, they may become angry at what their parents did.
But of course, it doesn't matter to point this out. It will or will not happen in a child's lifetime based on the causal chain.
So, IslamGPT is a program that runs and terminates. Hence, according to the CH correspondence, IslamGPT is a proof. So, what exactly does it prove?
IslamGPT is model-existence proof for Islamic theory that satisfies the requirements of Tarski's semantic theory of truth:
It therefore means that there is model-theoretical truth that successfully interprets Islamic theory. In other words, Islam is firmly and undeniably associated with its truth.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X08706839
Model Existence Theorem
This chapter presents model existence theorem. The two basic results for L are the compactness theorem (If Σ is a set of sentences of L and every finite subset of Σ has a model, then Σ has a model), and the Upward Löwenheim-Skolem-Tarski theorem (If a set Σ of sentences of L has an infinite model of power α, then it has models of all powers β > α).
AtheistGPT does not even exist.
Since atheism cannot be documented, it can never run as a program. So, where is your proof that there is actually any truth whatsoever in atheism?
You see, the problem with expert beginners is that they talk about truth but they clearly don't know what it is. At best, they are hundreds of years behind on modern technology.
When you talk about truth, is your take on the truth even remotely compatible with Tarski's semantic theory of truth? Or is it just one more undocumented expert-beginner invention?
An idealized IslamGPT is the truth of Islam. There is no idealized atheismGPT possible. Therefore, atheism has no truth.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 4:19 am As an "expert beginner" I guess you have lost me. I'm not really following your argument. It's possibly far beyond my level of comprehension. But I'm not so sure that matters or is of importance. If all is determined and there is a God, then I suppose God prefers that I not understand your argument.