Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I was merely rejecting dualism. "Life" is not an ontological entitity which is joined to matter to create living beings.The "emergent property" is called "evolution" and "not something imposed on matter" means in this context "is implied by natural laws". Correct me if I am wrong, but it seams almost as you are afraid to use a direct phrasing of meaning.
I don't recognize a distinction between 1st order and 2nd order. Humans make a machine to do something, and it does something, whatever it may be.There is a difference between a machine which do something and a machine which design something which in turn will do something. Let us call this 1st and 2nd order machines. The purpose of a 2nd order machine, like AlphaZero and evolution, is to create another machine, like a 1st order chess playing machine or new species.
Your bulldozer is a 1st order machine, controlled by humans who are 2nd order "machines". Human designed 1st order machine are built to extend our bodies capabilities beyond our own. Human designed 2nd order machines are not only built to extend machines capacities but also to extend our design capacity beoynd our own.
AZ did not design another machine, unless it's something you haven't mentioned yet.There is gross misunderstanding in this thread what the purpose, or given telos, of AlphaZero is. It seams to me people has conflate 1st order machine with 2nd order machines. All machines has telos, but AlphaZeros telos is not to play chess. Its telos is to design a 1st order chess playing machine which telos is, or become, to play chess. It is the telos of this 1st order machine which AlphaZero designed by itself - no human was involved in this, only randomness and selection.
So I'm guessing you must be staunchly opposed to contraception and abortion, right?Second order machines are machine which builds other machine with a telos which, in general, is not the same telos as the 2nd order machine itself has. If the telos is the same then the telos is know as self-replication. Which is the case of Life, i.e. the purpose of Life is to create more Life.
Like he said, AZ designed a chess playing machine....AZ did not design another machine, unless it's something you haven't mentioned yet....
It's not a tenet of faith, it's a common-sense recognition of the fact that if your thoughts are determined by nature, they cannot be said to be reasonable. If you're predestined by physics and chemistry to choose choice A over choice B, it would be absurd to say that you reasoned over it and chose it.I dont think thats "by definition" at all. I think what youre describing is a tenet of faith that you are imposing on the discussion. If you look at definitions of "thinking", "reasoning", etc, you'll find a chain of circular references with no solid backstop in any entity that starts its own causal chains of events. That last part is where faith comes in.
If you ask me, "reasoning" is processing statements according to observations and logical rules. That can be done by both human minds and by machines (or machine minds, if you will).
I must have missed that post. What's the other machine called?Like he said, AZ designed a chess playing machine.
I dont think its named. Why dont you propose one!I must have missed that post. What's the other machine called?
More importantly, can I get one at Walmart? Just for once I'd like to beat some of these online hotshots!I dont think its named. Why dont you propose one!
Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand. Nothing about determinism implies that logical processing and observation (ie reasoning) cannot be part of the causal chain.It's not a tenet of faith, it's a common-sense recognition of the fact that if your thoughts are determined by nature, they cannot be said to be reasonable. If you're predestined by physics and chemistry to choose choice A over choice B, it would be absurd to say that you reasoned over it and chose it.
For the chess playing machine that AZ designed, I propose the name Gilbert Keith.More importantly, can I get one at Walmart? Just for once I'd like to beat some of these online hotshots!
Bah, humbug.Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand.
I'm flattered.For the chess playing machine that AZ designed, I propose the name Gilbert Keith.
What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing (including possible errors) and observation from contributing to a causal chain?Bah, humbug....
The word "intellect" implies reasoning.
As you said about having to define things in this thread: is AZ reasoning?
I don't believe so, because I believe reasoning is, almost by definition, something more than matter obeying laws which it has no choice about.
AZ didn't actually choose one course of action over another
it simply followed directions
to "achieve" an outcome which was determined by human intelligence
(after all, humans invented chess, and invented what it means to "win" at chess).
But I guess people who are determinists would disagree, and say that AZ is doing the exact same thing human brains do.
Bah, humbug.
What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing
Hello again In situ,
I'll respond to your responses first (your words in red) then in a second post I'll do my best to say why chalk and cheese are not the same.
Yes, we know that.Nothing, since determinism implies logic. I.e. logic is based on patterns produced by determinstic process.
Yes. Really. The new ideas I'm talking about are the chess tactics AZ has used that have surprised chess experts.
Yes, we know that.
But Chesterton seems to hold that "reasoning" cannot happen in a deterministic fashion.
I didn't say it excluding logical processing. I responded to you talking about reason.What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing (including possible errors) and observation from contributing to a causal chain?
And some of us positively enjoy it. We're called AnglicansMy point is: I am probably touching on many things which are sensitive to many people: such as what it means to have free will, are we just machine or do we have soul, does god exists, etc etc. And this will naturally makes people feel uncomfortable...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?