I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.
Upvote
0
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.
I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.Basically, I don't have sufficient time for a dialogue of this magnitude, assuming it is nowhere near ending. At the same time, I don't want to simply leave off. The goal of my next post would be to considerably whittle down the post size while emphasizing the main principles upon which we differ. Yet I know that you prefer a conversational rather than syllogistic approach, and so your input is welcome.
I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.
- Have you never discovered or realised that you've learnt something without attending to it at the time?
I'm not saying anything about what humans have or don't have, or what they can do or can't do. I'm simply suggesting a simple set of basic definitions that are suitably contextual, and reasonably close to the dictionary versions, that we can match with any system, human or otherwise, to determine whether it has that basic property. If a system has more than the basic features, we can expand the definition and add a qualifier (e.g. 'self-knowledge').
The definitions should be able to be compared to any system, organic or inorganic.
Precisely my point - that's the only information it gives you. Of itself, it tells you nothing about human beings (let alone their 'essence'), other than that Socrates is one. You may be able to tell something about humans from what you already know about Socrates, and vice-versa, but that's all.
So if "Applying rules without understanding them in order to come to a "conclusion" is not understanding" for a computer, and you admit to applying rules without understanding them, then - by your own logic - you are not understanding either. This kind of confusion is why I think a clear definition of understanding is necessary.
Yet the human population continues to grow...
The computational acts of more than trivially simple artificial neural networks cannot be more exhaustively defined than human knowing - not least because they're architecturally similar substrates. This can be a problem for understanding why ANNs do what they do.
Alex the parrot knew and understood that, and a whole lot more
My point wasn't about the colour of the blocks, but the knowledge and understanding of their spatial relationships, as I thought I'd made clear.
On the contrary, deriving the rules that apply from a number of example situations, and then correctly applying them to novel situations, involves abstraction (abstracting the rules from the examples), conceptualization (the rules express the concepts), and generalization (applying the rules to novel situations). This is a clear example of understanding.
Certainly (assuming that by 'capable of knowledge' you mean 'capable of acquiring knowledge'). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is fine; a goal need not involve practical manipulation, nor a defined end point.
Yes and no; that conflates programmed behaviours and learnt behaviours (functioning at a higher level of abstraction), which is a crucial distinction. I don't think you'll find many AIs with hard-coded behaviours these days. Most are based on artificial neural networks and trained to behave in the desired way. So the ANNABELL system was programmed to be a network system that could learn; it had no program code or data relating to language. It was trained to learn a language by linguistic interaction alone - which, incidentally, suggests that Chomsky's idea of an innate grammar is not required for language acquisition.
That assumes the programmer knows what his algorithms will be used for; for example, evolutionary algorithms often produce unexpected but highly effective results, without the programmer having any way to predict what they might be.
No, should it? AI at present is domain-specific, and those domains are narrow. Within those domains AI can rival or exceed rival human knowledge and understanding, but I don't think anyone's claiming more than that.
I don't think that's a coherent question - AI is, by definition, less complex than life that is more complex than AI; how complex that is depends on the AI and the domain in question. And humans are apes - specifically, Great Apes (Hominidae).
The human being learns from experience and constructs representational models using a biological neural network. An artificial neural network can learn from experience and construct representational models in a broadly similar way (though with orders of magnitude less processing complexity & sophistication). Agency (acting to some effect, i.e. interacting with the environment) is obviously necessary; if, by 'agency', you mean something different, explain what you mean and why you think it is necessary.
That was plain assertion. Computers respond to their inputs, and humans to theirs (perceptions and sensations).
Who said anything about 'equalizing' humans and computers? Humans are orders of magnitude more complex than any current computer system.
Humans are not passive, they actively interact with their environment, but yes, I think those interactions are determined by antecedent conditions (there may be a smidgen of randomness, but insignificant). When you make a decision or a choice, or take an action, do you base it on anything? do you have a reason for it?
I don't see it as a demotion at all; humans are the result of over 2.5 billion years of evolution, the most awesomely complex and sophisticated system yet discovered. It's just a shame it's still so unreliable and prone to magical thinking...
Depends what you mean by 'truly agents'. Care to give a coherent definition or explanation?
I'm not denying 'speculative knowledge', or human agency (if you mean acting to some effect), and I have no problem with goals that appear entirely divorced from the evolutionary goal of reproduction - it's a feature of complex systems that you can get emergent, indirect, or unexpected behaviours.
Um, no again. Input to the human is restricted to the limited data it receives through its senses - a wider variety than most computers, but in many cases considerably less in quantity (consider the LHC computer and 'big data' processors).
True for hard-coded computer systems, not so much for artificial neural network learning systems. For both humans and ANN learning systems, the patterns of data input (for humans, data from the senses, passing up the afferent nerves to the brain) have no intrinsic meaning apart from that imposed by the processing areas (first stage sensory processing areas in humans), that have been trained (not programmed), by experience (interaction with the environment), to interpret them in useful ways.
Data only has meaning to some system that can interpret it (as information).
Neither agency (acting and deciding to act or not), nor speculative knowledge, or knowledge for the sake of knowledge, necessarily transcend evolutionary or AI systems possibility; and determinism doesn't mean you can't decide to act or not, it simply means that what you do (or don't) decide is determined. I don't know what you mean by 'truth apart from manipulation' - truth is correspondence with reality, and (apart from analytic truths) necessarily uncertain.
Free will and ATDO are more complicated; if you like, I can address them in a separate post, to stop this one becoming even longer...
It is true by definition. We know this if we have been told it or learnt about it (e.g. from early modern philosophy or substance dualism), and understand it if we know about objects, and the world. But I don't see why one couldn't, in principle, train an ANN system to understand it in simple terms (e.g. to explain what it means); I also don't see why one would.
Like humans, computers can only do such things if they have the cognitive capability and training. But if you could build an ANN system with the structure and complexity of a human brain, and train it as thoroughly, I would expect it to be able to do so - although there's really no good reason to do so...
If you read the sample interactions (link), you'll see the ANNABELL system behaving as one interpreter and the teacher as another, in conversation about things and events in the world (the 3rd pole), comparing favourably to a 5 year-old and mother on the same subjects.
Geometrical shapes are abstractions that can be formulated mathematically. Computers can handle that kind of abstraction with ease - it's applying it to material approximations they've had difficulty with, though this has been much improved recently.
We can understand geometrical shapes in various ways - as can computers. You'll have to explain what you mean by 'truly understand' and 'really understand'; I've suggested a basic definition - do you accept it, or would you like to supply one of your own?
I don't agree that a computer can only approximate truth because I don't know what you mean by that (example?). Truths about the world (non-analytic truths) are necessarily uncertain, so in that sense, neither computer nor human can 'really know truth'.
Nope - I have already given my definition of knowledge, which doesn't involve approximation. A perfect circle is a mathematical abstraction; computers can handle them easily.
Monkeys are not computers. Computer systems can be made that can infer or idealise 'pure' geometric forms from multiple approximations.
I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.
Seems to me that if you rely on people's common beliefs in order to sway them to your arguments, your arguments need more work.... I am confident in my ability to sway the average person on this topic due to the common belief in free will, human agency, speculative knowledge, moral agency, etc., you have resisted these arguments.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.If you ever want to challenge your belief that humans are capable of the same kind of knowledge that humans are capable of, I would suggest reading Percy. To begin you might look at that dissertation. Section 2.1 is about Helen and Victor. Pages 94-101 are devoted to Helen Keller, and contain a number of excerpts from her own writings (Helen is an interesting case because she was able to reflect and write on her own experience of moving from a sign world to a symbol world). Those 7 pages are interesting, beautiful, and provide good insight into Percy's project. Other sections are also relevant in getting a grasp of his philosophy.
Maybe someone else already pointed this out, as I didn't read the whole thread yet, but...I have a choice between A or B. God knows that I will choose A. By my freewill I choose B.
Your OP is not Logical.Hello everyone. I would like to discuss freewill, and whether such a thing is possible Scientifically, Logically, and according to Scripture. I will start with Logic.
I have a choice between A or B. God knows that I will choose A. By my freewill I choose B. Please explain. Thank you all and God bless you.
I think the OP was trying to go for this:Your OP is not Logical.
How will God know you will choose something you will not choose?
God will only know what you will actually choose.
If by your freewill you choose B, then God cannot possibly know you will choose A.
Since B is what you will choose, then God can only know you will choose B.
Seems to me that if you rely on people's common beliefs in order to sway them to your arguments, your arguments need more work.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.
You're smart. I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't been on here in a while, but I just wanted to let you know that you're correct about my intentions. I don't believe in freewill. I believe YHVH is God, not men. I noticed you have some trouble understanding how YHVH can be the only true God when He seems so violent and takes the lives of children. This is a tough topic, but we can discuss it if you want. I'd like to start off by saying God kills everyone. Death is not evil. It makes us sad, and we worry about it sometimes, but that doesn't make it evil. If a child dies, this is no more or less evil than any other death. We can live out 60 meaningless years and then die, or live 3 meaningless days and die. Either way, we die and our lives are meaningless. But who cares... what are we gonna do about it anyways? Evil has nothing to do with our outward actions. We're only going to do what we are determined to do. Evil is in our intentions.I think the OP was trying to go for this:
If god already knows what I am going to do, how can I possibly have free will? If I have free will, then what should happen is that there are multiple possible decisions I can make, and I have some chance of making all those possible decisions. But, in order for god to know what choice I am going to make with absolute certainty, there must be a 100% chance of me making that decision, making my free will nothing more than an illusion, as I had no chance of making the other choices that had the appearance of being available. Basically, nothing can know the future with absolute certainty unless the future is predetermined, so unless there is a chance of god guessing incorrectly as to a person's decision, free will cannot exist.
You're smart. I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't been on here in a while, but I just wanted to let you know that you're correct about my intentions. I don't believe in freewill. I believe YHVH is God, not men. I noticed you have some trouble understanding how YHVH can be the only true God when He seems so violent and takes the lives of children. This is a tough topic, but we can discuss it if you want. I'd like to start off by saying God kills everyone. Death is not evil.
Hello, and thanks for joining us. I look at this in two ways. The first, and most important, is to understand that "the word of God" says no such thing. This is the word of Paul. There is only one man that spoke the word of God, Yeshua the Messiah. The prophets quoted God, so this is also the word of God. He has also written His word in our hearts, so that we can understand what is true and what is false based on reasoning.You'll have a tough time explaining why God's word states that death is the last enemy to be destroyed.
1 Corinthians 15:25-26
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
If death is not evil, then why must it be destroyed?
The only logical answer is that death is evil and only God can destroy it.
Hello, and thanks for joining us. I look at this in two ways. The first, and most important, is to understand that "the word of God" says no such thing. This is the word of Paul. There is only one man that spoke the word of God, Yeshua the Messiah. The prophets quoted God, so this is also the word of God. He has also written His word in our hearts, so that we can understand what is true and what is false based on reasoning.
Now I have always liked Paul, but I had to come to the conclusion that his word is not God's word. This doesn't mean he is wrong about everything, it just means he is a man. So if we were to accept his statement, Paul still doesn't say death is evil. Death is a tool that God uses. It is our enemy because we try to fight it, but it is not God's enemy. God's enemy is a wicked heart. Paul calls this "the flesh". He reasoned that when the flesh is destroyed, death is also destroyed.
I'm pretty sure Paul believed the flesh was evil, and that we would be ressurected into spiritual beings. If this is true, then he missed the point of God making mankind. We can discuss this if you'd like, but I doubt we will ever agree with each other because quoting Paul is going to lead to a lot of confusion.
For example, Paul is the only writer that says Adam sinned (Romans 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:14). Deauteronomy 19:15 says that one man may not accuse another of sin. There must be at least two or preferably three witnesses before a transgression can be confirmed. I cannot comprehend how Adam sinned whatsoever. All I see was an ignorant man that could not have committed evil because he didn't even have knowledge of good or evil. I see a man that only did what external influences (the serpent- formed by God) caused him to do. So we can discuss this, but I need Scriptural evidence or the words of Yeshua to confirm anything Paul says.
Thank you my friend and God bless.
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?