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.
Ok, I can see how that might be unintentionally misleading. but don’t we believe the fabric of the universe is energy?Well the statement that God is the fabric of the universe seemed to imply it.
I certainly don’t rule it out. I’m just not sure we are even close to the point were we are capable of making a program that is truly capable of independent thought. If it can’t rewrite its own programming as needed then it can never be truly be intelligent.Intentionality doesn't mean an outlook on life. It means that when you see an apple, that image comes attached to conceptual meaning. It isn't just pixels on a screen. I would say that even simpler animals display intentionality--I've got some fish that display somewhat odd feeding habits because of associations that they make. If you've got the genuine ability to learn without supervision and associate objects with concepts or feelings, I would say that you possess intentional states.
I don't know all that much about modern machine learning, but I do know that artificial neural networks draw their inspiration from the brain and work very differently than traditional task-specific algorithms, and it's the latter that critics of Artificial Intelligence tend to cite when talking about its impossibility. We can wonder how a machine might have a unique sense of self, but the same question applies to the biological brain as well.
I'm not sure there's any theory of mind that would rule out AI entirely. Even a theistic substance dualist really ought to grant the possibility that God in his goodness might bestow a transcendent mind upon sufficiently advanced artifical life. Some of the more biologically based naturalistic theories have serious problems allowing for AI, but I don't know if they're completely insurmountable.
Lol, well until the meat doesWell that is true; God could have made humans out of metal instead of flesh and blood if He had chosen to, and then doubtlessly there would be some foolish metal humans arguing that meat could never think like they can.
It doesn’t matter right now what kind of program. As shown in the video computers just don’t get it, while you and I have no problem with the same data being interpreted in multiple ways.Only if you limit your view to deterministic programs.
This depends on the particular interpretation of QM that you prefer. For example, both Bohmian Mechanics (pilot wave theory) and the Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretations are determinate, and the apparent randomness of quantum outcomes are due to lack of knowledge (for the former, knowledge of the physical state of the whole universe, for the latter, knowledge of the ensemble of quantum universes).But is it really probabilistic randomness, or just our inability to determine all the variables that lead us to this conclusion?
Agreed.I specified "simple algorithm" because I think it's hard to argue that a piece of traditional computer programming possesses intentional states.
If intentional states are mental states that are about other things (in the world or other mental states), they are states with referrents; in this sense, it seems to me that any system that has a representation of some other thing, and uses this representation in lieu of or with respect to that other thing, has intentional states in respect of that thing.I'm considerably more open-minded about modern learning systems, though I would be interested in hearing why you think some already do have limited intentional states.
The problem I see is that if intentional states are to do with representation and/or modeling, then, by a kind of reductio ad absurdum, all computational systems, and even simple mechanical systems, could be said to have intentional states if they manipulate and/or act on internal representations of things. For example, even a thermostat can be said to represent environmental temperature in the bending of a bimetallic strip, and to act on certain states of that representation... The sole purpose of computing systems is to manipulate and act on representations of other things - but where is the line between simple computation and an intentional state?I am not sure what you mean by "poorly defined in functional terms," though. If you mean that these issues are hard to approach empirically, I agree, but that's the nature of the beast when dealing with the subjective side of theory of mind.
But I guarantee you that if we could view the world a hundred years from now, they'd laugh at our current understanding of Neuroscience and Computer Science.
Our lack of knowledge is only exceeded by our belief that "this time" we've got it all figured out. Of course that is what everyone thought before too.This depends on the particular interpretation of QM that you prefer. For example, both Bohmian Mechanics (pilot wave theory) and the Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretations are determinate, and the apparent randomness of quantum outcomes are due to lack of knowledge (for the former, knowledge of the physical state of the whole universe, for the latter, knowledge of the ensemble of quantum universes).
Yah well, you are certainly welcome to believe that cats aren't alive or dead until we open the box, but when it stinks up the room, don't blame me.The conventional or most popular interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, has it that the properties to be measured don't actually exist until a measurement or observation is made, but their appearance is governed by a probability density function (the wavefunction) that collapses to a definite value at the instant of interaction. This wavefunction 'collapse' is an unexplained ad-hoc addition to the fundamental maths of QM, and the Copenhagen interpretation is decreasing in popularity, as physicists get used to the idea 'Many Worlds', which has no ad-hoc additions or assumptions.
We have free will. Knowing all the variables would help you determine that the rock didn't fall randomly on any given day, but even knowing all the variable won't ever stop you from changing your mind and doing what you choose to do. Granted the variables may make you want to migrate in the winter, but you can instead choose to put on a coat and stay. We change the variable by our actions, unlike particles which only change due to the effects of other particles.But whether it's 'true' randomness or pseudo-randomness, I still don't see how it usefully contributes to free will. For myself, I want my decisions and choices to be, as far as possible, determined by my inherited genetics & predilections, and the influences of my life experiences, the things that have made me uniquely me. The brain is a 'noisy' system, so there will always be some effectively random contributions, but they only make my responses slightly less reliable or predictable.
You could have something similar to Terminator, but it would be a man behind the machines.I'd like to hear peoples' definitions of "intelligence". Computers, in my mind (and I've worked on them for nearly 40 years) will never be intelligent. They can store vast quantities of information, and they can make super-fast computations, but they can't reason. They only deal with inputs they've been given (or have derived from those they've been given). We have nothing to fear about AI because the computer's "I" is quite a poor substitute for human intelligence.
Schrodinger's Cat wasn't a theory, it was a reductio-ad-absurdum critique of a version of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then. Most of those who still prefer the Copenhagen interpretation think wavefunction collapse doesn't work that way. I prefer interpretations without wavefunction collapse.Yah well, you are certainly welcome to believe that cats aren't alive or dead until we open the box, but when it stinks up the room, don't blame me.
It's that flawed theory that led to the incorrect belief on the dual nature of light.
Sure, subjectively we have free will, but if your choices are the deterministic result of processes in your brain, your will itself is deterministic. All that means is that there are always reasons for what you do - even changing your mind. The alternative is purely random, meaningless choices.We have free will. Knowing all the variables would help you determine that the rock didn't fall randomly on any given day, but even knowing all the variable won't ever stop you from changing your mind and doing what you choose to do. Granted the variables may make you want to migrate in the winter, but you can instead choose to put on a coat and stay. We change the variable by our actions, unlike particles which only change due to the effects of other particles.
Sure, subjectively we have free will, but if your choices are the deterministic result of processes in your brain, your will itself is deterministic. All that means is that there are always reasons for what you do - even changing your mind. The alternative is purely random, meaningless choices.
The possibility of quantum uncertainty influencing the macro-scale activity of the brain, and the effective randomness (pseudo-randomness) of chaotic activity, the complex interactions of molecules, and thermal noise, all mean that some degree of indeterminism is likely to be involved in brain function - but clearly not enough to significantly degrade its function, or we wouldn't survive.That's a bit of a false dichotomy, though. There's the popular two stage model of free will, where it's a combination of limited forms of indeterminism and determinism that together allow for self-determination...
So, are your motives baseless, or are there reasons for them? are your deliberations based on reasoning?... our decisions are determined by our own motives and deliberations.
It's good to be skeptical. I'm particularly sceptical of propositions that seem incoherent.I distrust any metaphysical approach that writes off too much of the world as we experience it as illusory--and this includes approaches I find appealing, since I've developed a taste for ontic structural realism and Pythagorean idealism recently. There are too many theories of causality out there to commit to a single paradigm.
But if free will is just the result of a little indeterminacy in the system, should we consider a computer system prone to give occasional incorrect results because of excess thermal noise in its circuits, to have free will?
So, are your motives baseless, or are there reasons for them? are your deliberations based on reasoning?
It's good to be skeptical. I'm particularly sceptical of propositions that seem incoherent.
Good point.The possibility of quantum uncertainty influencing the macro-scale activity of the brain, and the effective randomness (pseudo-randomness) of chaotic activity, the complex interactions of molecules, and thermal noise, all mean that some degree of indeterminism is likely to be involved in brain function - but clearly not enough to significantly degrade its function, or we wouldn't survive.
But if free will is just the result of a little indeterminacy in the system, should we consider a computer system prone to give occasional incorrect results because of excess thermal noise in its circuits, to have free will?
Agreed, such is my reasoning for not accepting the dual nature if light.So, are your motives baseless, or are there reasons for them? are your deliberations based on reasoning?
It's good to be skeptical. I'm particularly sceptical of propositions that seem incoherent.
Which rules out anything but freewill.Me too. But as always, I disagree with you on which propositions are incoherent.
OK, that seems reasonable.There's a difference between a bit of indeterminancy in the system being a necessary condition for free will and it being a sufficient one. I think that the key is that a system needs to be able to act upon itself and influence itself in holistic fashion, and if a computer system manages to do that fully unsupervised, I'm unlikely to deny that it has free will.
Sorry, I was using the philosophical definition of 'determinism' meaning that events are the result of (caused by) prior events, and 'indeterminism' to mean that events are not caused by prior events (not deterministic); indeterministic effectively means random or stochastic; in physics, only certain quantum events are thought to be truly indeterministic (although this may well be a lottery-style artefact of our limited viewpoint), and it's thought that these don't generally propagate to macro-scales except in very specific circumstances. Randomness in the macro world is really the pseudo-randomness of deterministic but unpredictable influences (e.g. chaos, complexity).We're equivocating between different meanings of "deterministic" here. Saying that our decisions are grounded in our desires and reasoning doesn't mean that our behavior is compelled by them--we have options available to us (indeterminism) and we ourselves choose between them (determinism). The difference between libertarianism and determinism is that the former would entail that we as holistic systems are making those determinations in a top-down fashion, not that they can be reduced to physical processes beyond our illusory control.
OK.(I may be halfway between compatibilism and libertarianism, but I think that's fairly common. Free will doesn't mean we can grow wings and fly by wishing for it.)
OK. It would help me understand your position if you could explain precisely what you mean by free will by means of an example where you can explain the deterministic and indeterministic contributions to it.Me too. But as always, I disagree with you on which propositions are incoherent.
The so-called dual nature of light is an artefact of our attempts to visualise or describe it; the duality is a duality of aspect; i.e. it's not something that is both a particle and a wave, but something that has aspects of both a wave and a particle according to how you observe it.Agreed, such is my reasoning for not accepting the dual nature if light.
Emotional interferences with thought processes. Also, android consciousness is far more difficult to attain than people imagine it to be.The real question is why are so many humans not intelligent?
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?