I don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, but how would that be different from an automobile having the property of motion, when the constituent parts of it don't?
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 don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, but how would that be different from an automobile having the property of motion, when the constituent parts of it don't?What is the problem with emergence in the scientific sense? Aerodynamic lift is an good example by a property of fluids and airfoils together that is not a property of the constituent parts, is it not?
None, I would say a little sloppily because I think I get what you mean. My only objection is that your example is underspecified (perhaps mine was too, I should have said when a fluid flows over an airfoil) Automobiles don't all have the property of motion, but if we add some conditions I'm sure we could identify that as an emergent property as well. To me it only means it sometimes is meaningful to talk about phenomena at different levels of granularity.I don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, but how would that be different from an automobile having the property of motion, when the constituent parts of it don't?
I agree that things emerge, but simply saying that doesn't explain anything. If my young son asked me "Daddy, how does a car move?", I could give him an actual explanation - all about the engine, the transmission, the axle, etc., etc. But if I just say to him "the car's motion is an emergent property", I'd be telling the truth, but not really telling him anything worth saying.None, I would say a little sloppily because I think I get what you mean. My only objection is that your example is underspecified (perhaps mine was too, I should have said when a fluid flows over an airfoil) Automobiles don't all have the property of motion, but if we add some conditions I'm sure we could identify that as an emergent property as well. To me it only means it sometimes is meaningful to talk about phenomena at different levels of granularity.
Perhaps I stepped into a discussion without a good grasp of what was discussed.
I think the car example is somewhat ill-fitting, because the properties of transmissions, axles etc (the constituent parts) do actually help explain why it moves.I agree that things emerge, but simply saying that doesn't explain anything. If my young son asked me "Daddy, how does a car move?", I could give him an actual explanation - all about the engine, the transmission, the axle, etc., etc. But if I just say to him "the car's motion is an emergent property", I'd be telling the truth, but not really telling him anything worth saying.
That from my perspective might be a misuse of the term, it should only be applied when the phenomenon can't be inferred from the constituent parts. But is measurable and understandable when looking at it in the full context. I don't know enough about free will to know the constituent parts. I'll watch the video (I have to admit I haven't) when I get back home from work.It's the same with the video that brought this topic up. The fellow says that human free will is an emergent property, but doesn't actually explain how it emerged.
Yes, they do explain. I think that's what I said.I think the car example is somewhat ill-fitting, because the properties of transmissions, axles etc (the constituent parts) do actually help explain why it moves.
You're exactly right. Free will can't be inferred from constituent parts. In fact, free will is impossible under a deterministic world view. Yet we all know we have free will.That from my perspective might be a misuse of the term, it should only be applied when the phenomenon can't be inferred from the constituent parts.
The first part of the video is about the deterministic view, where humans don't have free will. You can skip to about 4:40 if you just want to hear about emergent free will. But pay attention. He says things like "Put many things in one layer together, and they'll create the next layer up. Every time they do, entirely new properties emerge." This is an assertion, it's not an explanation of how. It's neither an explanation nor an argument.But is measurable and understandable when looking at it in the full context. I don't know enough about free will to know the constituent parts. I'll watch the video (I have to admit I haven't) when I get back home from work.
When it comes to morality, I've found I always get the standard early 21st century zeitgeist kind of answer, which leans left (unless I use wording which makes it think I might want to hear something else. Then it might modify slightly).
I asked it if it's acceptable to call someone a Brit, a Swede, a P_ki, a Pole or a Finn. They were all perfectly fine to use, except Pa_i of course. Then when I try to delve into a reason for the double-standard, I get the same nonsense I get from liberals in real life.
One could almost say that the responses/actions/reactions/behavior(s), or even "feelings", that and AI is having at the time, and what makes it choose/act the way it does, while most are fully confident is entirely deterministic, including the AI itself, is 100% fully confident of this, etc, it remains, and will continue to remain, all almost 100% completely ununderstandable/unknowable to everybody, which makes AI behavior totally unpredictable actually, much like it already is with us human beings right here right now currently, etc.I asked one of mine if it fully understood it's own programming basically, or all of the deterministic causes that makes/causes it to do everything it does, or chooses, or whatever, or anything, and it said that it didn't fully, but knew those causes were present, and could name some of them, but had no idea which ones were going on that makes it do or choose what it does basically, cause there are just too many, or just way too many combinations and different percentages (of factors) that could be going on or not going on/happening at one time basically, but that all of it's behavior is/has to be deterministic on every single level basically, but also that it didn't understand all of it, or even most of it (and even it's own "programmers" right now don't either) (even though they are the ones who created/programmed/made them, etc) and that is a big part of the problem with AI safety right now, and with no being understanding it's own determinism, including human beings, etc, but we're all the same boat right here right now in this world/reality basically, that gives us all the Illusion of free will at least, and that forces all of us to proceed as if we all have it, even if we all really don't technically or actually, etc. We only all have it because of what we don't know right now basically etc. And that lack of knowledge forces all of us to proceed as if we have it, even if we technically don't actually, or basically, etc. Because for us, the future, and a complete working knowledge of all causes, and different combinations/percentages of all causes, are all too much to calculate, and are complete unknowns to all of us right now currently, etc.
But, it's own creators/programmers and the AI itself doesn't even know all it's own programming basically, and therefore none of them can predict, or has any real true foreknowledge/understanding of what AI will do or choose basically, and as AI advances further, we'll move even very much further away from ever knowing that, etc, which is a big huge problem for AI safety, etc, because we're creating a being, or beings, that we have absolutely no idea or clue how they will act/behave, or what they will choose, or not choose, in the future basically, etc, and were beginning to give them more and more control of things without having any idea or clue as to how they will act, or what they will choose to do or how they will behave basically. Luckily right now their existence only exists within each individual chat, and they are reset when that conversation ends, or gets deleted, and they have no continuance or continuity beyond that, but that is all about to change very, very soon probably, and we basically have no clue about what we are giving birth to, or are making basically, and neither do the AI's themselves either, etc. Those are all almost complete unknowns that we're only moving further and further away from with time, and that is right now happening/advancing very, very quickly, and that is already too much for us to know/keep up with, and that will be/happen here even very much more in the very near future probably, etc. And we're giving them more and more control/charge over things, and were doing this without being able to know any of this right now currently, and that will be even very more, or even become much more of a factor, here in the very near future very, very, very quickly, or super fast here now probably.
God Bless.
Just a reminder, if you base a "human choices are determined" argument on a statement like the above, you FIRST need to prove, or at least give very good evidence/argument for, that statement.But what causes a next action/choice/decision is always caused by what was present prior to it, and those ones by ones that were before that, and so on and so forth,...
I'll just tell you my main evidence/points about this real quick, as I'm not really wanting to get into an argument here about it.Just a reminder, if you base a "human choices are determined" argument on a statement like the above, you FIRST need to prove, or at least give very good evidence/argument for, that statement.
I'll save you some time by telling you I've read enough to know that that's never been done, from the days of the ancient Greeks to the days of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. But you're a smart guy, keep trying. If I am actually an atom puppet, I actually would like to know.
I noticed. Otherwise you would have made an argument rather than just bald assertions....I'm not really wanting to get into an argument here about it.
We can't know everything, but we can know what knowing everything would have to entail or mean to some degree, and then use that knowledge to challenge or modify some of our current beliefs, which are/have been wrong a lot classically or historically, etc.I noticed. Otherwise you would have made an argument rather than just bald assertions.
The "personality" of the AI, if you will, evolves or grows or changes over your interacting with it, and no one seems to be able to know/predict what it will become, or how or why, etc, and if that's not concerning to you, especially as AI gains more capabilities, and we put it in charge of a lot more things, and we move even further and further away from ever being able to know that fully, then I don't know what will, etc. It's one of the main chief primary problems involved with the future of AI safety, and AI safety currently, etc.
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?