God has never revealed his will to me. — Art48
What we tend to forget is that every object can also be a subject, — Ludwig V
now we are facing a "hard problem" that appears to have no solution. The framework that establishes the problem has to go. — Ludwig V
I don't quite understand this — Ludwig V
Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). — Gnomon
I find it interesting to find out about the insights of philosophers with regard to thinking, when those philosophers didn't have the advantage of modern neuroscience in making sense of what is going on. — wonderer1
It can be seen, but not demonstrated. — Count Timothy von Icarus
it's less clear if man, hoping to "become like what is most divine," can ever reach that goal, which is why Aquinas has to add infused contemplation/grace into the equation in his commentary on the Ethics to allow the human being to actually achieve happiness in the beatific vision. — Count Timothy von Icarus
endlessly swirling atoms — 180 Proof
No, not that. The problem of personal identity across time. — RogueAI
I was lamenting that there's no way to test what is actually going on- to know if it is reincarnation, or some form of ESP. — Relativist
Citta-saṃtāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind",[3] is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (ātman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another:[4][5][a] William Waldron writes that "Indian Buddhists see the 'evolution' of mind i[n] terms of the continuity of individual mind-streams from one lifetime to the next, with karma as the basic causal mechanism whereby transformations are transmitted from one life to the next."[6]
According to Waldron, "[T]he mind stream (santāna) increases gradually by the mental afflictions (kleśa) and by actions (karma), and goes again to the next world. In this way the circle of existence is without beginning."[7] — Wikipedia
Question: Further to this discussion one of the points I would make is that, in order for an AGI system to fully realise human capacities, it would need to be a subject of experience. And no current systems, including ChatGPT, are subjects of experience, as such. They emulate what a subject might say, but they're not actually subjects as such, right?
ChatGPT: That's a very astute point, and you're correct. Current AI systems, including ChatGPT, are not subjects of experience—they do not have subjective experiences, consciousness, or awareness. These systems are designed to process input data and generate responses based on patterns they have learned from large datasets. They can emulate human-like dialogue and even imitate styles of thinking or arguing, but this is fundamentally different from actually experiencing or understanding these processes.
The notion of an AI being a "subject of experience" involves concepts of consciousness and subjective experience that are, at present, beyond the capabilities of AI. The idea of subjective experience, often referred to philosophically as "qualia," is closely tied to consciousness—having personal perceptions, feelings, and experiences that are inherently private and firsthand.
For an AGI to truly realize human capacities as you've mentioned, it would need to not only process information and solve problems efficiently but also possess consciousness or some form of experiential understanding. This leap from a highly advanced computational tool to a being with subjective experiences raises profound questions about what consciousness is and whether it can be artificially created or replicated.
Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and AI researchers debate whether it is possible for artificial systems to ever truly achieve consciousness, or if it is a quality that will remain unique to biological organisms. Some argue that consciousness might emerge from sufficiently complex systems, while others believe it requires a specific kind of biological substrate or that it is fundamentally inexplicable and thus inimitable by machines.
In any case, the development of AI systems that can claim genuine subjectivity and consciousness would represent a monumental shift not only in technology but in our understanding of what it means to be 'alive' or 'aware.' This continues to be a fascinating area of inquiry at the intersection of technology, philosophy, and ethics.
Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through. — PoeticUniverse
The only way I can think of is to imbue it with a chronic angst or fear of death or suffering — Benj96
It's frustrating because there seems to be no way to test any theories. — Relativist
Do you think idealism solves it? Did you see the conversation with Kastrup and Koch yet? — RogueAI
In the words of Yann LeCun (a leading AI technologist) "researchers need to work on 'objective-driven' AI with the ability to reason and plan about the world, rather than just work on words alone."
So what does it mean to have an "objective", and "reason" towards a resolution instead of just predict one? — Benj96
Yes, it's a very insightful question, highlighting some of the most significant challenges and philosophical inquiries in the development of artificial intelligence, especially concerning the aspirations toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). Let's explore the concepts mentioned and respond to some of the questions raised.
Objective and Reasoning in AI: In AI, an "objective" typically refers to a specific goal that the system aims to achieve, programmed by humans. For example, the objective of a chess-playing AI is to win the game. This is in contrast to human objectives, which are often multifaceted and can change dynamically based on the situation and internal motivations. "Reasoning" in AI terms means the capability to make inferences or deductions based on data and a set of rules, or more advanced forms of reasoning that involve planning or decision-making based on predicting future states.
However, current large language models (LLMs) like the one you're interacting with now do not genuinely reason in the human sense. They generate responses based on patterns learned from data, aiming to provide the most statistically likely answer, not necessarily to understand or reason through topics as humans do.
Goal Orientation and Data: Humans use a relatively limited dataset (our personal experiences and knowledge) but are incredibly efficient at generalizing from this data, thanks to our biological evolution and cognitive development which grant us the ability to reason abstractly, plan, and adapt. We're not just processing information but also actively learning and applying knowledge creatively and adaptively. For AGI to reach a similar capability, it would need not only access to vast amounts of data but also the ability to abstract, generalize, and reason beyond mere data retrieval or pattern matching.
Reiterative Automaticity: The concept you referred to as "reiterative automaticity" suggests that AGI should be able to autonomously modify its algorithms based on new information or changes in its environment, much like how humans learn from experiences and adjust our behavior. This type of learning and adaptation is a step beyond what current AI systems are capable of, where most adjustments to AI behavior are manually programmed by developers.
Compression of Algorithms and Data Efficiency: The idea that AGI should operate with the same or less data than a typical human to reason effectively is a profound one. It suggests an efficiency of processing and decision-making that AI systems currently lack. Current models require extensive data and computational power, whereas humans can make complex decisions with much less explicit information, often relying on intuition or subconscious processing.
Objective and Free Auto-Self-Augmentation: Giving AI an "objective" while also allowing "free auto-self-augmentation" touches on the core challenge of creating an AI that can set its own goals and adapt its methods autonomously. This raises both technical challenges and ethical questions. How do we ensure that an AI's self-set goals are aligned with human values? How do we manage and govern systems that can operate independently?
Lastly, whether this could be the difference between something that feels/experiences and something lifeless touches on the philosophical debate about consciousness and experience in artificial entities. This is a complex question that straddles technology, philosophy, and ethics.
In conclusion, moving towards AGI involves not just technical advancements in how AI systems process and handle data but also profound insights into the nature of intelligence, consciousness, and the ethical frameworks we construct around autonomous systems. It's a fascinating field with much to explore and discuss! — ChatGPT4
I've always thought that Kant essentially accepts Berkeley, — Ludwig V
mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? — bert1
A bunch of chalk on a blackboard, not a universe. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the physical is naturally understood to have substantial or substantive existence, and it is upon that idea of substance that the notion of reality is founded, and the idea of a mental substance is untenable, then what justification would we have for saying that anything non-physical is real?
The alternative to eliminative physicalism would be to say that mental phenomena are real functions of some physical existents, and that the only sense in which they are not physical is that they do not (obviously) appear as objects of the senses. — Janus
The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. (Mind and Cosmos, Pp35-36) — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Pp 35-36
...physics reveals a physical world that is almost completely insubstantial. "Substantial" and "real" have a meaning in the context of physics, but not one that meets the demands of this philosophical wild-goose chase. Berkeley was wrong about many things, but about this, he was right. — Ludwig V
But many Western enthusiasts for what they imagine to be Zen have never actually come into contact with this branch of the Buddhist Tradition as it still exists and functions in the Far East. ....Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army.
upon its obtainment the conventional truth of phenomena (such as of phenomena-dependent pains and pleasures together the our apprehension of selfhood) will also persist in this state of ultimate being - for the two truths were roughly stated to be one and the same. Yet, as expressed, I can currently only presume this to be wrong, for it is contrary to what Nirvana without remainder is described to be — javra
what I was fishing for here is any rational criticism of the presented necessity that non-dualism, this regarding the world as it’s known, entails a duality between a) a real (or ultimately real) and non-dual fundamental essence and b) a contingent fundamental essence of phenomena (etc.) which brings about duality in the world and which is ultimately illusory in full. — javra
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things. Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta (=preceptors, students), despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. — IEP
I recommend Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a Way of Life" — Fooloso4
Philosophy in antiquity was an exercise practiced in each instant. It invites us to concentrate on each instant of life, to become aware of the infinite value of each present moment, once we have replaced it with the perspective of the cosmos. The exercise of wisdom entails a cosmic dimension. Whereas the average person has lost touched with the world, and does not see the world qua world, but rather treats the world as a means of satisfying his desires, the sage never ceases to have the whole constantly present to mind. He thinks and acts within a cosmic perspective. He has the feeling of belonging to a whole which goes beyond the limits of his individuality. In antiquity, this cosmic consciousness was situated in a different perspective from that of scientific knowledge of the universe... . Scientific knowledge was objective and mathematical, whereas cosmic consciousness was the result of spiritual exercise. — Pierre Hadot, PWL, pa 273
Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. — Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament
there is no problem conceiving something immaterial that exists by itself unless you are a close-minded physicalist. — Lionino
If the physical is naturally understood to have substantial or substantive existence, and it is upon that idea of substance that the notion of reality is founded, and the idea of a mental substance is untenable, then what justification would we have for saying that anything non-physical is real? — Janus
You might find this a useful resource: Nonduality, David Loy, a .pdf copy of his book by that name, based on his PhD. You can find more about him on davidloy.org.(FYI, this correlates with parts of something I'm currently working on.) — javra
What is your claim? — Banno
You do understand that in your quote, Ryle is setting out his target, not defending a doctrine. — Banno