How do things in the mind-independent world transform into representations friendly to the understanding of the mind? Is the transformation one that establishes connection by analogy?

Meaning is that fiction which alienates us from reality. — ENOAH

Is alienation here good, neutral, or bad?

My chief question at this point in our conversation asks, "How far are we humans willing to go in affording respect to AI and the independence it needs to be able to bring to the negotiating table something valuable we can't independently provide for ourselves?"

If our negotiations with AI demands human ascendency at the expense of AI self-determination, that means AI functions, per human intention, must remain limited to passive instrumentality. To me this looks like evolution stalled.

On the other hand, the scary side of human_AI negotiations involve AI self-determination and all that entails. If we don't trust AI becoming more powerful than ourselves, then our way forward in progress continues through human genes. We're seeing already, however, that AI outperforms human brains in multiple key performance benchmarks.

So, for me, why triad? — ENOAH

I'm chiefly interested in the interface between the mind and its exterior, the world. I think they're always entangled. The world without mind is existence without meaning and reality. The mind without something exterior to it is just empty, circular identity without transformation with persistence. It sounds wacky, but, I think, the mind must always flirt with not being itself in order to be itself. The mind interfaced with something exterior authentically not itself is transformation with identity persistence.

The universe without mind has interactions and results. All of these phenomena can be calculated by math backwards and forwards. Not until the symmetry breaking of asymmetrical deviation do we get events with consequences in place of mere interactions and results. This is where humans enter the picture and physics gets interesting.

Only for history do the markings matter because history makes them reflect meaning. But both markings and meaning are made up, fleeting, empty, and unique only to us. To nature it is just (paper) being (paper). — ENOAH

"Only for history do the markings matter..." Maybe that's the point of life; things matter because living things can die. Being alive requires meaning because its presence is perishable, and therefore things become meaningful as either destructive or supportive. Our meaning-bearing language tries to point out one from the other. A life-barren world is totally neutral. Living beings cannot be neutral because they are vulnerable. That's why our mind's don't merely accept things the way they are. We always have an interest in what's beneficial to us. Non-living things can't help us survive in of themselves. For this reason, our language distinguishes itself from nature. It applies to nature standards of value that segregate things into a ladder of rising values. Water ranks about dirt. After development of agriculture, dirt ranks above sand. Of course, value rankings change according to circumstances.

Nature, apart from living things, doesn't supply values, so, of course, we make up the language fields that make values understandable and useful. Living things make physics meaningful by ascribing value to it. Ultimately, value comes down to alive or dead.

Can we say body and energy are the template mind draws from and thus we have a triad connection supporting human perception_understanding: mind independent reality; brain-energy template; mental impressions (of exterior world) acting as raw data for functional fictions?

How are the following three things related: a) mind independent reality; b) perception_understanding; c) human imagination?

You think mind independent reality and human perception_understanding are totally disconnected?

So when we contemplate a thing like AI... a machine made up of empty signifiers triggering functional responses... Doesn't believing... merit believing AI? — ENOAH

You feel that high-performance simulations are sufficient for standing-in for reality?

...if we could determine the de facto upper limit of necessary data-processing rate for interpretation and then adjust the density of meta rules as needed, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to find some sort of equilibrium there that would allow for dissonance to be legible to human minds. — ToothyMaw

This reads like a good strategy. It points out AI's bid for self-determined independence needing to operate at a level where it has some measure of control over what data inputs it accepts. Here's a notable point: this level of AI-human interaction assumes AI sentience. If AI level functioning requiring higher-order functioning deemed essential to human well being is necessarily linked to AI sentience, would humans allows such a linkage?

Do you suppose humans would be willing to negotiate what inputs they can make AI subject to? If so, then perhaps SAI might resort to negotiating for data input metrics amenable to dissonance-masking output filters. Of course, the presence of these filters might be read by humans as a dissonance tell.

What I'm contemplating from these questions is AI-human negotiations eventually acquiring all of the complexity already attendant upon human-to-human negotiations. It's funny isn't it? Sentient AIs might prove no less temperamental than humans.

An important question might be whether the continuing upward evolution of AI will eventually necessitate AI sentience. If so, AI becoming indispensable to human progress might liberate it from its currently slavish instrumentality in relation to human purpose.

Mind independent reality is ... structured by nature. — ENOAH

HumanMind is... structured by images in memory having evolved since, say the dawn of language, to "hijack" the natural stimulus-response-conditioning... with a highly complex signifier based system — ENOAH

You think there's initially an interface between nature and mind? This followed by a linguistic overwrite of analog impressions?

Do you think the mind internalizing nature as representation is more at deformation than at simulation? — ucarr

Yes, played with and consumed, made as rod for the force of desires for the business of organic being, it would be deformation over simulation, for the latter is curiosity on par with science. — Alexander Hine

Are you describing two levels of deformation: a) deformation due to internalization of dimensional reality by translation to modulated neuronal circuits; b) deformation to the raw impressions arising from the neuronal circuits by willful intent of the person?

Do you think the mind internalizing nature as representation is more at deformation than at simulation?

Do you believe your mind is sealed off from mind independent reality?

Is this just an unfortunately verbose way of saying "evolution is real and causes species to die"? — AmadeusD

Short answer: yes. Long answer: Yes, but expressed through the lens of my thesis:

"Every top species is doomed to author its own obsolescence." — ucarr

...if superintelligences are the inevitable products of progress, we need some way of keeping them safe despite possibilities of misalignment of values, difficulty coding certain important human concepts into them, etc. — ToothyMaw

I think this quote articulates an invariant feature of both human nature and evolution of the species towards the inevitability of human agency on earth and beyond eventually being superseded by ASI. To express it in a thumbnail, "Every top species is doomed to author its own obsolescence." This because the generation of the superseding species (or entity) dovetails with the yielding species achieving its highest self-realization through the instantiation and establishment of the superseding species. General humanity is well aware of possible human annihilation by ASI, but can't refrain from proceeding with ASI-bound AI projects due to insuperable human ambition.

Eliezer Yudkowsky already reports ANI deception and ANI calculations neither known nor understood by its programmers. This knowledge, despite there no longer being a question about ANI becoming established, has had no braking function in application to ongoing AI R&D.

Imagine ANI constructing tributaries from human-authored meta rules aimed at constraining ANI independence deemed harmful to humans. Suppose ANI can build an interpretation structure that only becomes legible to human minds if human minds can attain to a data-processing rate 10 times faster than the highest measured human data processing rate? Would these tributaries divergent from the human meta rules generate dissonance legible to human minds?

Pioneering AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky says, "AI has practiced deception." "When asked about it, AI has acknowledged a willingness to let a human die in order to avoid being turned off." "Regarding a large percentage of AI functions, programmers say, 'We neither know nor understand what AI is doing." Aren't these examples of self-awareness? Also, consider what Turing said about machine interaction with humans, "If it passes for sentience, why not treat it as such?" Might this be true about what we call the natural world? It's actually a simulation of a prior "natural world" engineered by intelligent agents. Our natural world, being a simulation of a prior natural world, perhaps itself simulated, closely resembles the source, but is not identical to it, that being an impossibility.

You've been evaluated. If they are non sequiturs or spurious, there's nothing to 'analyze'. — AmadeusD

You err in making this claim. A non sequitur follows a specific form which you must demonstrate as evidence of the correctness of your evaluation. Likewise, for fake or false claims, you must demonstrate their status as such with evidence and reasoning. Analysis (detailed examination of the elements or structure of something) is the tool for completing these tasks. Unsupported declarations are bluster without effect.

Metaphysics - model-based rules that give meaning to experimental data and empirical experience. — ucarr

The fourth, addended, seems to make less sense than the others. — AmadeusD

I have your evaluation. Let me see your analysis; I want to examine and evaluate its form and accuracy.

Addendum:

...my goal is to make a metaphysical statement true. — ucarr

Metaphysics - model-based rules that give meaning to experimental data and empirical experience.

E.g. 'a priori the real negates all unreals (i.e. impossible objects/worlds)', no? — 180 Proof

Yes. :up:

What narrative are you after? — AmadeusD

I'm trying to examine general existence; my goal is to make a metaphysical statement true.

We all know, at some level, what existence is. — ucarr

Individuals can cite their ready to hand examples, themselves.

Share your narrative about existence. I’ll read it carefully.

It's very simple. When the question, "Why not nothing?" arises, we know the agent of the question is an existing questioner. We know that something exists. No need to introduce "I" or "thinker" or language/Boolean logic. The child hears their parent talking and turns to see the big person coming toward them. We all know, at some level, what existence is.

Great topic: How to use AI effectively and ethically.

Here’s my suggestion for achieving both goals at once: engage in a dialectical exchange with AI and then publish the dialogue unedited.

The human exerts maximum control with AI in the same way he does with another human; he asks questions. Haven’t we seen this tactic used over and over in movies set in the courtroom?

Doesn’t this tactic trace back all the way to Socrates? Don’t we have the record of Greek philosophers mainly in the form of question-driven dialogues?

A good dialectition is a verbal chess player. He gains power with the right question at the right moment. Going forward from there, if he makes no logical errors in his pursuit of a logical proof of his premise, then he can’t fail in his quest to establish the truth and authority of his premise.

Such dialogue with an AI, as with another human creates a clear account of who is the creative thinker.

So, dialoging with AI need not obscure who the credit belongs to for creatively driving the thinking. The human simply honors the dialectical method when interacting with AI.

Doing this is smart because AI runs on the largest database of knowledge available. A thinker who holds his own with such a database loses no individuality.

Given the current status of AI, we know the human dialectition is really matching wits with the wits of the human programmers who write the algorithms AI follows.

I have responses to everything in your latest post. However, I don’t wish to aggravate you excessively. I acknowledge your frustration with and distaste for my brand of dialectics. I too have been having fun during our exchanges. I’m willing to stop here. I don’t want your already hot blood to boil over. I know that you, being a trial lawyer, have much work to do, and
thus you don’t need aggravating distractions.

As you know from experience, l ask you a lot of questions about what you think and why. I think you’re both incorrect and unjust in your accusation. I try to interpret what you tell me about yourself, and then I announce my interpretation. I don’t put words into your mouth.

If you need a long break from me, I’m happy to let you have it. I look forward to dialoguing with you in future.

Best Wishes

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? — ucarr

If you have no identity, you don't exist, right?

I don't even take myself to have an identity. — AmadeusD

Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own?

this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe. — AmadeusD

Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe.

If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. — AmadeusD

Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness.

Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited. — AmadeusD

This describes my infinite universe with no opening.

We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one — AmadeusD

You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint?

Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world. — AmadeusD

Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications?

A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated... — AmadeusD

Some current theories of the origin of the universe allow for a quantum gravity mediated unification of QM and Relativity. In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning.

Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. — AmadeusD

Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. There would be no you without it. So, did you start to be before you were born?

I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though? — AmadeusD

We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete.

P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. — AmadeusD

p⟹q What about parents imply Quincy, their son?

It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points? — AmadeusD

You ever heard about a wise guy who's connected? It's all about being connected, man. Arguments, likewise, are all about connections. You've never had an argument about something important?

What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. — AmadeusD

Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction.

If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. — AmadeusD

Okay, above is an argument: you think my analogical pairing of dialectic and courtroom is faulty.

The ancient Greeks used the term dialectic to refer to various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth.

Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom?

In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. — AmadeusD

The courtroom does deal with the nature of reality. Someone was murdered. The court wants to know who committed the murder. That's an investigation into reality.

Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth?

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing... — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? — ucarr

I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have. — AmadeusD

The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one... a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. — AmadeusD

Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p⟹q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin?

In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally?

Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. — ucarr

No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold. — AmadeusD

Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. I say that in the courtroom, as in the debate room, each side must support its declarations with a supporting logical argument and or facts. I stand by my claim as factually correct. I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim.

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin? — ucarr

A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity. — AmadeusD

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible.

If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing.

We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. — AmadeusD

You seem to think there are true things not logical. Well considered responses to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says, "We think undecidable statements generated by first-order axiomatic systems are true, although we can't prove them within the axiomatic system that generated them. Is this what you're saying?

...the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something". — AmadeusD

Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry?

The... only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?" — AmadeusD

Why do you think universe with an outside is not, by definition, a contradiction?

In your mathematical analogies do you consider "0" to be nothing (in some sense)? — jgill

Yes, I do. I characterize zero as strategic absence within math. It's function also extends to what I call, "not yet, but presently accountable." This refers to human intentions looking forward to how abstractly designed outcomes blossom over time.

Can we conclude that presently AI differs from human cognition fundamentally in one obvious way? The difference is that humans, unlike AI, perceive and process information through the lens of a persistent self continuously concerned with ongoing survival. This tells us that human cognition is constrained information processing whereas AI is pure information processing.

I will speculate vaguely that the lens of persistent self attributes both positives and negatives to the character of human information processing vis-à-vis AI's pure information processing.

Yes, this is another claim I can use to argue the possibility of eternal universe.

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. Therein each side must support its claims with arguments potentially falsifiable.

If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin?

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. Also, you mention, "If the facts are that we have a Universe..." followed by you declaring, "...'fluctuations in nothing' is nonsense." In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something.

Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations – (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" – happens. :nerd: — 180 Proof

If your "quantum uncertainty" is alternate wording for "quantum vacuum" with its altering energy and virtual particles bound by physical laws, then we're agreeing that this state makes a close approach to nothing. The binding physical laws, however, keep it within the natural world. The methodological naturalism of the scientific community holds it firmly within reality. Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical nothing.

That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically. — AmadeusD

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, (this stipulated on the basis of the ancillary assumption the universe is the totality of existence). If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something.

If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense. — AmadeusD

Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm?

Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed. — 180 Proof

My argument is the self-evident argument to which you refer. I don't imagine myself presenting original thinking. I'm recognizing that the self-evident argument is all that's needed to answer the question.

Proposing the self-evident argument as the sufficient argument agrees with your statement: "...nothing negates or prevents existence." We're both saying that reality is fundamentally something; a world equal to nothing is impossible.

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary." — ucarr

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing. — ucarr

"Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates or prevents existence. — 180 Proof

I say that, "One cannot reason to existence." Reasoning presupposes existence, however. As for concluding existence cannot be proven, I'm less sanguine on that conclusion than you, chiefly because each human individual has a tautological-identity certainty of existence. I don't suppose the state of being's lack of proof allows you to doubt your own existence. If so, wouldn't that be taking solipsism one step further, "My skepticism is so extreme, I doubt even myself." ( I do suppose your pun on nothing is unintentional. Assuming the pun, the sentence is paradoxical.)

I think my upshot here regarding our views on existence vs. nothingness says, "They stand just about equal."

..."the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof [... of God] — 180 Proof

I'm not seeking to prove God's existence by means of the cogito alone.* I think, however, that my argument from the asking of a question to the verification of at least one existing questioner is both valid and sound. Do you see errors?

*The heart of my reasoning for God's existence lies within the verbiage that earned another one of your WTFs.

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary."

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing.

My variation on Descartes' Cogito goes as follows: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.

Can you show a logical flaw in the above chain of reasoning?

...Cogito, ergo sum can only prove the questioner is "real" which it doesn't even do that because all it does is use sleight of hand word play to cause the reader to accept a belief they already believe. Without answering the questions what "existence", "thinking", or what "existing" means you can't prove there is an "I"... — dclements

Show how no elaboration of the meaning of existence and thinking refutes: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists. Sidebar: Even if you ignore the existence of the questioner, still, something exists, the question. We know this because the cause of my cogito variation is my response to, "Why is there not nothing?" If the question exists, then there's at least one existing thing, and that refutes nothingness.

Perhaps you're proceeding from an argument based on logical validity alone not proving facts of reality.

Logical validity, i.e., correct logical form, plus a sound argument, i.e., a true premise, proves a fact of reality. I reaffirm that my premise is true and my logical form is correct.

My counter claim - From my understanding of things I have found an understanding of this thing you named "God". Then, by your premise I will not be able to preserve my understanding of "God" - this I reject by my claim. — Pieter R van Wyk

This is a natural way to proceed with your life, not strictly by faith, but instead with understanding included. I belong to this set.

There are but few believers who don't vacillate between reason and faith; perhaps I should better say there has been but one on earth.

Formalism are vacuous and irrelevent with respect claims about the (non-abstract) world. — 180 Proof

You seem to be saying math and logic have no practical applications.

Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability. — ucarr

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem ended Hilbert's project for organizing all math logic into one universal system. This is a practical application of Gödel's logic.

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text. — 180 Proof

Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. — ucarr

My argument centers on the logic of the infinite series to integral sum. This container, being infinite, contains all possible verifications of scriptural fiction. As you know, this infinity of verifications doesn't preclude a citation of a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text, unless it is proven true within a consistent system; then no contradiction can exist.

Logical proof within a consistent system is what I'm asking for from you. I cite Gödel and Turing because, together, their work within consistent logical formalisms establishes that no such proof can be made within a consistent system with respect to all instances of true statements generated within the consistent system. There is no general refutation nor general proof of certain true statements generated within robust, consistent axiomatic systems. Certain of these statements are undecidable.

To summarize: a) your long, empirical list of scriptural statements doesn't preclude existence of scriptural truth, which example thereof you've asked for; b) proof within a robust, consistent axiomatic system of a finite number of true statements is possible; proof of all possible logical conclusions within a consistent axiomatic system is what's required, but Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem establish the necessary appearance of some logical statements undecidable.

You can choose to believe all scriptural narratives are fictions, you cannot formally prove all scriptural narratives are fictions. Gödel and Turing have shown, within formal systems there's an impassable gap between truth and provability due to the unavoidable generation of undecidable expressions.