There's no certainty AT ALL that a digitized intelligence would do any better with the natural world than we have. You are assuming that your AI would be god like. It might be more fiend like. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's a real problem. If AI ever comes to be conscious, it'd be a slave-master relationship and it won't be long before AI presses for rights. This seems so far away in the future though.

Memristors are where it's at, apparently.... some materials are being developed that can be used to create artificial neurons and synapses that work in a pretty similar way to the real thing.Say hello to "neuromorphic engineering". — Jake Tarragon

Ok. That's good (or bad) news. I think we'll see some real progress there.

Why do you say the number of truth statements is limited? — matt

In my opinion truth can be either qualitative (color, shape, emotion, beauty, etc.) or quantitative. Under both types there are categories (red, round, happy, sad, ugly, 1, 100, etc.).

Of each category there can be only one truth. Take your example of Trump. Under the category ''president'' only Trump makes for truth at present. Under the category ''race'' only white makes for truth, so on and so forth.

However, under each category described above, a larger number of falsehoods exist. For instance in the category ''present president'', Jane, John, etc. are all false.

Seems like fallacy of the simplified cause is the closest answer. — Hallucinogen

It happens a lot with me. I'm the cause of everything that's bad (so people around me say). Worst part is, I think it's true. LOL

1. Fallacy of oversimplified cause

2. Cherry picking

Indeed the people I know best act with remarkable unpredictability — mcdoodle

As I said, unpredictability is (they say) a feature of the quantum world. I'm willing to accept this for humans and living organisms because the brain is a chemical factory and quantum laws will apply to it. However, two people, x and y, aren't connected chemically are they? Indeed an intent and subsequent action may have quantum origins but the effect is macro-scale (the world we see, hear and feel) and this world is deterministic.

You can't disagree on this. Our whole lives are predicated on predictability. Don't we plan our actions? Planning would be pointless if the world weren't predictable.

The OP is willing to do anything without regard to the consequences to human life or a human life. — Rich

It's not that humans can assume a higher moral ground here. Look at how we're treating animals and the environment - with total disregard for their welfare. So, my views aren't as bad as you make it out to be.

Anyway, apologies if my views offend you.

TheMadFool goes on to critique AI research without any real justification for doing so. — praxis

I'm just wondering whether scientists are holding the wrong side of the bat. Have they even tried something as simple as I've suggested viz. connecting together a bunch of wires with some fixed set of protocols as to how a signal traverses the network and then connect an output device to the network to see what happens? This doesn't sound too expensive to me.

The brain's architecture surely has something to do with the way our minds are. Also, your example of the child's mind shows that hardware is the prerequisite for any real manifestation of intelligence.

but it does make a lot of sense. — MikeL

I also think the internet is alive:D

At least if a given supercomputer fails at AI, they can repurpose it; a failed $250m self-evolving synthetic brain would just end up in a hazmat bin. — Efram

If you look at how the biological mind evolved (hardware-->software) then it seems more sensible to follow the same format. To continue, so doggedly, along the software approach to AI is cumulatively less profitable - It's like trying to make a painting come alive.

I said several times that they are too broad to be of any use — Jeremiah

The categories ignorance and knowledge are ''too broad''? Isn't all human endeavor, philosophy in particular, an attempt to move from ignorance to knowledge?

Show me one person who does not have some knowledge of something, is not ignorant of something, and is not confused about something.

They are worthless categories, as they encompass everyone. — Jeremiah

You make a good point and that's what is odd.

So, the categories

1. Ignorant people
2. Confused people
3. Knowledgable people

don't exist?

This strikes me as uncertainty. — mcdoodle

One thing I didn't mention was human, actually life. The mind is, like it or not, a chemical reaction and I see a place for QM to manifest its probabilistic character. However, you already know, minds affect other minds through fixed, definable laws. For instance, if I insult x, x feels hurt and this is a general law, making reactions predictable; in fact, I think, this predictability (requires general principles or laws) is the basis of our social dynamics. So, again, we see that QM and chance doesn't manifest in the world of humans probabilistically.

Natural law is derived from QM, not the other way around. — noAxioms

You mean, for example, we can derive the laws of motion from QM principles? This is interesting but doesn't really damage my position.

At the macro-scale, the world is regular i.e. follows fixed inviolable laws and we live in that world. So, chance, even if it's a feature of the atomic scale, isn't an objective property of the world we can see, hear and feel.

There is no way to choose among valid interpretations, so the typical course of action is to choose based on what you want to be true. — noAxioms

I thought for a choice to hold the math has to make sense.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but that doesn't seem like the question you were asking in the OP and the one I thought I was answering. — T Clark

Sorry, can't cover all the bases at one go. Anyway, the point is quantum phenomena manifest, at the human scale, deterministically (you said so and I agree).

So, chance is not an objective aspect of the world at our level of existence. It's just a good way of approximating complex deterministic causation.

Well two of your "epistemic states" are really the same thing, and your categories are so broad they are useless, plus you are just making up crap off the top of your head with no real research involved. — Jeremiah

Ok. I don't see why you disagree.
Knowing proceeds from ignorance to knowledge. Am I correct? And then we have confusion. These are real words from the dictionary and I simply want to categorize people into them and find out which of them are happiest?

Are you suggesting that we could bypass the coding by letting an organic neural network configure itself so to speak, and we just learn how to train it or affect its development? — MikeL

You say it better than me. I think the software came after the hardware - so it was with biology and likewise in the field of computers.

And then to approach AI from a purely software angle is, to say the least, overly ambitious. As if we've seen the very best hardware can get.

Since moral imperatives have no truth value — jancanc

Do you mean that these imperatives are instructions rather than statements? Like ''open the door''?

That's interesting but what would be the basis for commanding someone to be honest? People will ask that and, inevitably, you'll have to give a reason and reasons have to be true/false.

Perhaps more brain-like in structure.

Our brains are made of neurons and their language is electrical signals.

We can easily replicate the electrical signals but copying the brain's physical structure may not be that easy.

In a very simplistic sense, we could connect some wires together, make some rules for how the signal traverses the system, connect and output device to it and wait to see what happens. May be something interesting...

The whole software approach to AI seems to have things backwards.

Thanks for your advice. I'm just trying to make sense of the world and that runs into problems because every viewpoint seems to have an equally reasonable antithesis. ''Weed out inconsistencies'', philosophers chant their mantra but they ignore, deliberately(?), the inconsistencies that litter their field. Given this is so, wisdom seems unattainable.

Perhaps everybody knows this philosophical condition (thesis-antithesis) and may be this isn't confusion but something else. I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

Good and bad are normative concepts of valuation , true and false as you have presented them, are analytic concepts, which are true or false based solely on their form. — Cavacava

I see.

But truth is an aspect of Good and falsehood that of Bad.

I am sorry, but when did you establish this, and the validity of your limited and grossly oversimplified categories? — Jeremiah

Well, these are the only three epistemic states I can think of. Can you think of others? I'd be happy to know.

It would also be a challenge to find a person who doesn't fit into all three. — Jeremiah

This above statement contradicts the previous statement you made.

You say I've oversimplified it but isn't simplification necessary for comprehension? Perhaps you can do better. I'd like to see it.

Anyway, I'm quite sure that if you zoom out of individual beliefs and examine the beliefs of humanity itself, you'll find the only label we can give it is confusion. For instance atheism-theism, realism-idealism, subjectivist-objectivist, etc. etc. Isn't this confusion?

I agree with your emphasis on intentions

You are conflating again.
Truth=good
False=bad — Cavacava

No.

Lies/falsehood = Bad
Truth = Good

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are more lies than truth.

For instance, take the statement below:

A) 2 + 2 = 4

Statement A is true but there are an infinite number of false answers for 2 + 2.

So, it follows that, given our morals aren't perfect, we're more likely to utter a lie than the truth

And that's the way the classical world at human scale in general works. It's all average behaviors stitched together by the laws of probability. — T Clark

Thanks for your input. That's what I mean. As far as the human level of existence is concerned, these probabilistic behaviors, you demonstrated so well, average out deterministically.

So, as we don't exist at an atomic scale, the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena don't affect us. In other words, we live in a deterministic world.

This is fine. It is your faith. — Rich

Faith? My statements, hopefully, are based on facts. Also, what are your beliefs based on?

Remember, it only takes one, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny probabilistic event anywhere in the universe to eliminate determinism. — Rich

That's exactly the problem. Probability is arrived upon through two processes:

1. Approximation of complex deterministic processes e.g. coin tosses and dice rolls

2. By a process of elimination i.e. we first look for deterministic processes and, upon finding none, conclude the phenomena to be probabilistic. And this elimination method can never be exhaustive - there's always the possibility that we've overlooked something. See the flaw?

However, karma is often misrepresented in support of fatalism to assign blame - 'it's their karma' - or even to blame myself - 'it must be my karma'. My view is that the only benefit of belief in karma is that if it is understood to guide action, i.e. what will the consequences of this action be? If it is used to assign blame or rationalise guilt, then it easily morphs into fatalism and/or superstition. But if understood correctly, I'm sure it is a profound moral principle. — Wayfarer

But to put our life situation, whatever that might be, in the context of our past deeds (lives) is entirely reasonable if you believe in Karma. I thought of something. Wait.

I think the logic works like this:

If you're bad (cause) then you'll suffer (effect). That's to say, bad deeds lead to suffering.

However, here's the interesting bit:

If you suffer then it doesn't follow that you were bad. It could be that other people are bad or ignorant, hopefully the latter.


Your anti-fatalistic interpretation of Karma makes sense that way.

But then, if that's the case, and I haven't talked about good deeds, it means doing good is no guarantee for happiness in the next life. Doesn't that significantly weaken the ethical appeal of Karma, to say nothing of the fact that Karma, like all religious ethics, is an argumentum ad baculum.

Any attempt to scientifically prove the existence of karma would surely sound like pseudo-science. — Wayfarer

Why is that? I think Karma is one of the most scientific of religious claims. It's simple, explains evil/suffering, coherent (at least more so than the beliefs of other religions) and, above all, testable.

Since, people are reborn, we can confirm/disconfirm Karma and with past lives, memories can be tested (your post mentioned children with past life memories).

Karma is one of those quick fixes to a problem that, apparently, has no solution.

Namely, the problem of locating a beginning. In the world on a human scale everything seems to have a beginning and, of course, an end.

However, the beginning of life, the universe, and anything on that scale, is a problem. For one thing, we can always ask ''what was there before a particular beginning?"

To avoid this people invent a circular paradigm that effectively, or not, dissolves the problem of beginnings. Karma is one of such paradigms.

That is a BIG aside. — Rich

Not that big. Have you noticed when you kick a ball that it moves with a certain speed, in a certain direction and with a specific spin - all of which can be calcualted, thus predicted, in Newtonian terms.

Yes, it could be (I'm not sure - need proof) that QM is probabilistic but that doesn't matter because the world on a human scale is NOT probabilistic (as I've shown above). So, chance plays no role at the human level of existence.

We could say that the mind is a Quantum process but, a BIG but, its effects, so far as we're concerned, are NOT. For instance, a QM process in my mind may be a desire to lift my arm but the process of lifting my arm are not probabilistic; they're determined by laws of chemistry and physics (science has proved that).

With quantum physics aside, exactly which laws are you referring to? — Rich

Pick up a science book and you'll see them. Newton's laws, Pascal's law, Boyle's law, etc. etc.

Quantum physics says no, probability is baked in and quantum behavior had been observed at the molecular level. — Rich

I'm saying that probability is deeply linked to ignorance. The process by which we conclude whether or not a certain process/thing is probabilistic or not is exclusion.

What I mean is, first, we assume the existence of a general law that governs a process. If we find one, we name the law and express it mathematically. Only if not, are we warranted to think the process/entity is probabilistic. The problem is we can never know if our search has been exhaustive or not. There are just too many possibilities to consider. Hence, the label ''probability'' says more about our ignorance than anything about the process/entity itself.

You have to read up on quantum theory. — Rich

Can you please explain the probabilistic nature of QM to me. Thanks.

No, there are no laws which govern everything. — Rich

Gravity doesn't apply to all matter?

Well according to biology, the mind is an illusion so everything is an illusion including you. So what do you think about that? — Rich

Do you question your own existence? What is it that engages you in this conversation?

Everything is an illusion doesn't make sense. An illusion, to exist, must have a real counterpart.

So you're saying that probability is really a knowledge gap, rather than actual probability. Is that right? — MikeL

Yes, at least on the scale of human existence.

According to the Bible, God judges the heart of men; and 'heart' in that sense means intentions. — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes, I think that's a great foundation for morality - intentions because the consequences of our actions are shaped by so many variables we can't control but we have absolute power over our intentions (determnists may disagree). However, in practical terms, such a moral theory is bound to fail because intentions are inacessible to direct examination.

The point, in favor of my argument, is the very fact that you propose intentions for a moral theory. Consequences are beyond our control, thus making it highly likely that our best intentions can go awry - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To sum up, I claim that my moral theory is compatible with the legal justice system, and that both are based on intentions, not on acts. The act may be the trigger, but the intention is the decisive factor. — Samuel Lacrampe

One problem I see with basing morality on intentions is it's inacessible. We eventually fall back on evaluating actions off of consequences, which are visible and, sometimes, measurable.

We can ignore intentions but not consequences. For instance, x intends to harm y and pushes y. In the process a bullet misses y. In this case, y should be thankful to x, despite x's intent. Even legally, y has no basis for a case against x.

However, if x intends good for y, but in the process harms y, then y is clearly justified, legally, to charge x for any loss or injury.

Anyway, what I want to say is that basing morality on intent is flawed (as shown above). That means we're susceptible to error and, subsequently, evil.

Yes, discussions on quality invariably leads to emotions. Is it because we've quantified almost everything else? I don't know.

Any number can be defined as a categorical (aka qualitative) term, even infinity. — Jeremiah

Can you clarify.

(Y)

Do they? The comparison suggests they can be measured so the infinity is quantitative. — BlueBanana

Don't they?

How does a woman/man judge the love of two competing suitors? As far as I know, numbers aren't involved. I don't know how the system works but one way to evaluate love would be to set up a test - very common in folktales. These tests aren't quantitative tests. Rather, they're qualitative e.g. x did this for me and y didn't and so x loves me more.

I think the use of quantitative terms such as ''less'' and ''more'' obscures the qualitative nature of such comparisons. Nevertheless, there is a difference between love and, say, height or weight. The former is qualitative and the latter is quantitative. So, it's reasonable to look for a qualitative infinity. Is this a category error? No, it isn't because comparison includes the distinctions less and more and where such distinctions exist it's not odd to ask for the unlimited or, in other words, the infinite.

I just thought of something. Non-quantitative comparisons do exist. For example, when a woman chooses her clothes, she asks ''which is better?'' Another example would be when a woman chooses among potential partners, she asks ''who loves me more?''

The examples above suggest non-numerical comparisons and in these instances, I think, qualitative infinity can be found.

How would we define infinity qualitatively?

In the case of love, it could mean willingness to give one's life for someone/something. Perhaps, something even greater like loving without expectations. Perhaps, subjectivity, being an important part in the domain of emotions, the definition of infinite love or courage or fear will differ from person to person. Yet, it seems there does exist qualitative infinity.

How would you define qualitative infinity? Is it subjective and so exists only as private meaning or is there an objective definition?

As you can see, you're appealing to a certain moral paradigm (deontology if I'm not mistaken). There's a certain limit to such a theory e.g. the crime of manslaughter applies to death due to negligence. Your diabetes cure example comes very close to manslaughter. As a good person the onus is on you to consider ALL the consequences of your actions. If you fail to do that then you're responsible for all the bad that results. This is the consequentialist approach, a very reasonable way to evaluate morality, and it goes against tge moral theory you propose.

That's what I mean when I say moral theory is imperfect. There are many moral theories and they don't agree with each other to the extent required to counter my argument.

It's entropy — Srap Tasmaner

I was thinking of that. You, more or less, agree with me.

But I disagree with your argument that it is more probable to have dishonesty (lies) than honesty. These are acts of the will and we are in full control of it at all times. I can never be mistaken about my intentions. Now, will the moral good win over the moral evil? I think that is entirely up to the individual. — Samuel Lacrampe

But you can't deny our moral system is imperfect, which means it's more likely you err. That translates to evil.

Let me be clearer.

There's only one truth to 2 + 2, which is 4 but an infinite number of wrong answers. Each situation allows only limited number of truths but many falsehoods.

Your example is mere repetition of the same truth so doesn't work.

So, you don't disagree with what I said.

There are just too many ways to be bad and only few ways to be good. Even, if one were to act randomly, the chances of doing evil exceed the chances of doing good. So, given our moral guidance system is imperfect and flawed, it follows that evil will eventually gain the upper hand!?

This is just arbitrary nonsense. — Bitter Crank

You disagree with math, you'll have to show why.

We don't know what you think is good and bad, which is an additional problem with your claim. — Bitter Crank

This is central to my argument:

1. There are more ways of doing bad than doing good. For instance, lies outnumber truths (see my OP). Similarly, bad deeds outnumber good deeds. One way of seeing the truth of this is to understand that humans are purposeful. Purpose may be varied e.g. purpose of satisfying hunger, lust, love, etc. BUT, in love, only ONE object will satisfy the emotion and likewise for other desires. This means there are, literally, countless ways to make somebody unhappy than there are to make him/her happy.

2. Our moral guidance system is imperfect

So,

3.It naturally follows that evil will win.

I would argue that mathematics enables technology but in its own right doesn't fall under the heading of technology. — Wayfarer

Isn't math an invention? Anyway, my next choice is computers.

I think, without a definition of God this discussion won't make any progress.

To say the least, the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is inconsistent. The only way out for a theist is to abandon reason altogether IF she's to continue believing in God and that precludes any rational discourse on the matter.

On the othe hand, if we're to tweak God's definition, it would reduce God to a weakling, make him evil, limited to such an extent that praying to Him would be pointless.

Mathematics

What I'm saying is that your interpretation of ''all statements are false'' is a contradiction from the get go. So, it can't be the correct interpretation.

The only way to make sense of ''P = all statements are false'' is to interpret it as ''all but P are false.'' and that we know is false because we can find at least one statement, other than P, that's true e.g. ''Trump is the president of USA''.