I thought it was clear I was talking about a larger time scale hence:

The cultural climate dictates the laws from generation to generation. This is almost certainly the case back to the dawn of civilization. — I like sushi

Either way, the same kind of civilization building around the globe has generally resulted in people choosing Human Rule over the harsh realities that mother nature threw at them.

People? If they 'write' it at all.

Popper refers to Closed and Open Society. Maybe there is something in that that may help you? Any idiot can write something and call it a Law. This is only true for the society they live in if people agree to it and adhere to it for the most part.

Items like taking someone's life are generally considered taboo in all communities.

The cultural climate dictates the laws from generation to generation. This is almost certainly the case back to the dawn of civilization.

I will 100% watch thsi video. My intial response to the proposal is NO and ABSOLUTELY NO!

Let's see if there is anything you state that alters my view :)

Edit: "Video no longer available" :(

@Punshhh Have you also considered that as populations increase so too does the number of cognitively defunct individuals in the local population? There are not many jobs for these people. There will be less sooner still. Confounded this with how easily manipulated this proprortion of the population can be and it is no wonder more radical views seem more front and centre than usual--especially when social media rams such thoughts directly into their heads.

Either we figure out how to make people smarter OR those with enough cognitive clout step up. I am more optimistic about the former than the latter if I am honest.

@Gnomon Do you think hypostatization is a sensible route to take when trying to lay down the groundwork for a larger body of work?

The coverage is so wildly different. — Jeremy Murray

The news is necessarily hyperbolic and sensationalised. I do not pay that much attention to it to be honest other than as a means of understanding how they are falling prey to popular trends or how stories misrepresent and confound for political gain.

What is not being said is more interesting and pertinent most of the time. What is presented is usually trival slop made out to be vastly more significant than it actual is. This has been the case for the news industry ever since its conception.

100% The alternative is taking actual responsibility instead of pointing the finger of blame at those who 'made' you do it. We all do it to some degree. The problems arise when we do it so often we stop realising we are doing it.

I think this has always been present. Reading articles from the past you can see how little the general attitudes of people has changed.

There is a necessary see-sawing action I feel. I think Isaiah Berlin views on political philosophy outline the major problems we are constantly faced with.

That is just one country. Shame people don't actually look at the main causes for immigration :D

There are two main factors in the UK. The first is that those applying to stay are more readily accepted and the second is that the universities prefer international students because they pay more for their education than domestic students.

Overall, the UK is pretty strict when it comes to immigration. All that is counteracted by the number of applications for asylum and such.

Whoever is in power will keep immigration high because they have too ot the country fails very, very quickly.

Maybe people will not realise this straight away sadly?

I imagine it will be both the development of those countries domestically as well as the dispersion of manpower from them. I would never suggest it is simply one or the other. Maybe both at the same time, maybe one more than the other first, whatever, they will have a large populations of people looking to live their lives as best they can.

What do you mean by this? It is clear enough that governments are very happy to bring people in legally. So by 'Western countries' you mean who?

Manpower balance will shift to Brasil,Indonesia, Pakistan and most African countries.

Obviously we will see a shift in demographics as people move into more technologically developed countries form their own as well as technological growth in said countries that have a surplus of younger people.

How this will pan out overall is for fortune-tellers and demogogues to weave whatever story best fits their agenda.

I was talking to the person I was talking to within a braoder context. I was not talking directly to you.

And deserves to be taken seriously, provided it is logical. — Outlander

Right there we have a problem. Logic comes in different forms and the colloquial use of terms does not map readily onto the technical philosophical jargon.

Someone who speaks to me in Dutch may or may not be saying something stupid. I have no idea. If I am in England and they do this they should not look upon me with indigation when wave them away after several attempts to engage with hand signals and other attempts to form a bridge of communication.

When discussing ethics, epistemology, physics, psychology, politics, eceonomics, art, etc., etc.; there needs to be some effort made by those entering from the outside to grapple with these difficulties if they wish to engage in a serious discussion.

The biggest problem is how the Dunning-Kruger effect plays out. All too often a smattering of an understanding leads the naive into thinking they have a pretty good overall grasp of this or that area, when in fact they only know a few of the most very basic parts of a hugely complex and daunting machine that countless others have been tinkering with over the centuries.

All that said, I do believe most areas of knowledge suffer from a blinkerness brought on by the state of general education. Specialists are VERY important but less thought is given to those who have a solid understanding across multiple fields. Every field of interest can gain from outside input. Who knows how a kite designer can inspire a chef, or a physicist inspire an accountant?

Feedback > Naive.
Constructive Criticism > Noreason to believe most of what you have said. No mention of obstacles or road map.

I recommend you try it yourself even if you do not publish. It can be an eye opener to watch and listen to yourself trying to explain something as concisely as you can on the fly. I recommend it to everyone I meet when discussing more intellectual claptrap :)

I have had several video calls from members on this site with the intent to record and publish on youtube to perhaps help boost interest in the forum--which I hope they enjoyed as much as I do. Only one was happy to be recorded though, and they were in academia. Sadly I accidently lost/erased the video, but it needed editing anyway due to the natural rambling (which I did not have time for).

I prefer a more face-to-face dialogue as it usually cuts through the BS and is usually more time efficient, as well as genuine: can get just as messy as threads here though but certainly more amicable.

I see you have also wasted some time on Youtube with some philosophical ramblings. — Pieter R van Wyk

:D

It was very useful actually.

Quite so, but then there is absolutely no utility in arguing with a person that believe an AI story on face value and then try to sell it as fact. — Pieter R van Wyk

You were wrong. AI story? It is pretty run-of-the-mill knowledge. Is a secondary school grade understanding of gravitional fields really something people need AI to understand? for you it seems, but even then you do not believe it because you lack the basic understanding

At least you are showing what you are plain and clear for everyone.

This is you saying you are wrong?

Here:

Yes, you are right (I am wrong); but then, anything can be proved from an absurd statement. — Pieter R van Wyk

And here:

I deduce that you have read the AI assessment of "If Neptune disappeared". Since AI is incapable of abstract thought I would regard this assessment as highly suspect. This is apart from the fact that your example is still absurd — Pieter R van Wyk

It is almost like a child being told 3x3=9 not 10, and then turning around and saying "I was wrong, but numbers are stupid anyway!"

As for a defintion? I guess something like: When items (physical or abstract) interact and/or organise resulting in a reasonably persistent cohesive pattern. This is called a System. All Systems are necessarily limit bound.

I have already given you an example of a physical system and one that straddles both the abstract and the physical. The means by which you can understand the effects of gravity is by using the abstract system of mathematics. I am System. You are a System.

Anyway, enjoy yourself here. I feel like I have wasted my time here for the most part. Should have left it, but I am an eternal optimist about the capacities of others and my ability to communicate (much less so the later!).

Am I the only person alive that want to read something and discuss it leisurely rather than in search of the Truth and in order to display superior intelligence? — Ansiktsburk

:D no!

No matter what I read I tend to jump down the rabbit hole. I am more likley to read pop-science or pop-history than pop-philosophy tbh. I did make a start on The Matter of Things, which was written for both the causal reader and experts alike. It is not short though and I doubt I will find time to finish it.

If you have a specific suggestion? I wouldn't mind reading something else by Botton as I found his style nice and relaxed so I imagine that could work? I would honestly welcome a little side project as it may help me chill between researching less inviting texts!

If you are still unwilling to admit a simple and plain mistake you made I will you leave you to wallow in disbelief.

I would even make a guess a say when all the planets in the Solar System aligned, back in the 90's I believe, the gravitional impact on Earth was greater than what would happen if Neptune disappeared. I might be wrong, but my basic understanding of gravity tells me this is a correct statement--and the world has not ended.

Try the Lounge maybe?

Better still read someone like Alain de Botton? He is a pretty pleasant read and explores topics with graceful prose allowing the reader to become as involved with the text as they wish to.

'Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' is another moodier book that might interest you.

Wouldn't hurt to just post about a topic that interests you and make clear what it is you are trying to get out of the thread.

Should we go on to talk about Pinker? I have never read any of his recent books, but have heard him talk about them with others.

I have a feeling it is this sort of analysis that the OP is not looking for :D I think what you say is a little harsh. When people give a sweeping analysis of the human race it is necessarily going to remain fairly large grained. I think what often riles people is that in their immediate surroundings they only see and hear terrible woes rather than see the huge leaps that have been made in different locations and across larger periods of time.

What charitable analysis could you make of Pinker's views on something? I am assuming you are talking about Angel and Demons thing he wrote?

The physical thing does not change. I gave an example of a physical change that did not alter the physiccal system, in any significant way, with the removal of Neptune from the Solar System.

With the example of Pluto we have seen, in our life times, the conceptual tweaking of how we regard Pluto. In this case an abstract part of the system has changed, but it has not undermined the whole system.

Systems are refined to better encapsulate our understanding. Removing key blocks from a system can undermine it entirely, but not necessarily.

What is often hard to distinguish with the term system is how it can remain wholly abstract, wholly physical and everywhere in between.

Double Post

The Solar System is a system.

You were just factually wrong. Absurdity has nothing to do with this.

Pluto is no longer a 'Planet' it is a 'Dwarf Planet'. Systems can change without losing structure.

Maybe I should have been nicer.

I will keep in mind what you have pointed out here in the future.

I suggest you learn a little about gravity first and the scales we are talking about. It would do next to nothing.

As for the "nice old man" ... that would depend on whom you ask: my grandchildren might agree, ↪I like sushi might not. — Pieter R van Wyk

I am not at all concerned about your character. Maybe you are a saint for all I know. Regardless, you are wrong. That is what matters here.

You think this is at all accurate?:

Our solar system is a finely balanced many-body problem, quite difficult to solve mathematically. A two-body problem can be solved analytically but a many-body problem can only be solved numerically. However, please consider the gravitational force exerted on system earth by the following celestial bodies and by system earth on these bodies:

F(sun) = 3.52E22 newton
F(moon) = 1.98E20 newton
F(Neptune) = 2.21E15 newton

In comparison, the worlds total population exerts a force of 4.86E12 newton on system earth.

If any of these celestial bodies would be "removed" from the solar system this fine balance would be catastrophically disrupted and the expected environmental disaster would not be a political talking point, it would be de facto. Or if our solar system evolved sans Neptune, our system earth would have evolved completely different to what it did. — Pieter R van Wyk

Really? :D

Just chekcing to see how knowldgeable you are in terms of basic phsyics.

Looks like you are lacking in multiple fields and still not worth talking to.

Bye

By the way, if Neptune is removed from our solar system, all life on earth will cease to exist - we would not know whether the solar system would still exist or not. — Pieter R van Wyk

How so?

It would depend entirely on your use of the word 'system'. A quick look at a standard dictionary entry will reveal that the term can be applied in different ways.

Removing something from a system may or may not render it useless. A cog from a clock would likely render it useless, whereas removing the planet Neptune from the solar system would not result in the Solar System no longer existing.

Words can have mulitple meanings and used in an infinite number of sentences.

Abstractions are abstractions. How and why you apply them is up to you. The uses of doing so have limitations.

Perhaps an interesting argument but, surely, a valid definition of a system must answer the question that is implied by your argument, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

Not so. The manner in which we use language need not be rational. If anything it helps to either obscure or highlight irrational thoughts and deal with (or not).

A valid definition has nothing much to do with a valid argument.

P1: Potatoes only Eat People.
P2: A Potato has Eaten.

C: A Person has been Eaten.

How I am defining Potato/Potatoes, Person/People and Eat/Eaten is irrelevant.

If the term 'system' can be used in various ways for abstract and physical systems. What you are trying to ask for is something like the height of a human being. There is no definite answer to this, only a set of limits. Which is, ironically, probably a valid definition of what a system necessarily is. Such a definition also deals with the Set of All Sets, as this could not be a definition according to what I have just said as it has not limits.

I think there is a problem when people start to say words are violence--which I have seen people do.

In general, it is a means to protect people. Any means established to protect people will inevitably be used by bad actors. This is the cost of any freedom.

The same thign can be said of Human Rights. There are no such thing in the natural world, yet it is an idea that seems like a step in the right direction for hte betterment of everyone. Such ideas are always open to abuse because people are very creative when it comes to being bad actors as well as good actors.

Societal norms necessarily have to seesaw. This is better than overreaching for some utopian ideal imo.

@MoK What did you think of my hypothetical where something like a 'thought' could be said to manifest in the prolonged manner I mentioned?

They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking. — MoK

Well, it appears to be 'thinking' was my point. It cannot think. It would have been better of me to state that AI models do fool humans into thinking it can think.

It simulates speech very effectively now. I do certainly not equate speech with thought though. I want to be explicit about that!

Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so. — MoK

I was not sayign any such thing. I was stating that AI is far more capable of pattern recognition than us. It can sift through masses of data and find patterns it would take us a long, long time to come close to noticing. It is likley these kinds of features of AI are what people mistaken for 'thinking' as it seriously out performance us when it comes to this kind of process.

AI simply simulates thinking. It is built for pattern recognition and has no apparent nascent components to it.

I think we may see something akin to 'thinking' if AI is allowed to produce robotics and if it has a built in system that manufactures "errors". Then each new robot 'replicates' another robot and the "errors" expand. In such a scenario this would likely operate in a very similar manner to 'thinking' only a single 'thought' would be stretched out over multiple generations of AI run robots.

Basically, it is kind of feasible that AI in robots could create something like a simulation of evolutionary processes--as we understand them--and produce something akin to a 'thought' in a single entity if we projected it far enough forwards in time (if such is possible?). It may well end up that the robots would integrate biology into their systems due to such "errors" in manufacturing. It is more probable that this woudl occur as all our current information points towards biological systems as far more complicated so any thoughtless AI system set up to increase its capacity for data sets and problems solving would inevitably, I feel, explore this avenue eventually.

This is pretty much how I see humans. We commit errors and due to these errors we progress. How we are able to recognise errors and be conscious at all is a mystery likley made by evolutionary errors (but maybe the 'errors' are really anti-errors?).

Regardless, it is going to (and has) made many people redundant.

The biggest fear I have is education. Most people are consumed by thye belief that education is about getting a job. Hopefully more advanced AI will result in a rethink about the purpose of education.

Every cloud ...

In the same way that a duck is a duck rather than the representation of one made out of cotton and beads.

If a computer-like can be constructed with a body that can interact and collect information form the environment, it will do so following a program. AI is very, very good at pattern rocognition, it cannot 'decide' what to look for though nor apply it, because it is an 'it'.

A plane does not think about its next destination. A car does not thirst for petrol. Humans are not machines, and every instance of intelligence we know of is present in biological organisms not silicon based constructions.

More importantly, what do you think the difference between Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence is? If none, then you must be assuming your calculator is thining when you press the buttons rather than just following a program.

If you think we are simply biological 'machines' I do not see why such an analogy should be taken seriously. It is a just a surface representation, not true to our experience.

intelligence — apokrisis

Artificial Intelligence.

Okay. That happened when we started using fire.

There has been some talk about the technological singularity in recent years and some futurists have suggested that it is imminent. The question here is: has it already happened? — Nemo2124

No. you clearly do not understand what the technological singularity is suggesting. We can predict what will happen tomorrow in practically every field of interest a decent degree. The techonological singularity means we LITERALLY, as base humans, cannot predict anything that is going to happen or be developed with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

Reaching AGI is not the same thing as reaching a techonological singularity. That means all the combined fields of interest for humanity are amalgamated to the point where any advnacement in one area catapults the others, and vice versa, to the point where no one can keep up with literally anything that is going on.

If we can make plans for tomorrow we have not hit this singularity. I guess, at a push, you could suggest we are unaware and living in a delusion of 'predictability,' but the fact remains that I am here and will need to buy food to eat later this week.