Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
I am reminded of music. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart have never really been matched. Today's most popular artists are awful beyond compare. Does that mean music is finished? That there was more appreciation for good music in the past than today? That people today are less gifted? Or will it come again? It is it that today's Mozart is simply doing something else?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
Of course it's not, but it's the most accurate term to describe all this pseudoscientific nonsense of the "spiritual" kind.Frost wrote:"Woo woo" is not a scientific argument.
Actually, I'm familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science. As you admit, it doesn't prove anything, which is relevant in the context of this discussion about the material, physical nature of reality, for which you provided these papers as a proof of something. Or so I thought. But then exactly what is it that they prove? Bem's paper doesn't say it either...well, actually he makes unsubstantiated claims at the beginning of the paper, as if psi and all of that were a given, but the inferences on the data he collects at best could be the initial observation to make an hypothesis. But then again, what's the hypothesis? Other than the underlying assumption that 53% is more significant than 52% or 50%. The null hypothesis seems to be here that whatever happens in the tests has to do with random effects, which then will be rejected by the statistical inferences.Frost wrote: I see you are not the least bit familiar with statistics or scientific research when you say " a 53% success hit rate is not proof of psi abilities." First off, no one talks of "proof" in empirical research.
So what? It rests on the underlying assumption of which are the significant values and what threshold rejects the null hypothesis.Frost wrote: Second, that 53% had a p value of 1.34 x 10^-11
Another misguiding factor of statistical inferences. No doubt that it is used in psychology research and one of the reasons it fails as a science. Stats don't make it a hard science.Frost wrote: Third, it had a Cohen's effect size of 0.22 which is in the standard effect sizes found in psychology research.
If you think science is mere empirism, then you have no clue about how real science is done. The same claim is usually made to try to pass Economics as a hard science, which is not.Frost wrote: If you think "Statistical meta-analysis is insufficient" then you have no clue how science is done.
Since this is referenced here without any specific content supporting an specific argument, then it can legitimately be treated as a general subject. The underlying argument might be, of course, that some people that work as scientists believe in something, and since they rationalize their beliefs with what appear to be the methods of mainstream science (which are not), then these beliefs are to be taken seriously. This is in the same fashion Creationism and Intelligent Design tried to pass as science some time ago. It's well established that Michael Behe and William Dembski have published in peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't make their case any more scientifically proven.Frost wrote: Well that was a scientific analysis . All too easy to just dismiss it rather than provide a legitimate analysis or a single scientific argument. I guess all those physicists that reviewed the multiple papers were too stupid to see all the flaws...which you cannot name, of course. It is scientific fact that using Deepak's name will win any argument regardless of the scientific evidence.
In any case, Mr. Radin does like to put Chopra's name along his, he even gives him the doubtful honor of writing the foreword to his books.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
But Jan what I am saying is what conclusions do you draw?Although I also appreciate Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, where are the monstrous crowds today supporting that type of music?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
I’ve been through enough of these exchanges to know it’s what you get when you have no scientific argument.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amOf course it's not, but it's the most accurate term to describe all this pseudoscientific nonsense of the "spiritual" kind.
No one in science talks of “proof.” If you are requiring that there be proof, then you are not talking science. The paper is a replication as is evidenced by the paper Bem also published that was a meta-analysis of 90 previous similar experiments which also established an effect. The effect was measured and it was very significant. Again a z score of 6.66 is a significant effect. If you understand statistics as you claim, then you should be stunned by this z score in this context.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 am Actually, I'm familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science. As you admit, it doesn't prove anything, which is relevant in the context of this discussion about the material, physical nature of reality, for which you provided these papers as a proof of something. Or so I thought. But then exactly what is it that they prove? Bem's paper doesn't say it either...well, actually he makes unsubstantiated claims at the beginning of the paper, as if psi and all of that were a given, but the inferences on the data he collects at best could be the initial observation to make an hypothesis. But then again, what's the hypothesis? Other than the underlying assumption that 53% is more significant than 52% or 50%. The null hypothesis seems to be here that whatever happens in the tests has to do with random effects, which then will be rejected by the statistical inferences.
You do realize that typically a p value of 0.05 is the standard for finding an effect, right? I thought you claimed that you’re “familiar with the significance of statistics in empirical analysis in science.”Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amSo what? It rests on the underlying assumption of which are the significant values and what threshold rejects the null hypothesis.Frost wrote: Second, that 53% had a p value of 1.34 x 10^-11
Psychology fails as a science? That is just pure nonsense. You do realize that the Cohen’s effect size is used in medical research, too, right? I guess that’s not a science, either? It’s a standard method of statistical analysis for effect sizes. Please explicitly describe how it is a “misguiding factor of statistical inferences.” Use statistical arguments only since it is a statistical claim.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amAnother misguiding factor of statistical inferences. No doubt that it is used in psychology research and one of the reasons it fails as a science. Stats don't make it a hard science.Frost wrote: Third, it had a Cohen's effect size of 0.22 which is in the standard effect sizes found in psychology research.
Economics has nothing to do with science. Science uses statistical analysis which you apparently don’t believe in, for whatever reason since you never gave a scientific or mathematical reason. I guess we should just reject vast swaths of science and statistics that have permitted a tremendous amount of progress of knowledge. Please, then, tell me how science is really done.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amIf you think science is mere empirism, then you have no clue about how real science is done. The same claim is usually made to try to pass Economics as a hard science, which is not.
What on earth are you talking about? When you say it is “without any specific content supporting an specific argument,” did you miss the part where I posted three research papers with multiple studies in a mainstream peer-reviewed physics journal? Try addressing the research instead of this blatant ad hominem attempt and what amounts to a “nuh uh” argument with no scientific or statistical arguments.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 9:37 amSince this is referenced here without any specific content supporting an specific argument, then it can legitimately be treated as a general subject. The underlying argument might be, of course, that some people that work as scientists believe in something, and since they rationalize their beliefs with what appear to be the methods of mainstream science (which are not), then these beliefs are to be taken seriously. This is in the same fashion Creationism and Intelligent Design tried to pass as science some time ago. It's well established that Michael Behe and William Dembski have published in peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't make their case any more scientifically proven.
In any case, Mr. Radin does like to put Chopra's name along his, he even gives him the doubtful honor of writing the foreword to his books.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
This article is in particular interesting (though probably not to you) as it both tackles Bem's problems in an easy to understand manner and talks about the issue you raised with medical research (not the given that you assumed - which is to be expected as you aren't an expert).
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... -research/
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
The common habit of justifying the most horrible consequences of natural phenomena as a natural occurrence gives me no sense of acceptance. Swallowing indiscriminately everything both good and bad because they both must conform to natural laws is a most distasteful phenomena. Humans do have the possibility of avoiding catastrophes where that is possible. And the coming horrors are avoidable if humans are determined to avoid them.Eduk wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 12:43 pm Again I agree with you Jan I don't really see a coming clash of humanity with nature though. For one thing humans are nature (and so too is AI). Also life is death (for something else). Humans have always been killing something, just by existing. The holocene extinction has been ongoing for some time.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Artificial intelligence: doom or survival?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023