Log In   or  Sign Up for Free
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Count Lucanor wrote:I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but a dividing line is ... a line. A dividing line is, by definition, a discrete boundary - a discontinuity - a point where the slope of the graph is undefined, etc. My original point, to which you replied, was that these discrete lines are placed by us according to our purposes, with the example of the evolution of modern humans.Steve3007 wrote:Dividing lines doesn’t have to be discrete, countable integers. And it doesn’t matter that the changes are continuous, as exemplified by the electromagnetic spectrum. That doesn’t stop us from identifying and characterizing what happens at different degrees or points within any spectrum. We can even identify ranges or “zones” based on given sets of properties. We do it all the time, from historical periodization to separation of parts within a whole.Count Lucanor wrote:There are dividing lines in a continuum. That’s what makes possible that a given range in the electromagnetic spectrum gives you deadly radiation, while others don’t. Some will give you visible light and others don’t.No, the objective existence of discrete dividing lines is not what makes that possible. Stating that something is a continuum is not the same as saying that every part of it is the same. It just means that the changes are continuous and not discrete.
Count Lucanor wrote:I presume "Nope" and "That's where the mistake is" means you disagree with what I said above.Steve3007 wrote:You can simulate water molecules on a computer and you'll never get physical water molecules, so obviously you (a person in the real world outside of the computer) will never get wet. But whatever properties emerge from the collective behaviour of water molecules can, in principle, also emerge in the simulation. So, as I said, emergent properties of both biological and non-biological systems can also emerge within the simulation.Nope, the supposedly emergent properties of simulated water cannot be the real, physical, emergent properties of water, unless we thought that emergence is a function of the algorithms, of the software running the natural program, not of the physical properties themselves.
That’s where the mistake is...
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:32 amI have two types of objections:Count Lucanor wrote:I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but a dividing line is ... a line. A dividing line is, by definition, a discrete boundary - a discontinuity - a point where the slope of the graph is undefined, etc. My original point, to which you replied, was that these discrete lines are placed by us according to our purposes, with the example of the evolution of modern humans.Steve3007 wrote:Dividing lines doesn’t have to be discrete, countable integers. And it doesn’t matter that the changes are continuous, as exemplified by the electromagnetic spectrum. That doesn’t stop us from identifying and characterizing what happens at different degrees or points within any spectrum. We can even identify ranges or “zones” based on given sets of properties. We do it all the time, from historical periodization to separation of parts within a whole.Count Lucanor wrote:There are dividing lines in a continuum. That’s what makes possible that a given range in the electromagnetic spectrum gives you deadly radiation, while others don’t. Some will give you visible light and others don’t.No, the objective existence of discrete dividing lines is not what makes that possible. Stating that something is a continuum is not the same as saying that every part of it is the same. It just means that the changes are continuous and not discrete.
Count Lucanor wrote:I presume "Nope" and "That's where the mistake is" means you disagree with what I said above.Steve3007 wrote:You can simulate water molecules on a computer and you'll never get physical water molecules, so obviously you (a person in the real world outside of the computer) will never get wet. But whatever properties emerge from the collective behaviour of water molecules can, in principle, also emerge in the simulation. So, as I said, emergent properties of both biological and non-biological systems can also emerge within the simulation.Nope, the supposedly emergent properties of simulated water cannot be the real, physical, emergent properties of water, unless we thought that emergence is a function of the algorithms, of the software running the natural program, not of the physical properties themselves.
That’s where the mistake is...
So, as I understand it, your position is that properties of individual water molecules (for example) can be simulated but emergent properties of those molecules can't? Emergent properties are collective properties. They're properties that emerge from the collective behaviour of the constituent parts but don't exist in those parts individually. Given all this, your position makes no sense to me. It's probably best to check that I've understood that position before continuing.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:32 am I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but a dividing line is ... a line. A dividing line is, by definition, a discrete boundary - a discontinuity - a point where the slope of the graph is undefined, etc. My original point, to which you replied, was that these discrete lines are placed by us according to our purposes, with the example of the evolution of modern humans.You’re giving a special meaning to the word “discrete” that I’m struggling to agree with in this context. Discrete values of anything are countable integers of it, with no middle ground. A continuum has non-discrete values, but it has values anyway, such as the wavelengths of visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum. Time is continuous, but that is not contradicted by the divisions of years, days, hours, etc. You seem to think that the idea of measurement itself means we are pointing to discrete values, but that is not the case. Now, you can say that wavelengths, days and years are somehow arbitrary conventions, but so are our abstractions about continuums. When talking about life forms, pointing to a continuum is a mere abstraction of a number of discrete entities. So, there should be no trouble in acknowledging the objective validity of our classifications, such as the one that divides life forms in orders, families, genus, species and so on. There are distinct separations among them. And clearly the human species has some unique features that justify our separation from the rest of animals and the rest of nature.
Count Lucanor wrote:You’re giving a special meaning to the word “discrete” that I’m struggling to agree with in this context...No, I'm using standard definitions of terms such as "discrete" and "dividing line".
Count Lucanor wrote:I have two types of objections:...To what? To something that I've said?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:40 pmJust in case, I looked it up. It is exactly as I said.Count Lucanor wrote:You’re giving a special meaning to the word “discrete” that I’m struggling to agree with in this context...No, I'm using standard definitions of terms such as "discrete" and "dividing line".
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:40 pmYou asked me to clarify what I was disagreeing with. I responded.Count Lucanor wrote:I have two types of objections:...To what? To something that I've said?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:40 pm Temperature (to take an example of an emergent property that you've mentioned) is a measure of the root mean square velocities of the individual molecules. If the movements of molecules can be simulated then their temperature can be simulated.Yes, sure you can program and simulate the motion of molecules, but that will not make heat emerge “naturally”.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 11th, 2024, 11:40 pm I think you're confused as to how simulations work and are objecting to things that I haven't said without really reading what I have said. When it gets to that stage I don't think there's much point in continuing (I don't want to just keep repeating myself or quoting what I've said previously), but it's been an interesting conversation. Thanks.Your choice. I agree you are repeating yourself, but that’s because instead of addressing the arguments against your statements, you just double down on your statements.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 1:17 am A lot has been said in this thread so far and it's difficult to keep track of who agrees or disagrees with what and why.A third camp could be opened: the one of the realists, who see that current AI technology, based on the computational theory of mind, cannot achieve real intelligence, nor agency. Even worse, the tech companies and their engineers are not looking anywhere else, among other things, because they are only interested in what is more profitable in the short run. They are selling snake oil.
There seem to be two camps. Firstly, there are those who think AGI is possible. Then there are those who think it is impossible. The impossibilists think there will always be something mysterious or spooky about consciousness and intelligence. I don't agree with that because intelligence and consciousness emerge from physical processes in physical brains and these physical processes can be understood and, eventually, emulated in artificial brains. Therefore, I think AGI is possible in principle.
However, to make it a reality we will first need to understand how "meat makes mind". Once we understand that, and can emulate it, the prospects for AGI are endless. And there is work being done right now on understanding how our brains do what they do.
When we can build it, AGI will be no more of a simulation that our own intelligence and consciousness. Artificial brains will build models of the world just as we do, and their brains will be flexible and capable of learning in a similar way to our own brains.
The current crop of AIs are nowhere near being able to do this. But, eventually, brains built on the same principles as organic brains will be able to achieve AGI. We have no reason to think that this is impossible.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 3:06 pmI am a realist. AGI will be different to current AI which is inflexible and can do only one, or a few, things, and which cannot learn new things, and has no “mental” model of the world and no awareness. AGI will be able to sense the world around it, form a mental model of the world, be flexible, be able to learn new things and have awareness.Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 1:17 am A lot has been said in this thread so far and it's difficult to keep track of who agrees or disagrees with what and why.A third camp could be opened: the one of the realists, who see that current AI technology, based on the computational theory of mind, cannot achieve real intelligence, nor agency. Even worse, the tech companies and their engineers are not looking anywhere else, among other things, because they are only interested in what is more profitable in the short run. They are selling snake oil.
There seem to be two camps. Firstly, there are those who think AGI is possible. Then there are those who think it is impossible. The impossibilists think there will always be something mysterious or spooky about consciousness and intelligence. I don't agree with that because intelligence and consciousness emerge from physical processes in physical brains and these physical processes can be understood and, eventually, emulated in artificial brains. Therefore, I think AGI is possible in principle.
However, to make it a reality we will first need to understand how "meat makes mind". Once we understand that, and can emulate it, the prospects for AGI are endless. And there is work being done right now on understanding how our brains do what they do.
When we can build it, AGI will be no more of a simulation that our own intelligence and consciousness. Artificial brains will build models of the world just as we do, and their brains will be flexible and capable of learning in a similar way to our own brains.
The current crop of AIs are nowhere near being able to do this. But, eventually, brains built on the same principles as organic brains will be able to achieve AGI. We have no reason to think that this is impossible.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 8:38 pmUsing your own terminology, you seem like a possibilist, not a realist. Realists looks at what is in front of them and make the best assessment with it. A realist is not speculating about the future without a firm foot in the present.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 3:06 pmI am a realist. AGI will be different to current AI which is inflexible and can do only one, or a few, things, and which cannot learn new things, and has no “mental” model of the world and no awareness. AGI will be able to sense the world around it, form a mental model of the world, be flexible, be able to learn new things and have awareness.Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 1:17 am A lot has been said in this thread so far and it's difficult to keep track of who agrees or disagrees with what and why.A third camp could be opened: the one of the realists, who see that current AI technology, based on the computational theory of mind, cannot achieve real intelligence, nor agency. Even worse, the tech companies and their engineers are not looking anywhere else, among other things, because they are only interested in what is more profitable in the short run. They are selling snake oil.
There seem to be two camps. Firstly, there are those who think AGI is possible. Then there are those who think it is impossible. The impossibilists think there will always be something mysterious or spooky about consciousness and intelligence. I don't agree with that because intelligence and consciousness emerge from physical processes in physical brains and these physical processes can be understood and, eventually, emulated in artificial brains. Therefore, I think AGI is possible in principle.
However, to make it a reality we will first need to understand how "meat makes mind". Once we understand that, and can emulate it, the prospects for AGI are endless. And there is work being done right now on understanding how our brains do what they do.
When we can build it, AGI will be no more of a simulation that our own intelligence and consciousness. Artificial brains will build models of the world just as we do, and their brains will be flexible and capable of learning in a similar way to our own brains.
The current crop of AIs are nowhere near being able to do this. But, eventually, brains built on the same principles as organic brains will be able to achieve AGI. We have no reason to think that this is impossible.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 8:38 pm Whether we call what it and biological brains do “computation” is irrelevant. AGI will operate in a similar way to a biological brain.Once again, predictions without any base in the present.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 8:38 pm There is no reason to think that this is impossible.Assuming that it was possible, that does not imply that it necessarily will happen. How do we jump from speculating to asserting something?
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 8:38 pm It will be difficult, and will take time, but I’m confident that it will happen because intelligence and consciousness emerge from physical processes in physical brains and these physical processes can be understood.Just being confident does not guarantee that something will happen or will be achieved. The reason you give for being confident doesn’t work either, because technical achievements depend on actual human capabilities, resources, etc., not on the physical nature of the problem. If you believe humans will necessarily solve some day all physical problems, that’s equivalent to a belief in the infinite powers of humans.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 12th, 2024, 8:38 pm There is some very interesting work being done by neuroscientists that is yielding insights into how our brains and those of other animals do what they do. Understanding brains is what is needed so that they can be emulated to eventually produce AGI.Of course, a first step in trying to replicate intelligence is to understand how it is produced by living beings. We are still babies with diapers in that field and we don’t know what walls we will hit. I see one of them in studying isolated brains, but anyway, if the problem is solved, being technically able to replicate it is another issue.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 13th, 2024, 1:41 am Right. I am an AGI possibilist based on work that has been done, and is currently being done, by neuroscientists and computer scientists.What computer scientists (not endorsing the computational theory of mind) are working on AGI?
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 13th, 2024, 1:41 am Of course, there is much still to do, but the literature leads me to believe that a start has been made on a new approach to understanding intelligence and consciousness.I’m eager to know what this new, unprecedented approach, is. I hope it is aligned with my general conviction that consciousness (or intelligence) cannot be understood as the function of an organ, but of the organism as a whole. That also means that at least part of the research program must necessarily focus on the interplay between the organic processes of the body as a whole and the qualitative experience of the self.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 13th, 2024, 1:41 am Intelligence and consciousness emerge from physical processes in physical brains and these physical processes can be understood and when they are, we will be able to emulate them and build AGI.There’s no guarantee we will understand it. That’s problem #1. Even if we did (and since there’s no guarantee, any prediction is wishful thinking), having the technical capabilities and resources to replicate it is problem #2. It is theoretically possible that I travel to the Amazon with friends one day and capture a huge anaconda. Does that guarantee that it will happen? Of course not.
Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 13th, 2024, 1:41 amI have said before that such argument implies an untempered belief on the infinite technical capabilities of humans, as if there’s only one way forward of unstoppable technical progress that will lead to everything being solved, given time. The truth is we can tell what we have achieved, but that gives no clue to what else will be achieved. Current AI is to AGI what bird-imitating flapping wings were in the first days of artificial flight. To this day, we have not been able to replicate the mechanics involved in the flight of birds, even though we understand the aerodynamics, for the very simple reason that scale becomes a factor. We pursued another strategies that worked for human flight. One could argue that we could do that with intelligence, but the problem is: there are many ways to fly, but is there any other way of being conscious? One could argue in that sense that we have achieved THAT OTHER WAY of intelligence with our pocket calculators and the first ENIAC, but then, why the unnecessary analogies with human intelligence and with agency driven by natural intelligence?
Many once believed that fast, heavier than air flight was impossible because it had never been done. But it got done because it was possible and people were willing to do the work to make it happen. AGI will get done because it is possible and enough smart people believe it can be done and are working towards it.
Current AI is to AGI what hot air balloons were to the 5th generation fighter jets of today.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
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
What might it look like if the entire edifice of[…]
This topic is about the December 2024 Philosophy […]