|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2024 12:32:58 GMT -5
A pointer isn't a claim. It may be dressed up in the language of claims, but that's not what it is. When I say "Boo!" I may be trying to startle you, but I'm not making a claim. A few years ago, I suspect the movement to discuss this further would have been quite strong (I can feel inklings of it here and now) but I think I can respect the difference in point of view here, and I'll let it go (I'll take my energy to twitter instead....let's see what Carlson and Putin have to say )
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2024 20:37:13 GMT -5
A few years ago, I suspect the movement to discuss this further would have been quite strong (I can feel inklings of it here and now) but I think I can respect the difference in point of view here, and I'll let it go (I'll take my energy to twitter instead....let's see what Carlson and Putin have to say ) Only caught a little of the interview on Russel Brands YouTube video this morning, I don't think nato - uk - usa and other European countries would like it if things were the other way round. Don't really trust the intentions of most governments anymore. Look at the Farmers revolting everywhere at the moment. Haven't really seen much news and it was the first I have heard of the troubles when my mate told me the other day. yep the european farmers are getting a lot of coverage on social media. Even in Britain, there are farmers getting together, which I think says a lot.....Brits have great insight, but we have been raised on a traditional diet of stoicism and repression, and we perhaps aren't as likely to protest as the more volatile French and Spaniards. In Britain, I'm hoping Clarkson will be fronting it Did you see his farming program on Amazon? It's actually really good (recommend it to anyone here).
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 12, 2024 17:22:31 GMT -5
Nailed it. I'd also put 'imagination/inspiration' in that category The word "artificial" makes it quite clear that AI is a simulation. So, not the real deal. But I can map, functionally, how we would define/describe human intuition to the design principles and techniques to build a neural network. That's because the goal of the simulation is to try to replicate functionality of the human mind. People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt. But the blur happens for a reason, or really, a set of circumstances related to and giving rise to their set of beliefs. I would doubt anyone who posts here is in that situation, but it still is fascinating to examine the WIBIGO of culture at large on the topic. I'm not so sure about that. The word artificial refers to the fact that the system is, well, artificial – made by humans. But there are some in the field that think they will reach "artificial general intelligence", meaning it will have a flexible multi-purpose intelligence just like a human. Currently the programs are kind of specialized. I don't know if they'll achieve that. But I wonder where you're getting the confidence that they can't.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 12, 2024 17:32:02 GMT -5
No, it's not. Not really. The claim is intrinsically self-defeating, something like (though not exactly the same) saying: "I am a liar." It's extremely different from any claim of any actual woo. I disagree. I could agree that it's a 'non'-claim, but still a claim nevertheless. If you are actively pointing to 'Self' (which I've seen you do), you are participating and engaging with the 'non-claim'. I do understand what you mean by 'self-defeating', but engaging with the 'self-defeating' nature of the claim, is making a claim. When you next offer a pointer, ask yourself....'what is my intention here? What claim am I making?' I guess you dropped the topic, but I'll add quickly that what you said kind of makes sense to me if I think of looking at other people's "claims" of realization, like a spectator. But, those teachers don't say "believe my claim", they say "see/prove it for yourself". In this sense it's like a science experiment. You don't need to "believe a claim" that water boils at 100C. You can boil the water and see for yourself. You might say that the truth there has an operational definition, so the claim "water boils at 100C" means simply that you can perform that experiment. No lofty metaphysics about what water "really is". The analogy with realization breaks a bit, because the realization experiment is very private, and depends not on the perception of shared "matter", but on a kind of intro-ception...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2024 18:31:04 GMT -5
The word "artificial" makes it quite clear that AI is a simulation. So, not the real deal. But I can map, functionally, how we would define/describe human intuition to the design principles and techniques to build a neural network. That's because the goal of the simulation is to try to replicate functionality of the human mind. People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt. But the blur happens for a reason, or really, a set of circumstances related to and giving rise to their set of beliefs. I would doubt anyone who posts here is in that situation, but it still is fascinating to examine the WIBIGO of culture at large on the topic. I'm not so sure about that. The word artificial refers to the fact that the system is, well, artificial – made by humans. But there are some in the field that think they will reach "artificial general intelligence", meaning it will have a flexible multi-purpose intelligence just like a human. Currently the programs are kind of specialized. I don't know if they'll achieve that. But I wonder where you're getting the confidence that they can't. Didn't write that. I can walk you through some stick-figure elements of a consciousness simulation, if you'd like. I'm sure today's labs have far more sophisticated models than what I'd write though.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 12, 2024 18:44:42 GMT -5
I'm not so sure about that. The word artificial refers to the fact that the system is, well, artificial – made by humans. But there are some in the field that think they will reach "artificial general intelligence", meaning it will have a flexible multi-purpose intelligence just like a human. Currently the programs are kind of specialized. I don't know if they'll achieve that. But I wonder where you're getting the confidence that they can't. Didn't write that. I can walk you through some stick-figure elements of a consciousness simulation, if you'd like. I'm sure today's labs have far more sophisticated models than what I'd write though. Yes, I jumped to an assumption about your meaning. My bad. You wrote: "People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt." What is the "very important" thing that they miss? I assumed you were saying there was something special about the "human" intelligence that could not come from an "artificial" intelligence, and thus, AGI would not happen.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 12, 2024 19:15:49 GMT -5
Didn't write that. I can walk you through some stick-figure elements of a consciousness simulation, if you'd like. I'm sure today's labs have far more sophisticated models than what I'd write though. Yes, I jumped to an assumption about your meaning. My bad. You wrote: "People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt." What is the "very important" thing that they miss? I assumed you were saying there was something special about the "human" intelligence that could not come from an "artificial" intelligence, and thus, AGI would not happen. You might find Federico Fa ggin's (I had to split his name due to this crazy website's obscenity filter) comments about this issue interesting ("consciousness is vaster than space and time"). His breakthrough realization occurred while contemplating the issue of how to create a sentient computer. If you google his name, I think the appropriate videos and comments will appear.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Feb 12, 2024 23:40:28 GMT -5
Recently I've been listening to some talks and interviews with Michael Mckibben (founder of Leader Technologies) whose view on A.I. pretty much dovetails with my own version which contradicts the officially promoted dystopian version of A.I. that is a threat to humanity and is going to replace humans. He basically says that there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. And all those issues with so-called A.I. that haven been envisioned dystopian movies are all solvable because they are nothing else but engineering problems. Another key point re A.I replacing humans is that A.I. is just mimicking the nervous system. Any thoughts? I remember Being with Ian Wolstenholme Barry Long and my friends wife gave birth to izza a bundle of joy and she said enough talk about stillness look after her. It was the first time I felt vulnerable yet I looked into her eyes and I could see all her cells were vulnerable alive.Her eyes were innocent like mine. A deep lake . There was this non verbal communication but it was so present alive. And i I felt her beyond all my teachings all the stillness I know Her heart is alive just like my heart.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2024 6:55:10 GMT -5
Didn't write that. I can walk you through some stick-figure elements of a consciousness simulation, if you'd like. I'm sure today's labs have far more sophisticated models than what I'd write though. Yes, I jumped to an assumption about your meaning. My bad. You wrote: "People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt." What is the "very important" thing that they miss? I assumed you were saying there was something special about the "human" intelligence that could not come from an "artificial" intelligence, and thus, AGI would not happen. Thanks for that, I appreciate your sanity. Yes, now we're on the same page. I maintain that human intelligence is one thing, and AI is another.
Now, to answer your question directly, I'd have to expand on that. But before I do, please let me ask you this. Would you agree with the notion that your interest in this dialog can be expressed by the question "what is consciousness?" .. ?
Also, you have my I.O.U: you asked a direct question, which I haven't answered yet. Thank you in advance for your patience.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 13, 2024 9:39:47 GMT -5
Recently I've been listening to some talks and interviews with Michael Mckibben (founder of Leader Technologies) whose view on A.I. pretty much dovetails with my own version which contradicts the officially promoted dystopian version of A.I. that is a threat to humanity and is going to replace humans. He basically says that there is no such thing as artificial intelligence. And all those issues with so-called A.I. that haven been envisioned dystopian movies are all solvable because they are nothing else but engineering problems. Another key point re A.I replacing humans is that A.I. is just mimicking the nervous system. Any thoughts? I remember Being with Ian Wolstenholme Barry Long and my friends wife gave birth to izza a bundle of joy and she said enough talk about stillness look after her. It was the first time I felt vulnerable yet I looked into her eyes and I could see all her cells were vulnerable alive.Her eyes were innocent like mine. A deep lake . There was this non verbal communication but it was so present alive. And i I felt her beyond all my teachings all the stillness I know Her heart is alive just like my heart. Yes, the hubris of humans is rather amazing. No one can explain how a single hair grows, yet people think AI can somehow replicate sentience. Too funny.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2024 14:51:17 GMT -5
I disagree. I could agree that it's a 'non'-claim, but still a claim nevertheless. If you are actively pointing to 'Self' (which I've seen you do), you are participating and engaging with the 'non-claim'. I do understand what you mean by 'self-defeating', but engaging with the 'self-defeating' nature of the claim, is making a claim. When you next offer a pointer, ask yourself....'what is my intention here? What claim am I making?' I guess you dropped the topic, but I'll add quickly that what you said kind of makes sense to me if I think of looking at other people's "claims" of realization, like a spectator. But, those teachers don't say "believe my claim", they say "see/prove it for yourself". In this sense it's like a science experiment. You don't need to "believe a claim" that water boils at 100C. You can boil the water and see for yourself. You might say that the truth there has an operational definition, so the claim "water boils at 100C" means simply that you can perform that experiment. No lofty metaphysics about what water "really is". The analogy with realization breaks a bit, because the realization experiment is very private, and depends not on the perception of shared "matter", but on a kind of intro-ception... Well, even in terms of our our direct experience or knowing, a realization is had (which is experienced and accepted as credible, valid and perhaps 'true'). And yet this direct experience/knowing has no science foundation/basis. 'Formlessness' is something we talk about as if it is real and true, but is unprovable. Personally, I'm glad it is unprovable, because then it DOES require a leap of faith/trust away from the rational aspect of mind. If it was provable and concludable, it also wouldn't be 'realizable'. So from my pov, we are just as woowoo here as any religious group or new age group. It's just that we have a particular resonance with this kind of woowoo.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2024 15:04:07 GMT -5
At superbowl half time, apparently Alicia Keys apparently hit a duff note (amazing singer regardless).
Within minutes, this duff note was being edited out of the media, and now we watch her singing a pristine version, as if the original never happened. Perhaps at some point, people will be told that the duff note never happened at all.
If there is no past, or perhaps that we create the past from the present moment, does it matter that what we call 'history' can now be so easily edited and erased? ( Of course, this isn't a new thing, as the saying goes....the victors or war write the narrative, but with today's technologies, this can be exponentially accelerated)
From a spiritual point of view, how should we consider this modern pattern of what seems to be an 'updating' of our perceptions to suit particular narratives?
As a side note, some of you might have heard of the Mandela effect, it's been around a while. I'm wondering if this was a precursor....a way of introducing us to this idea of 'updating'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2024 15:10:59 GMT -5
Another question. Listening to David Icke this morning, he talked about what he sees as a plan to merge 'the AI cloud' with our brain/minds. Our thoughts will then manifest as the thoughts of the AI cloud. Seems feasible to me, as a plan.
From a spiritual point of view, in which 'Beingness' is generally valued over mind, does it matter if our thoughts are our 'own', or if they express a hive AI mind?
Interested in hearing from Gopal on this, as when I talk to him lately on here, I sometimes experience a subtle sense that I am talking to an 'AI cloud' simultaneously with Gopal. That subtle sense that I experience might be false of course, but Gopal, do you care if your mind becomes an AI mind?
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 14, 2024 21:52:53 GMT -5
Yes, I jumped to an assumption about your meaning. My bad. You wrote: "People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt." What is the "very important" thing that they miss? I assumed you were saying there was something special about the "human" intelligence that could not come from an "artificial" intelligence, and thus, AGI would not happen. You might find Federico Fa ggin's (I had to split his name due to this crazy website's obscenity filter) comments about this issue interesting ("consciousness is vaster than space and time"). His breakthrough realization occurred while contemplating the issue of how to create a sentient computer. If you google his name, I think the appropriate videos and comments will appear. Thanks, I'll check him out. Interesting that he was a hard core tech guy (designed Intel chips). Some of the early 20th century physicists were also pretty mystical.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 14, 2024 21:57:26 GMT -5
I guess you dropped the topic, but I'll add quickly that what you said kind of makes sense to me if I think of looking at other people's "claims" of realization, like a spectator. But, those teachers don't say "believe my claim", they say "see/prove it for yourself". In this sense it's like a science experiment. You don't need to "believe a claim" that water boils at 100C. You can boil the water and see for yourself. You might say that the truth there has an operational definition, so the claim "water boils at 100C" means simply that you can perform that experiment. No lofty metaphysics about what water "really is". The analogy with realization breaks a bit, because the realization experiment is very private, and depends not on the perception of shared "matter", but on a kind of intro-ception... Well, even in terms of our our direct experience or knowing, a realization is had (which is experienced and accepted as credible, valid and perhaps 'true'). And yet this direct experience/knowing has no science foundation/basis. 'Formlessness' is something we talk about as if it is real and true, but is unprovable. Personally, I'm glad it is unprovable, because then it DOES require a leap of faith/trust away from the rational aspect of mind. If it was provable and concludable, it also wouldn't be 'realizable'. So from my pov, we are just as woowoo here as any religious group or new age group. It's just that we have a particular resonance with this kind of woowoo. I have no idea what you're talking about with a realization being "accepted as credible", or requiring "faith". That sounds like some neutered dead-concept version of the subject matter. So, yeah, not worth discussing.
|
|