Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183602
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10 |
| Subject | Re: Scary AI |
| Date | 2025-04-13 02:38 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vtf82b$1rbhm$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <vt43ma$337e2$1@dont-email.me> <vt6j8n$1bam9$1@dont-email.me> <vt6mbn$1e7fe$1@dont-email.me> <vtb1jb$1ikm7$1@dont-email.me> <vtbjjr$26kj0$1@dont-email.me> |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 4/11/2025 8:23 AM, Chris wrote: > >>>> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for >>>> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take. >>>> >>> Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind >>> arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize >>> mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter. >>> That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms. >> >> DSM? >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 > >>> What's >>> schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe >>> it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then >>> your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription. >> >> Not here. We don't do insurance ;) >> >>> More >>> recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters. >>> But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it >>> can arrange a repeatable experiment for. >> >> False. >> > > That's the definition of empirical research. It must > be repeatable by other. Why did you snip my very clear examples? Uncomfortable for you were they? > Science could theorize that > angels live in raspberries, That's a hypothesis not a theory. > I suppose, but it can't be > tested if angels are not composed of matter/energy. > So angels must be rejected. People have studied the power of prayer. Unconventional science can be tested just as well as any other. This is the beauty and strength of the scientific method. It is objective. > Anyone who tries to keep > an open mind is saying that they'll accept the possibility > of angels *if the can be found at some point and defined > scientifically in terms of matter/energy.* > > Science, in that sense, is a closed loop. Nope. Science is completely open to things we don't understand. That is the whole point of the scientific method. In the days before scientific enlightenment Prof. Hoffman (below) would have been labelled a heretic and probably executed. We are lucky that we live in more open-minded times. Recent blips, excluded. >> Darwin's theory was completely untestable at the time. He also had no idea >> about genetics, DNA or molecular biology. All discoveries since have >> confirmed and strengthened the scientific basis for evolution. >> > Darwin's theory is still a theory. Ah the good ol' "it's just a theory" supposed debunk. > It was full of holes before > epigentics. It's still not proveable. It is very, very easy to prove. With bacteria that reproduce in minutes you can have hundreds of generations in a few days and demonstrate evolution. Hoffman doesn't dispute evolution either. >> We may even discover what there is beyond our universe. If anything. >> > There's that scientific materialism again. By definition > there's nothing beyond the universe. How do you know? We already know it has a beginning. So what was there before? >> I don't see why "mind" should be seen as distinct from science. They are >> complementary and interdependent. >> > Complementary would imply distinct. As would interdependent. > Either way, science cannot accept mind as such because it > can't be evidenced in scientific terms as something that's > not matter/energy. As I've shown above, that's not a requirement. Hoffman also describes empirical evidence. Within his conscious reality we still need evidence and not simply the voice of a persuasive individual. > It can't be measured empirically. That's > the point about the DSM. It's a book of symptoms used to classify > disorders for drug treatment and insurance coverage. You're confusing clinical practice with hard science. A book of diagnoses may be based on scientific research - it may also not be - but it is not in itself science. A lot of medicine is based tradition which is a problem and is taking a while to unwind. > (Psychiatry, > after all, is an industry based only loosely in science.) > > I think the key to being able to understand the possibilities > is to imagine mind as primary. Based on what we can know, that > possibility cannot be ruled out. To even consider it is to open up > new ways of looking at the nature of experience. In fact, there's > even a cognitive psychologist named Donald Hoffman who has > proposed such a theory: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0 Interesting guy. Provides an interesting view on reality which has fed into popular media like the Matrix style films (i.e. "there is no spoon "). For Hoffman, the mind is just a construct so we can study it. And he is. It is, according to the theory, made of conscious agents which (so far?) can't be studied. Which is potential weakness of his theory. Like other theories like String theory it is very useful in trying to think differently about our universe, but it is effectively impossible to study directly. Like I said. This is complementary. We can study both or more models as we know some or all may be wrong. Hoffman himself says he's also probably wrong. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to improve our understanding and get closer to what is right. By whatever method. I do have one question, however, if we're just an interface for these conscious agents why have we evolved at all? Or why does time exist? Seems weird for these agents to dumb down in order interact as biological entities in this fake universe.
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 16:26 +0100
Re: Scary AI "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-04-08 11:45 -0400
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 12:39 -0400
Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 19:07 +0100
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 14:45 -0400
Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 20:35 +0100
Re: Scary AI jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-09 14:01 -0500
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 20:57 +0000
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 17:16 -0400
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 19:53 +0000
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-09 16:47 -0400
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:23 +0000
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-11 13:31 -0400
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 02:30 +0000
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-13 07:49 -0400
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 13:08 +0000
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-04-18 01:40 +0300
Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-17 20:22 -0400
Re: Scary AI Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 06:44 +0000
Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-04-18 14:34 +0300
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 20:46 +0000
Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 22:48 +0100
Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:50 +0000
Re: Scary AI occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-04-18 16:45 +0200
Re: Scary AI Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-04-09 05:29 +0200
Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-04-18 01:02 +0300
csiph-web