Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183547
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10 |
| Subject | Re: Scary AI |
| Date | 2025-04-11 13:31 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vtbjjr$26kj0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <vt42j1$326a7$1@dont-email.me> <vt43ma$337e2$1@dont-email.me> <vt6j8n$1bam9$1@dont-email.me> <vt6mbn$1e7fe$1@dont-email.me> <vtb1jb$1ikm7$1@dont-email.me> |
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. Science could theorize that
angels live in raspberries, I suppose, but it can't be
tested if angels are not composed of matter/energy.
So angels must be rejected. 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.
> 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. It was full of holes before
epigentics. It's still not proveable.
> 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.
> 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. 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. (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
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