Artificial Intelligence

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

However, I don’t think a lay person should accept a philosopher’s word that he has a solution to a philosophical problem if it’s one that only other philosophers or people who can intelligently read philosophy can understand.

“I have solved the free will problem and if you read my 400 page treatise and have a solid background on the history of the problem you’ll understand that I did” is bullshit. So that’s one way philosophy is different from the sciences.

That’s the approach I take to my moral philosophy.  An everyday human phenomenon should be finitely complicated.  It shouldn’t be a “special new way to be boring”.  It should be fascinating.

When I present it to people they sometimes accuse me of not speaking English.  But that’s just because it’s new to them, so it goes over their heads, it’s unfamiliar so not recognisable.

[_Robert_]

We have a pond on the property. In it, lives a really old, really big snapping turtle. I watched it grab a blue heron by the leg as I was lounging on the beach with a dram of whisky. The bird would get free and then get pulled under again. Over and over. Finally, just a few feathers floating in the water. All because of Eve. The lion does not lay with the lamb. Hey but at least the heron has “free will”, LOL.

If you want to explain “sin or evil” (what stupid words), just look to evolution, the fight for tribal dominance and survival. All of this is explained perfectly. No. We prefer fairy tales as usual. It’s no wonder that people like Trump and Putin become our leaders. We are, in general, superstitious morons.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

“Evil” is defined in different ways in different times, places, and communities. In Sparta, for example, it wasn’t evil to murder deformed or weak babies.

But they were doing it for unselfish reasons: for the greater good. That’s not so different from our conception of good and evil.

It gets more complicated when the acts are individual (like whether to get an abortion) rather than social.

[_Robert_]

The debates on the existence of free will have been poisoned by “the god question.” The science on this topic is inconclusive. Science does not presuppose the answer. Theists however must have it exist to satisfy religious claims. They need relieve their god of the suffering and evil in his world.

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

It gets more complicated when the acts are individual (like whether to get an abortion) rather than social.

But the abortion question is framed as the greater good for the child – on either side.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

It gets more complicated when the acts are individual (like whether to get an abortion) rather than social.

But the abortion question is framed as the greater good for the child – on either side.

It’s often “framed” by people who aren’t facing the question and the woman facing the choice has already set aside “greater good for the child” question.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by Unseen.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I frame the question of abortion as a healthcare choice.

[Unseen]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I frame the question of abortion as a healthcare choice.

Well, yeah, but (as a pro-lifer might say) what about the health of the baby?

There is a deep divide over this issue and it’s not a disagreement over facts (which would make it solvable). Rather, it’s a disagreement in attitudes.

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

It’s often “framed” by people who aren’t facing the question and the woman facing the choice has already set aside “greater good for the child” question.

We don’t know how the individual women see it.  It must be pretty subjective.  As men, we never will understand it directly.

It can be argued that it’s very important socially, since if it’s wrong, it’s very wrong, and it’s going on under our noses.  On the other hand, if it’s acceptable under limited circumstances, we all want to know what the justifications are.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

It’s often “framed” by people who aren’t facing the question and the woman facing the choice has already set aside “greater good for the child” question.

We don’t know how the individual women see it. It must be pretty subjective. As men, we never will understand it directly.

It can be argued that it’s very important socially, since if it’s wrong, it’s very wrong, and it’s going on under our noses. On the other hand, if it’s acceptable under limited circumstances, we all want to know what the justifications are.

Justifications would apply if facts mattered. However, the disagreements over abortion are not disagreements over facts. They are conflicts over attitudes or matters of opinion or definition.

When does life begin? What IS life? Science depends on human attitudes and belief—often derived from traditions and dogmas—to define what life is before it can even know what facts are relevant.

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

However, the disagreements over abortion are not disagreements over facts.  They are conflicts over attitudes or matters of opinion or definition.

What is the highest good or goal on each side?

Pro-life people say that “life” is sacrosanct no matter what.  Pro-choice people take a longer-term approach and think about the lifetime of the baby and the mother.  Beyond that, doctors have a time limit of when they will perform an abortion.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Pro-life people say that “life” is sacrosanct no matter what.

Most pro-lifers are liars as they very quickly become anti-lifers or pro-death when it comes to capital punishment. So what if a few innocent people are murdered by the State. Yet a fetus that is about 2 to 2.5 inches (5 to 6 cm) long from crown to rump (head to bottom) and weighs about 0.5 ounces (14 grams) after 12 weeks of gestation.

I have shown pro-lifers the pictures of humans, dolphins, chimps, and dogs and cows at 10 weeks and none can tell the difference.

Evolution is as much a celebration of life’s shared history as it is of life’s diversity!

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

What is the highest good or goal on each side?

Simon, Simon, Simon. We do not live in a world where the average person is a philosopher who acts rationally without prejudice based on information. Most people act from their gut, taking their attitudes into account, and based only on the information they want to credit or even hear.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

OpenAI reveal they achieved AGI – OpenAI o3.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will have a degree of “self-awareness”, adaptability, and creative problem-solving in situations it hasn’t been explicitly trained for. It will have the ability to continually learn and adapt autonomously, mimicking human-like learning processes.

It will have the ability to continually learn and adapt autonomously, mimicking human-like learning processes and possess or simulate a form of consciousness, potentially exhibiting a deeper understanding of human context.

 

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

We do not live in a world where the average person is a philosopher who acts rationally without prejudice based on information.

That’s true, it must be a visceral decision at the end of the day for pregnant mothers.  But in wider society, on both sides, people take philosophical positions.

[Author]

Posts