My phrasing was indeed confusing. I would however point to the example of similar active verbs being applied to other inanimate objects capable of action (not rocks). For example, software — “software automates processes”. But, I do see your point. I’ll read up on active/inactive verbs 
A thanks to you for the reminder!
In this thought, yes, it does not and cannot have a preferred reference frame. In reality, however… see my second quote here.
Certainly challenging, but I’d disagree on “impossible”. I’d love to continue this thought —
taking at least an azimuth of perspectives
AI excels at handling absurdly large data sets — I’d say that’s not the problem. The next question to me seems to be how it would be trained to respond to new perspectives based on those it was initiated with.
no objective one
Fundamentally speaking, agreed. However (and this is where my knowledge of philosophy reaches its boundaries): When presented with two conflicting perspectives, is it possible for us, an outside observer, to create a third perspective that in the context of the situation is more objective than either of the two perspectives alone?*
(Does the notion of “more objective” exist?)
My hunch would be yes — that is the basis of quite a few behavioral therapy methods. My point that I’m trying to make here is, what if perhaps it doesn’t matter that no truly and fundamentally objective perspective exists?
Perspective A and Perspective B are presented. The newly crafted Perspective C, in the context of the two perspectives, is more comprehensive; it attempts to account for limitations, biases, and subjective influences of both A and B. It may not be purely objective in an absolute sense. But it is a more balanced synthesis that emerges from critical evaluation. Could that be enough?
Are you taking an azimuth and then asking how you would apply it to future/new observations?
Just curious.
self=other
What you’re doing is called graded absolutism. It’s just the golden rule spectrummed out into a rainbow.
A related concept that could be helpful is the same sort of possibility map that was done to arrive at the conclusion that there are a limited set of shapes into which we can evolve (more specifically, RNA secondary structure/folds is shaped more by the chemical outworkings of the laws of physics, or physical/chemical constraints, than historically contingent evolutionary process (various RNA sequences arrive at same shapes/folds)—iow, a baked-in, pre-sculpted teleology (full before it began). Fast-forward to 34 minutes, unless you want to hear a messed up definition of whiteness and why we can address disparities without maligning not just whiteness, but all positions of authority/expertise (which does not necessarily include white folks) (authority/expertise which can be abused, but aren’t necessarily).
Thanks - its a common enough error, but all the more important to mention is when it happens.
Many evolutionists make the same mistake by attributing an intentionalsit teleology to the appearance of traits and behaviours.
It’s my view that this mistake is so common that the whole filed shoots themselves in the foot and play into the hands of creationists.
Humans tend to see intentionality in many things, It is a basic and primitive way of looking at the world.
Avoiding this trendancy is all the more important as we transition into a world filled with AI.
What about the idea that a Cosmic intelligence (all cosmos is but pure thought) reduced to the uncertainty of the cat being alive or dead, is a 50/50 proposition, whereas it’s either alive depending on some conscious or unconscious intent on part of whoever experiences it where it’s a matter of a probable outcome one way or another?
How that fits in with the certainty /uncertainty of the degree of ego disbursement/dissemination to nil between the singular and the singularity of the entity called ‘the soul?
Ref; the placibo effect , studied on returning wounded soldiers post WW II
Let me get back to you once I’ve had a chance to do some research on the terms you’ve used – but we should chat because that is what I’m getting at.
Thanks, meanwhile I researched as well the parelllesim which exist between I thought to be original, for a long time believing in such processes that were historically described from Zplato’s ‘Anima Mundi’ to the works of such as Penrose.
As an apolitical afterthought, Awaewness, how very fitting to send the reason for the skeptic, that really, the name Meno,
As a consequence, gratefulness is the beginning of confidence, slowly overcoming those who were equal to the scrpticism/specificism ?evolving simultaneously.
So a quid pro po, that this paradox, has been left unsolved to have Meno to become a fitting archetype., as as awareness exists, in the growth of the very skepticism that the paradox lays in some misinterpretation in the very meaning ascribed to it, and here the fitting Apology for such, in as much as there is no true originality in the sense that can describe how transmission of knowledge can spring up coincidentally in two different persons/places , as for example here.
At the same time, the continuous flow of consciously manifested ideas, between Plato until uncertain lapses through the idea of monads, to Penrose, leaves Leibnittz in a transcendental mode, giving substance to reassert the critical idea .
So apologies and admiration to your insightful idea.
Thanks
Let me know when you start addressing the thread topic.
I’ll do, asap I kind of did with the author of this forum, he said he is researching my reply, nevertheless I redefine what must be an awful mess, I am aware of that, but last night I was thinking along similar lines, after doing my matrix chant, and it surprised the hell out of me(literally but guardedly) to see it in parallel with ‘awareness’
1 Like
The alternate question may be whether the reverse is equally a credible assumption.
That is can Human sequencing of bits of data overcome AI’s technological limitations of HUMAN.
I think that would be a primary question underlying such possible linkages between the two, because although sequencing has only the order of variable temporal duration at hand in a primary sense, HUMAN has to internalize or overlap such ‘feeling’ states, even if the primary state did not include IT’s own structural hierarchy, a matter that has been tragically unsuccessfully solved even for.Russell, Gödel and Cantor.
Not being a mathematician, but merely applying mathematical logic, may not serve to elucidate a paradoxical problem as such.
That difference l(between logical and mathematical reduction, led to a nominal
interpretation of uncertainty.(Wittgenstein)
()
)(
Unfortunately as none of the three remained unaffected by the effects of their mathematical logical interpretations, Wittgensteins naive regression toward nominal description resulted in this:
)()(
I’ll start addressing the main point when I feel I can understand it , so as to be understood, and .
Sorry for that delay
By emotional, we are referring to a characteristic that we interpret in a certain way, and by intelligence, we are talking about a concept that we still don’t have well defined, which we believe we know how to measure, but we don’t know exactly what it is.
If the question is aimed at thinking that AI will be able to understand patterns of behavior and response to human emotions, and with that help us avoid conflicts, both internal and external, I believe that yes, AI will facilitate that learning curve that in 100,000 years we still haven’t perfected.
How is this relevant?
In order to prevent bias from leaking in, a person should be able to point out the errors after correctly representing someone else’s perspective without smearing it with one’s own. And by errors, I am including the error Nietzsche mentioned when he said, “Without music life would be a mistake“. And no, I am not someone who thinks Nietzsche was freaking awesome at every point.
It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t consider people children of a parent unless they adopted the parent’s values. That reminds me of the Nietzsche quote (my last reply) that without music life would be a mistake. To repeat, I don’t think Nietzsche was awesome at every point.