|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 21:42:26 GMT
Does it sound like that? Are you sure? If I haven't actually stated it (and I think I have), it should be clear that I believe science is not the only means by which we can be confident that something is true. Not to quibble (but to quibble), what does it mean that "I don't know, is the only answer [you] can empirically provide"? Are you saying that science is the only means of providing empirical truth? Well if I infer your stance, you attack me for doing so, and yet when I asked you your stance, you attack me for not properly inferring. The Mercy book is as challenging as the Freon one, apparently. I am saying that there may be another equal, or better, strategy for understanding our physical world besides science, but I have yet to be exposed to it. I am acknowledging that science itself may not be the best approach, that it may have to iterate to something new to increase its accuracy. But I think you already know my stance, as I already knew yours, so not sure why you insist we go through these motions over and over. I find your stance contradictory, because you actually use SCIENCE (though you don't realize it) to understand the world, but RELIGION to give you the answers. Whereas I would never use science to understand a metaphysical concept, nor use a metaphysical one to understand a physical one. Freon Did I actually "use science" to make my point? Or did I "use science" to offer possibilities outside our universe based on the limitations of science? As for "never using science to understand a metaphysical concept," your reticence is surprisingly limited. We use metaphors to understand things that are difficult to understand or describe and there's no reason to avoid science or scientific examples as comparisons, metaphors, etc. And vice versa. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 21:50:44 GMT
Well if I infer your stance, you attack me for doing so, and yet when I asked you your stance, you attack me for not properly inferring. The Mercy book is as challenging as the Freon one, apparently. I am saying that there may be another equal, or better, strategy for understanding our physical world besides science, but I have yet to be exposed to it. I am acknowledging that science itself may not be the best approach, that it may have to iterate to something new to increase its accuracy. But I think you already know my stance, as I already knew yours, so not sure why you insist we go through these motions over and over. I find your stance contradictory, because you actually use SCIENCE (though you don't realize it) to understand the world, but RELIGION to give you the answers. Whereas I would never use science to understand a metaphysical concept, nor use a metaphysical one to understand a physical one. Freon Did I actually "use science" to make my point? Or did I "use science" to offer possibilities outside our universe based on the limitations of science? As for "never using science to understand a metaphysical concept," your reticence is surprisingly limited. We use metaphors to understand things that are difficult to understand or describe and there's no reason to avoid science or scientific examples as comparisons, metaphors, etc. And vice versa. I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 22:26:13 GMT
Did I actually "use science" to make my point? Or did I "use science" to offer possibilities outside our universe based on the limitations of science? As for "never using science to understand a metaphysical concept," your reticence is surprisingly limited. We use metaphors to understand things that are difficult to understand or describe and there's no reason to avoid science or scientific examples as comparisons, metaphors, etc. And vice versa. I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all. Freon I said nothing whatsoever about "seeking proof." Can we know anything to be true without having scientific or logical proof? As for the use of metaphors, I said nothing at all about metaphors being precise. Why do you keep thinking I'm saying things that I'm not saying? |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 22:46:48 GMT
I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all. Freon I said nothing whatsoever about "seeking proof." Can we know anything to be true without having scientific or logical proof? As for the use of metaphors, I said nothing at all about metaphors being precise. Why do you keep thinking I'm saying things that I'm not saying? Did you not just scold me for not inferring? Honestly, sometimes I think you are female. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 23:03:07 GMT
I said nothing whatsoever about "seeking proof." Can we know anything to be true without having scientific or logical proof? As for the use of metaphors, I said nothing at all about metaphors being precise. Why do you keep thinking I'm saying things that I'm not saying? Did you not just scold me for not inferring? Honestly, sometimes I think you are female. Freon "I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all." Are you taking to me? Or to the ether? If you are talking to me, it would seem you are making these statements about me. If not, then why are you saying it?Geez, you're difficult. Nobody else here is like this. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 23:21:40 GMT
Did you not just scold me for not inferring? Honestly, sometimes I think you are female. Freon "I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all." Are you taking to me? Or to the ether? If you are talking to me, it would seem you are making these statements about me. If not, then why are you saying it?Geez, you're difficult. Nobody else here is like this. All I really care about is if AIs have souls. This tangent is purely your construction. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 0:26:43 GMT
"I don't think you really understand what I meant by 'use science'. If you are seeking proof, you are using science. Today, in modern times, seeking proof and evidence to understand our physical world is commonplace, it's not even actually thought about at a conscious level, because our modern technology-immersed society has that aspect embedded in it. You are taught it from birth. But go back just a few hundred years ago, and questioning the physical world, as you naturally do, would be a stoning offense. You ARE a scientist, in a limited sense, even if you don't want to be. So you DO use science to understand the world, but without any science training, you conclude based on religion. A metaphor is way of understanding something indirectly, and therefore, imprecisely. Science approaches understanding directly, and seeks precision. A metaphor, to a scientist, is a hypothesis that once rigorously tested, may become a theory, or in extremely rare cases, a law. So if you live your life understanding the metaphors as if they are precise, then you really have no understanding of the physical world at all." Are you taking to me? Or to the ether? If you are talking to me, it would seem you are making these statements about me. If not, then why are you saying it?Geez, you're difficult. Nobody else here is like this. All I really care about is if AIs have souls. This tangent is purely your construction. Freon Then why did you engage the tangent if you don't care? |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 0:37:37 GMT
All I really care about is if AIs have souls. This tangent is purely your construction. Freon Then why did you engage the tangent if you don't care? Because initially, the questions revolved around the topic. But I tend to forget that your MO is to ask questions, with no future point to make. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 10:59:54 GMT
Then why did you engage the tangent if you don't care? Because initially, the questions revolved around the topic. But I tend to forget that your MO is to ask questions, with no future point to make. Freon The thread had long veered from the topic and died until you resuscitated it. Weird. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Jan 10, 2024 11:36:48 GMT
Because initially, the questions revolved around the topic. But I tend to forget that your MO is to ask questions, with no future point to make. Freon The thread had long veered from the topic and died until you resuscitated it. Weird. There's no problem if a thread veers off topic as long as it does so organically. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 14:39:52 GMT
Because initially, the questions revolved around the topic. But I tend to forget that your MO is to ask questions, with no future point to make. Freon The thread had long veered from the topic and died until you resuscitated it. Weird. Doubling-down, as always. And you continue to wonder why I see far right in you. Even this comment you just made is off-topic. I've stated my views on souls in AIs. And I think a LONG time ago, you may have stated yours. I think it was that you DID see them as having them. Is that all you have to say on the matter? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 14:44:36 GMT
The thread had long veered from the topic and died until you resuscitated it. Weird. There's no problem if a thread veers off topic as long as it does so organically. I completely agree. What's weird is engaging the tangent and then complaining about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 14:50:52 GMT
The thread had long veered from the topic and died until you resuscitated it. Weird. Doubling-down, as always. And you continue to wonder why I see far right in you. Even this comment you just made is off-topic. I've stated my views on souls in AIs. And I think a LONG time ago, you may have stated yours. I think it was that you DID see them as having them. Is that all you have to say on the matter? Freon It's also weird that you squeeze every conversation into the parameters of politics. What does "right and left" have to do with this conversation? Yes, I made my position on AI pretty clear. As for the tangent, as davejavu said, it's pretty typical, normal, and acceptable for this to happen in conversations, and I have not been reticent to share my opinions in this part of the conversation as well (despite your claim that I "only ask questions"). For example, when it comes to "what we can know to be true," and you implied that we know by science (or whatever), I mentioned that pursuit of historical truth does not rely on the scientific method (which, of course, it cannot). That observation seemed to have been ignored. So either it was tacitly accepted or people believe that we cannot believe anything historical to be true. There's a huge irony here, because one day, a long, long time from now, distant galaxies will no longer be visible. If humans still exist, we will have to rely on the historical record to accept their existence, since they will be scientifically inaccessible. I think that's interesting. But, whatever. You're only interested in whether or not AI can have a soul—ironically, something that cannot be scientifically proven. We probably cannot know. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 14:53:55 GMT
Doubling-down, as always. And you continue to wonder why I see far right in you. Even this comment you just made is off-topic. I've stated my views on souls in AIs. And I think a LONG time ago, you may have stated yours. I think it was that you DID see them as having them. Is that all you have to say on the matter? Freon It's also weird that you squeeze every conversation into the parameters of politics. What does "right and left" have to do with this conversation? Yes, I made my position on AI pretty clear. As for the tangent, as davejavu said, it's pretty typical, normal, and acceptable for this to happen in conversations, and I have not been reticent to share my opinions in this part of the conversation as well (despite your claim that I "only ask questions"). For example, when it comes to "what we can know to be true," and you implied that we know by science (or whatever), I mentioned that pursuit of historical truth does not rely on the scientific method (which, of course, it cannot). That observation seemed to have been ignored. So either it was tacitly accepted or people believe that we cannot believe anything historical to be true. There's a huge irony here, because one day, a long, long time from now, distant galaxies will no longer be visible. If humans still exist, we will have to rely on the historical record to accept their existence, since they will be scientifically inaccessible. I think that's interesting. But, whatever. You're only interested in whether or not AI can have a soul—ironically, something that cannot be scientifically proven. We probably cannot know. We cannot know, that's true, but do you see why the question is important, anyway? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 14:56:23 GMT
It's also weird that you squeeze every conversation into the parameters of politics. What does "right and left" have to do with this conversation? Yes, I made my position on AI pretty clear. As for the tangent, as davejavu said, it's pretty typical, normal, and acceptable for this to happen in conversations, and I have not been reticent to share my opinions in this part of the conversation as well (despite your claim that I "only ask questions"). For example, when it comes to "what we can know to be true," and you implied that we know by science (or whatever), I mentioned that pursuit of historical truth does not rely on the scientific method (which, of course, it cannot). That observation seemed to have been ignored. So either it was tacitly accepted or people believe that we cannot believe anything historical to be true. There's a huge irony here, because one day, a long, long time from now, distant galaxies will no longer be visible. If humans still exist, we will have to rely on the historical record to accept their existence, since they will be scientifically inaccessible. I think that's interesting. But, whatever. You're only interested in whether or not AI can have a soul—ironically, something that cannot be scientifically proven. We probably cannot know. We cannot know, that's true, but do you see why the question is important, anyway? Freon I do. It was a good conversation. What it morphed into was also a good conversation. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 15:19:49 GMT
We cannot know, that's true, but do you see why the question is important, anyway? Freon I do. It was a good conversation. What it morphed into was also a good conversation. Can you explain why you think it is a good question to ask? To me, that is the heart of this thread. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 17:43:02 GMT
I do. It was a good conversation. What it morphed into was also a good conversation. Can you explain why you think it is a good question to ask? To me, that is the heart of this thread. Freon No. Should be obvious. Did you need to explain why it was good to ask whether AI has a soul? You're being silly. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 19:54:19 GMT
Can you explain why you think it is a good question to ask? To me, that is the heart of this thread. Freon No. Should be obvious. Did you need to explain why it was good to ask whether AI has a soul? You're being silly. Ok, I get it, you don't really understand, but you want to make it look like you do. I would have enjoyed the conversation, and would have been happy to explain. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 10, 2024 21:19:31 GMT
No. Should be obvious. Did you need to explain why it was good to ask whether AI has a soul? You're being silly. Ok, I get it, you don't really understand, but you want to make it look like you do. I would have enjoyed the conversation, and would have been happy to explain. Freon No, you obviously don't get it. Nobody here justifies a question. They just ask the question. If you don't understand why epistemology is important, well, I guess that's you then. Especially after all the conspiracy theory nonsense and misinformation during COVID. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 10, 2024 21:31:04 GMT
Ok, I get it, you don't really understand, but you want to make it look like you do. I would have enjoyed the conversation, and would have been happy to explain. Freon No, you obviously don't get it. Nobody here justifies a question. They just ask the question. If you don't understand why epistemology is important, well, I guess that's you then. Especially after all the conspiracy theory nonsense and misinformation during COVID. My response to this is the same as before. I have no idea what epistemology is, but if we were discussing it, I would have no issue asking for clarity. Freon |
|
