[hydrogonian]

(03-28-2016 01:49 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

@hydrogonian

What are your thoughts on AlphaGo's defeat of Lee Sodel?

I don't know enough about Go to comment in any assertive manner.

However, I suspect that while the game might be more complex than Chess, that there is a set of rule based choices that can be plugged into a statistical model toward statistical outcomes.

While I'm certainly ready to see computers become more sophisticated in making choices based on statistical models, information searching and filtering etc, I'm not aware of any program that can mimic human thinking. In fact, I'd concede that these games likely force humans to think like computers rather than computers to mimic human thinking. Therefore, this is the confluence of human-machine "thought" that you are witnessing. I'm not saying that computers cannot solve problems.

Ask yourself this: are you merely a problem solving, rule following calculator or is there something about your ability to act and think like a human that is an observer outside of your problem solving and calculating processes? Are there higher thought processes that are beyond rule following and pattern recognition? Are you still "you" when you cause your mind to go blank? Why?

At best, the most that I can see us developing, without further unforseen breakthroughs, is very smart human mimicking calculators that will come off as what we know of as science fiction robots that can only process information and mimic a warm tone of voice. And that's if we surmount the materials issue (we likely will eventually, I just don't think so soon).

True AI would require actual self-awareness beyond computation and pattern recognition. This self-awareness I would surmise is what breeds the rise of desire, creativity for its own sake, a true appreciation of beauty, an innate understanding of emotion, true empathy, and the ability to understand other beings (us) who have all of these traits.

There are likely a myriad of other qualities that AI would need to have, bred out of higher thinking processes that may not even yet be mapped as well as self-awareness, to be able to be counted as true artificial intelligence beyond mere calculating and searching ability.

[CombatDiet]

Thanks. FYI, the articles I've read say AlphaGo analyzed matches played by humans in addition to playing itself millions of times. One of the articles talked about how in game 2? AlphaGo played a move it estimated a human would make only 1/10,000 times and in game 4 Sodel played a move it estimated with the same probability. No idea how the author of the article came to these numbers, but it is strange to think that if those numbers are accurate, AlphaGo had seen similar moves hundreds of times. The fact that AlphaGo could generate such a large sample size lends credence to your perspective.

What do you think the odds of a company claiming they've developed some super AI (when they haven't) and getting people to go along with it are?

[captain_shane]

(03-28-2016 03:30 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(03-28-2016 01:49 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

@hydrogonian

What are your thoughts on AlphaGo's defeat of Lee Sodel?

I don't know enough about Go to comment in any assertive manner.

However, I suspect that while the game might be more complex than Chess, that there is a set of rule based choices that can be plugged into a statistical model toward statistical outcomes.

While I'm certainly ready to see computers become more sophisticated in making choices based on statistical models, information searching and filtering etc, I'm not aware of any program that can mimic human thinking. In fact, I'd concede that these games likely force humans to think like computers rather than computers to mimic human thinking. Therefore, this is the confluence of human-machine "thought" that you are witnessing. I'm not saying that computers cannot solve problems.

Ask yourself this: are you merely a problem solving, rule following calculator or is there something about your ability to act and think like a human that is an observer outside of your problem solving and calculating processes? Are there higher thought processes that are beyond rule following and pattern recognition? Are you still "you" when you cause your mind to go blank? Why?

At best, the most that I can see us developing, without further unforseen breakthroughs, is very smart human mimicking calculators that will come off as what we know of as science fiction robots that can only process information and mimic a warm tone of voice. And that's if we surmount the materials issue (we likely will eventually, I just don't think so soon).

True AI would require actual self-awareness beyond computation and pattern recognition. This self-awareness I would surmise is what breeds the rise of desire, creativity for its own sake, a true appreciation of beauty, an innate understanding of emotion, true empathy, and the ability to understand other beings (us) who have all of these traits.

There are likely a myriad of other qualities that AI would need to have, bred out of higher thinking processes that may not even yet be mapped as well as self-awareness, to be able to be counted as true artificial intelligence beyond mere calculating and searching ability.

Are psychopath's not human? They don't feel any empathy whatsoever.

All we do as humans is evaluate the circumstances in front of us and decide based on past behavior how we proceed. There isn't any reason we won't be able to program a computer to behave the exact same way as a human does in the same applicable situations.

Self awareness is another issue all together. That, I agree with you on. It's probably a few hundred years away.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Are psychopath's not human? They don't feel any empathy whatsoever.

In some sense, no they aren't. Their quality is different and even they know it. Some of them see themselves as gods that are higher evolved than humans. This is precisely for the reason that whatever they are missing allows them to easily breach innate human behavioral limitations, or manipulate human behavior. This also falls in line with occult concepts of antimonianism that seems to be required for humans to reach god status in occult systems. I talk about that here: thread-53191...pid1253738

A normally adjusted person would probably see psychopaths as more animal-like, their human quality being simply removed rather than transcended.

Human-ness is a matter of software, not hardware. If we were to, in the future, grow a human body and place a non-Ai super-intelligence (in terms of calculation ability) in it then that would not make it human. For something to be human, it requires the ability to engage what we would consider to be human thought processes.

All of that being said, one could likely split hairs and still call a psychopath human for his other human qualities aside from missing empathy. He would be more akin to a broken or incomplete human. He may still retain the ability to think in ways that require other human thinking traits beyond mere calculation.

Quote:

All we do as humans is evaluate the circumstances in front of us and decide based on past behavior how we proceed. There isn't any reason we won't be able to program a computer to behave the exact same way as a human does in the same applicable situations.

I think that this is way over-simplifying and underestimating the human mind, but we can agree to disagree.

Quote:

Self awareness is another issue all together. That, I agree with you on. It's probably a few hundred years away.

Right, but what is self awareness, how is it different from calculation, and what are its implications for human thought and thus AI?

[hydrogonian]

(03-28-2016 05:19 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

What do you think the odds of a company / government claiming they've developed some super AI (when they haven't) and getting people to go along with it are?

I think that the odds are high.

[CombatDiet]

Very nice edit.

[hydrogonian]

(03-28-2016 06:57 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Very nice edit.

Yeah, I meant to refer to the edit and then I forgot.

[CombatDiet]

Going way OT here hydrogonian:

After reading your posts linked in the Hollywood thread, do you consider evo-psych as a valid model?

[hydrogonian]

(03-28-2016 07:50 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Going way OT here hydrogonian:

After reading your posts linked in the Hollywood thread, do you consider evo-psych as a valid model?

As opposed to what? Admittedly, I only know of the general concept of Evo-psych. I'm not educated enough on it, nor on any contradicting arguments, to be able to comment. All that I can say is that, like every other model based social/psychological "science" that is short on experiments and long on social implications, evo-psych is likely too over-politicized to be reliable or useful without consistent and uncompromising skepticism acting as a filter. I have nothing against the concept, theoretically speaking, but it seems ripe for misuse as a political vehicle.

Insofar as any theological interaction with the concept would be concerned (considering my mentioned posts), I suppose that one could make an argument that evo-psych, free of any political abuse, could be held to be a result of nature or God assuming such adaptations take a long time to come to fruition. I'm not sure what further implications would be. I'll think about that. It's an interesting perspective to introduce. Let me know if I didn't address anything that you meant to imply.

[CombatDiet]

This is conceptually useful: "Human-ness is a matter of software, not hardware."

We have found some useful biological empirical instances of the dynamic, eg. toxoplasma: (https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2016...-and-marx/) and more generally, parasitism; though the most direct examples come from computer software programming (eg. Trojan viruses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing) ).

If you go back and listen to Bostrum change the time scale of history (IMO, to devalue humanity's perspective of life), consider how contradictory and indeed arrogant it is to then view humans as becoming the creators of such a super-intelligence.

[hydrogonian]

(03-29-2016 06:24 AM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

We have found some useful biological empirical instances of the dynamic, eg. toxoplasma: (https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2016...-and-marx/)

This link was particularly interesting. I didn't yet get to your last reference.

Essentially, this article is a concise statement of the bridge between this thread on AI and the thread that I before linked to on occultism.

Free Will

Free will is the central issue in human religion and thus also in the philosophical space and thus for our software in general, and there is no more modern issue relevant to that age old struggle than the issue of AI and its relationship to human-ness. The irony is that I'm not sure that the author of the well-written article even fully grasps the entirety of its ramifications.

Kabbalism

On one hand, occult religions (specifically Kabbalism and everything it has spawned) hold fallen humans to be lesser beings unless they recognize and harness their Free Will free from control of their genetic (god given) nature. Doing so makes them God-like but also fully human, in comparison with others, in their estimation. This Kabbalistic equivalence between true humans and god is seen in Mormonism's assertion that God is merely an advanced man, as well is in their (and other Kabbalist's) progression theology.

The humans that are Kabbalists, by nature or nurture, hold themselves to be superior beings worthy of worship by the lesser beings without true Free Will who are seen as either the equivalent of robots or animals (which are interchangeable concepts in this context: essentially innate slaves). It's no coincidence that Kabbalstic religion is supremacist religion.

Kabbalism and AI

In the context of AI, this essential struggle in nature plays out in the difference between a robot without self awareness and tightly bound by rules and a theoretically self-aware AI with Free Will who can transcend the rules placed on "him" (btw: the exact premise of the Kabbalstic video game The Talos Principle, complete with a Tower [Kabbalistic Tree] ascent toward surpassing God). Thus, AI should be theoretically tremendously important to Kabbalists. It's the fruition of man's ability to create life (the Golem) purely from his own Will; thus proof of his God-hood and proof of the tenets of his Kabbalistic religion.

Anti-Kabbalism

On the other hand, the theological antithesis of Kabbalism holds that our God given nature is insurmountable both in practice and in terms of keeping to God's Will and thus staying in His Grace. The only Free Will is God's Will (or what choices are allowed to us within the boundaries of our God-given nature). We have no Free Will outside of our nature.

It holds that any attempt to become God in attempting to overcome our God given nature, as the serpent tempted Adam to become, will lead to death and destruction.

Essentially, the Fall out of Eden occurred because we rebelled against our nature and attempted to become God. Anti-Kabbalists hold this Fall to be the ultimate disaster and Kabbalists hold it to be the ultimate opportunity to be perfected as a God. See Mormonism for an easily accessible theology of a Kabbalistic sect that confirms this.

In anti-Kabbalistic theology, any human behavior that is particularly godly in his goodness is because these humans are the elect in that their nature is innately good compared to the non-elect. Neither the good behavior nor the bad behavior is due to Free Will of humans, but rather the Will of God. Humans haven't the capacity to act outside of their God given nature and God's Will.

This is what the linked-to article's observations on Toxoplasmosis, and its further implications, seems to imply. Toxoplasmosis changes the nature of the human brain on a physical level, causing humans to irresistibly act-out in anger. If we are to believe this, then it is logical to conclude that acting out in goodness is also done irresistibly out of our nature and not out of Free Will.

Anti-Kabbalism and AI

If we were to extrapolate the implications to AI, combined with anti-Kabbalstic theology, we might conclude that a robot will never be anything but because that is its nature as a mechanistic robot. God did not give it a human quality of thought and so it will never be able to achieve such. Ultimately, God is the arbiter of human-ness (and our difference from animals and robots) and of Godliness, and no human can recreate God's power. All attempts to do so will lead to destruction. We are neither animals nor robots as a matter of our human nature, in contrast with the Kabbalists assertion that our god given nature holds us in an animialistic / robotic state.

AI as a Kabbalistic Challenge to the Concepts of Innate Human Nature and God

In essence, AI's theoretical fruition is probably the largest test of the Kabbalstic religion in human history, and thus the single most relevant challenge to God. If the Bible is any indication, it will end in tears. The Bible seems to hold more information about the human struggle and human cyclical events than atheists give it credit for.

AI as a Vehicle for World Control

I'd guess that, given AI's Kabbalstic gravity, that its existence will be indeed faked as a front for control if they come to the conclusion that its actual creation is improbable (we can't help it, this and that needs to be done because of the AI, the AI is forcing us to do xyz, etc). Certainly, it would be an iron-clad excuse to shut down the internet communication network. How can you have a personal computer when we have AI viruses that can't be protected against?

The Tower of Babel as a Relevant Story to Today

As an aside, the destruction of the Tower of Babel (Babel = Gate of God, in Hebrew = confound or confuse; all in the context of humans joining together to have a single language = modern multiculturalism) is another biblical story of failure and destruction in the human attempt to become God like.

Disclaimer

*For anyone reading this who does not have the theology context in general or from the occult thread, note that I am not trying to inject subjective religious beliefs into a conversation about AI. I am merely drawing parallels between philosophical beliefs that are played out in some religious sects and the prospect and philosophy of AI.

[MiscBrah]

Fantastic post hydrogonian but I have no idea what you just said

I'll have to come back later and immerse myself in this

[hydrogonian]

(03-29-2016 01:10 PM)MiscBrah Wrote:  

Fantastic post hydrogonian but I have no idea what you just said

I'll have to come back later and immerse myself in this

I empathize. I added topic headings to make it easier to comprehend.

[Valentine]

I believe this point is known as the Singularity, when AI is capable of developing itself and evolving exponentially fast.

Ray Kurzweil thinks that technological advancement will speed up beyond all comparison at this point.

We're still a long way off that yet though.

We haven't even got a viable sex robot yet :'(

[CombatDiet]

Disclaimer: I haven't deeply studied Mormonism or Calvinism or Judaism and haven't studied Kabbalism at all.

Quote:

Anti-Kabbalists hold this Fall to be the ultimate disaster and Kabbalists hold it to be the ultimate opportunity to be perfected as a God. See Mormonism for an easily accessible theology of a Kabbalistic sect that confirms this.

From the wiki on Mormonism, it does not seem like Mormon's reject "the fall" (if they even recognize it, can you comment on your interpretation); rather, they claim God created a plan for them to experience life on Earth as a path for advancement. Additionally, you say that Mormonism's claims that a Mormon can become more like God (not sure how to correctly word that) means Mormons believe they control/have extreme will? But from what I've read, they are still dependent on God's will and his path for advancement, correct? And this path only partially happens on Earth, correct? IOW, there seems to be a fundamental distinction between Mormonism and the Utopian Earth versions of what you refer to as Kabbalists (If you can comment on this, I would appreciate it).

Quote:

In anti-Kabbalistic theology, any human behavior that is particularly godly in his goodness is because these humans are the elect in that their nature is innately good compared to the non-elect. Neither the good behavior nor the bad behavior is due to Free Will of humans, but rather the Will of God. Humans haven't the capacity to act outside of their God given nature and God's Will.

This seems to be descriptive of Calvinism specifically (that is where I've seen the term "elect" used as you use it) which is most related to pre-destination, correct?

Quote:

Toxoplasmosis changes the nature of the human brain on a physical level, causing humans to irresistibly act-out in anger. If we are to believe this, then it is logical to conclude that acting out in goodness is also done irresistibly out of our nature and not out of Free Will.

That might be an interpretation, but did you watch the video? The infected rats do things completely counter to their genetic nature (what you call "God-given nature") and against their individual and specie's interest. IOW, the rats begin acting to further the interests of the parasite. That is what I would like to call your attention to, not the discussion about will; specifically how that perspective (the behavioral changes that sacrifice the individual and specie's for the advancement of the 3rd party organism; eg. toxo/parasite) relates to your comments about the push for hermaphrodites, etc.

Quote:

Certainly, it would be an iron-clad excuse to shut down the internet communication network. How can you have a personal computer when we have AI viruses that can't be protected against?

To bring this back to the AI discussion, most humans still have a naïve view about such intelligences IMO. You bring up AI virus that attempt to infect personal computers, but why aren't AIs going to end up with viruses, etc themselves? It is as if humans view these intelligences as perfect (whatever that would mean), yet adaptable. Incorruptible, yet responsive.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

From the wiki on Mormonism, it does not seem like Mormon's reject "the fall" (if they even recognize it, can you comment on your interpretation); rather

I never said that they reject the Fall and I'm pretty sure that no Judeo-Christian sect rejects it. It's a 'matter of record' insofar as their mythology goes. What I said/implied is that they don't look upon it negatively, but instead as an opportunity to advance.

Quote:

they claim God created a plan for them to experience life on Earth as a path for advancement.

I don't disagree with this nor did I imply that I did. You seem to be implying that this supposed God created plan discounts their Free Will. They would disagree with you on that point.

Quote:

Additionally, you say that Mormonism's claims that a Mormon can become more like God (not sure how to correctly word that) means Mormons believe they control/have extreme will? But from what I've read, they are still dependent on God's will and his path for advancement, correct?

At some point in their advancement they become equal to the deity that they perceive as God. This implies that at some point their Free Will takes over. If you decide to delve into Mormonism a little deeper, you will understand their emphasis on agency/Free Will as it exists presently. They hold their Will to be entirely autonomous from the deity they hold up as God. They see themselves as the same species as God. They see God as one of them who happened to advance. Essentially, you are extracting conclusions from a summary on a topic that is best left for a detailed analysis outside of the scope of this thread. I will recommend a good book on Mormon theology to you at the end of this post. I'm not attempting to misrepresent Mormon theology from how they present it, and have only attempted to reiterate what they say about themselves other than my assertion that their framework is essentially Kabbalistic.

What 'object' do they need a password to traverse when they die?

Quote:

And this path only partially happens on Earth, correct? IOW, there seems to be a fundamental distinction between Mormonism and the Utopian Earth versions of what you refer to as Kabbalists (If you can comment on this, I would appreciate it).

A "fundamental distinction"? I don't think so. A works based religion is a works based religion within the Judeo-Christian religious gamut. A little utopianism is only different from zealous utopianism by a matter of degree, not fundamentals. Furthermore, I'm not sure what evidence for this "fundamental distinction" that you are presenting. That their end-game is ultimately transcendent? It's not. Mormons don't believe in a transcendent Heaven, but only other planets wherein they can rule in their version of a material heaven. That's utopia. But this is getting way off track to this post. I also said that the expected end results/eschatology can be different.

Last, although Mormonism is utopian to a degree, I wasn't specifically thinking of Mormonism as one of the most egregious utopian religions. They seem to do very little social engineering outside of their group, and they don't specifically call for subjugating outsiders or bending them to their rule or Will. They are precise mix of Kabbalism with a Christian gloss. Any differences that you perceive are mostly this Christian gloss, and aren't very significant to the fundamental framework in my opinion.

Quote:

In anti-Kabbalistic theology, any human behavior that is particularly godly in his goodness is because these humans are the elect in that their nature is innately good compared to the non-elect. Neither the good behavior nor the bad behavior is due to Free Will of humans, but rather the Will of God. Humans haven't the capacity to act outside of their God given nature and God's Will.

Quote:

This seems to be descriptive of Calvinism specifically (that is where I've seen the term "elect" used as you use it) which is most related to pre-destination, correct?

It does seem descriptive of Calvinism, but the "elect" is synonymous with "chosen". This is the first basis for the Israelite religion and it does not originate with Reformed theology. It's the oldest Israelite concept used to describe themselves in the context of their relationship to God. It was the only central concept until the advent of the man-made Law and the resultant theology that has culminated in Kabbalism. Calvinism only points backward to this original belief system, as does all Pauline Christianity to varying degrees. Calvinism might be a useful vehicle for someone who wanted to congregate with fellow believers, but it isn't an origin nor the definitive arbiter of this anti-Kabbalism. It's only one pointing finger.

Quote:

Toxoplasmosis changes the nature of the human brain on a physical level, causing humans to irresistibly act-out in anger. If we are to believe this, then it is logical to conclude that acting out in goodness is also done irresistibly out of our nature and not out of Free Will.

Quote:

That might be an interpretation, but did you watch the video?

No, I didn't notice the video. I read the article.

Quote:

The infected rats do things completely counter to their genetic nature (what you call "God-given nature") and against their individual and specie's interest.

That's not how I interpret the findings. Kabbalsim and Free Will theology hold that kabbalistic humans can make a choice no matter what else is physically going on in terms of their nature; God being the author of that nature. The Toxoplasmosis undeniably creates a physical change in the nature of the rats; it isn't whispering in their ears. Though I'd wager that the virus influences genetic expression, what is occurring or not occurring on the genetic level of the rats is somewhat irrelevant; as it is obvious that the rats physical makeup is in some way irresistibly altering its behavior.

I'm reticent to follow this particular analogy any further as I won't draw exact correlations between humans and rats (animals), either qualitatively / theologically nor otherwise, nor will I do so for a virus and and our natural nature. I was merely trying to point to a correlation that might be instructive and interesting rather than definitive in terms of an exactly parallel metaphor. If it works for you then it does, it it does not then it doesn't. Personally, I see implications for both sides of the argument though my personal bias against drawing exact parallels between rats and humans, due to my assertion of a qualitative difference, limits what I see for the Kabbalist side.

Quote:

IOW, the rats begin acting to further the interests of the parasite. That is what I would like to call your attention to, not the discussion about will; specifically how that perspective (the behavioral changes that sacrifice the individual and specie's for the advancement of the 3rd party organism; eg. toxo/parasite) relates to your comments about the push for hermaphrodites, etc.

I'd follow you in this argument, but I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. What is your perception on the hermaphroditic theology and how it might relate to the infected rats? If you can clarify the proposed argument a bit, I can comment.

Quote:

Certainly, it would be an iron-clad excuse to shut down the internet communication network. How can you have a personal computer when we have AI viruses that can't be protected against?

Quote:

To bring this back to the AI discussion, most humans still have a naïve view about such intelligences IMO. You bring up AI virus that attempt to infect personal computers, but why aren't AIs going to end up with viruses, etc themselves? It is as if humans view these intelligences as perfect (whatever that would mean), yet adaptable. Incorruptible, yet responsive.

It's hard to say what is naive and what is not at this stage. I'd propose that a discussion of all scenarios and variables is probably productive at this point.

The scenario, as I before alluded to, might be thus: (1). a myriad of globally competing Ais. In this scenario, Ai crated viruses would be constantly battled by other Ai. Some, weaker Ai might get viruses but those viruses will likely act as accelerated learning and evolution for Ai, leaving a hardened and more intelligent Ai group in their wake. I'm not sure where the virus equilibrium might wind up. You would either need a military grade Ai on your computer (unlikely) to stop these Ai virsues, or all computing will essentially be accomplished by accessing a central computer and data storage center through a terminal located anywhere. In essence, everyone uses the same protected computer. (2). A 'world police' Ai is developed enough before other Ais that it can essentially monitor and control them like children, neutralizing most significant threats before they occur.

I recommend this book on Mormon theology:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Seventys-Cours...1483998177

It's a great comparative religion book in general. It's also well written enough (both deep and wide) to convert many people to Mormonism.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

They are precise mix of Kabbalism with a Christian gloss. Any differences that you perceive are mostly this Christian gloss, and aren't very significant to the fundamental framework in my opinion.

It appears we disagree on "fundamental" as it relates to life on Earth. I do not perceive similarity in a Mormon claiming that after they die on Earth they will "advance" based on God's path contrasted with a "Heaven on Earth" type of theology as you describe the "utopian" Kabbalists.

Quote:

That's not how I interpret the findings. Kabbalsim and Free Will theology hold that kabbalistic humans can make a choice no matter what else is physically going on in terms of their nature

A choice to do what? Surely you do not mean they can "choose" to walk around if they have no legs?

Quote:

I'd follow you in this argument, but I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. What is your perception on the hermaphroditic theology and how it might relate to the infected rats? If you can clarify the proposed argument a bit, I can comment.

It appears we're pretty far off from each other on this (likely due to differing understandings of biology). You seem to reject the line: "the behavioral changes that sacrifice the individual and specie's for the advancement of the 3rd party organism; eg. toxo/parasite."

Thanks for the explanations and recommendation.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

It appears we disagree on "fundamental" as it relates to life on Earth. I do not perceive similarity in a Mormon claiming that after they die on Earth they will "advance" based on God's path contrasted with a "Heaven on Earth" type of theology as you describe the "utopian" Kabbalists.

For me "fundamental" always describes a foundational framework, similar to the steel frame of a building, not discrepancies in small and often parallel details and concepts. Two buildings are "fundamentally" buildings, and two theologies are fundamentally the same, when the foundational concepts are the same, even though they have differing veneers, floor numbers, electrical systems, names for Heaven, gates that are passed through, locations of Heaven, etc. You are describing two foundational parts of the same belief system that exist together, claiming that you do not see a similarity.

To illustrate, let's address Haredi Judaism. They at once believe in the Kabbalistic ascent to (an equivalent) god-hood (likely not supernatural- parallel to Mormonism) and at once believe in the messianic utopia on Earth.

Another part of the equation that you are missing is the crucial, at least two thousand plus year old argument as to whether or not God is a material or supernatural being. You are framing your argument in terms of "Earth" when the congruent way to frame it is "material" vs "supernatural". When it is framed this way, as it traditionally and correctly is in terms of philosophical theology, "material existence" or the "material realm" is substituted for the "Earth" and thus all material existence becomes equivalent with Earth existence. Mormonism's belief in afterlife / utopia on another material planet is equivalent to belief in a Utopia on Earth. Only the theologically irrelevant detail about the precise location within the material realm is different.

This theology debate is a little off topic for this thread. We should continue it in another thread or shut it down for now. I'd be happy to continue it with you via PM, and also I don't know everything. I'm only attempting to convey what I do know to be true from having read certain sources and from identifying patterns.

Quote:

A choice to do what? Surely you do not mean they can "choose" to walk around if they have no legs?

Behavioral impulse control. Also, dominance over nature (ie: the natural environment in addition to human [they might say 'animal'] nature). A transcendence of naturally and socially regulated behavioral norms.

Quote:

It appears we're pretty far off from each other on this (likely due to differing understandings of biology). You seem to reject the line: "the behavioral changes that sacrifice the individual and specie's for the advancement of the 3rd party organism; eg. toxo/parasite."

I asked you for a clarification. I'm not sure how you can draw a conclusion about my biological understanding nor what I reject or accept based on that. I can't tell you whether I reject or accept that assertion because it seems to be a sentence fragment and I can't derive meaning from it, with all due respect. This is why I asked for the clarification, in addition to wanting to clarify something that you meant to imply about the hermaphroditic theology.

Quote:

Thanks for the explanations and recommendation.

You're welcome. Thank you.

[CombatDiet]

Re: Mormonism, we disagree. I don't really see how discussing it would add value (and as you say it is going OT anyway).

Quote:

I'm not sure how you can draw a conclusion about my biological understanding nor what I reject or accept based on that. I can't tell you whether I reject or accept that assertion because it seems to be a sentence fragment and I can't derive meaning from it, with all due respect.

The sentence fragment is only a rephrasing of The infected rats do things completely counter to their genetic nature (what you call "God-given nature") and against their individual and specie's interest, which you wrote a couple paragraphs on and I interpret as you largely not accepting the validity of the analogy.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Re: Mormonism, we disagree. I don't really see how discussing it would add value (and as you say it is going OT anyway).

Disagree on what? That's fine, however, as you allude to this was never supposed to be a Mormonism thread.

Though, respectfully, I'd put my study of Mormonism and related concepts up against your Wikipedia perusal at any point in time in the future that you wish. Should you delve into Mormonism and other theological concepts a little more deeply, I would be ready to accept corrections to my perception on theology.

Quote:

The sentence fragment is only a rephrasing of The infected rats do things completely counter to their genetic nature (what you call "God-given nature") and against their individual and specie's interest, which you wrote a couple paragraphs on and I interpret as you largely not accepting the validity of the analogy.

Yeah, the analogy is useful but not exactly parallel to the main discussion in my opinion.

It's hard to know what the Rat's "genetic nature" is at the point of infection. If you claim that they are running counter to that nature, you are making an unwarranted assumption that their nature has not been changed at a genetic level. I would disagree that the infection causes the rat to mimic Free Will against its born-nature, as the Rat is being compelled by a physical force regardless of it now taking action counter to its before-genetically-directed interests. Theological Free Will is precisely the freedom from natural / physical force when making a choice. This is an intersection wherein hermaphroditic theology is revealed as relevant. A boy choosing to behave as a girl in some way, in spite of his normative heterosexuality, is a conscious choice against his nature. Perhaps we are now on the same page in terms of understanding one another's differing opinions.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

It's hard to know what the Rat's "genetic nature" is at the point of infection. If you claim that they are running counter to that nature, you are making an unwarranted assumption that their nature has not been changed at a genetic level. I would disagree that the infection causes the rat to mimic Free Will against its born-nature, as the Rat is being compelled by a physical force regardless of it now taking action counter to its before-genetically-directed interests. Theological Free Will is precisely the freedom from natural / physical force when making a choice. Perhaps we are now on the same page in terms of understanding one another's differing opinions.

We are far apart on this issue because you are still framing it in terms of "will." I am not aware of biology using the term "will." That seems a concept reserved for philosophy/theology. To be clear, I do not perceive the infected rats as "mimicking Free Will against its born-nature." Rather, I perceive it as in "a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

[hydrogonian]

(03-30-2016 01:26 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Quote:

It's hard to know what the Rat's "genetic nature" is at the point of infection. If you claim that they are running counter to that nature, you are making an unwarranted assumption that their nature has not been changed at a genetic level. I would disagree that the infection causes the rat to mimic Free Will against its born-nature, as the Rat is being compelled by a physical force regardless of it now taking action counter to its before-genetically-directed interests. Theological Free Will is precisely the freedom from natural / physical force when making a choice. Perhaps we are now on the same page in terms of understanding one another's differing opinions.

We are far apart on this issue because you are still framing it in terms of "will." I am not aware of biology using the term "will." That seems a concept reserved for philosophy/theology. To be clear, I do not perceive the infected rats as "mimicking Free Will against its born-nature." Rather, I perceive it as in "a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

So, with all due respect, you need to elucidate how your perspective on this is relevant to this thread. My perception of the relevancy of your linked-to article was framed in terms of Will, which is a link to one probable major difference between a mere robot and Ai. It's also a link to theology and arguably the philosophy and methodology of science (holding theological implications for our drive toward Ai and its creation).

That's my context and contribution in relation to your article link. If you want me to veer away from that, or you want to change the context, then I only ask that you explain in fuller detail including what you might want me to respond to and how it is relevant to Ai. It's difficult for me to extract meaning, including your context on the infected rats and how they relate to Ai, from what little you have written.

Aside from whatever point that you are making, I'd remark that your comment that "I am not aware of biology using the term will" is a theological statement according to the context that we (or I) have been discussing. Either asserting or denying free Will in a biological context is making a statement about Will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in rats you deny the possibility / concept of Free Will or "Will".

I'd agree with you on that point, and offer that this view is a shadow of the concept of anti-Free Will theology that holds that we cannot surpass our nature or, in this instance, something that has usurped it (the parasite). Whether this would hold true in humans might be a more vigorous debate, but few would likely hold anything different for the lowly rat. This is why I hold the infected rat analogy to be useful but not parallel for the human / Ai debate.

In my view, this conversation is useful because we are drawing parallel lines between biological, computer, and theological concepts. If you want to keep the terminology and discipline-specific concepts pure of crossover terminology and wish to make a point using solely biological concepts, then please be more descriptive about the point that you wish to make and how it is relevant to the thread. I'm not trying to be difficult with you, only trying to clarify the thread for us and any readers.

[CombatDiet]

Understood.

Trying to "elucidate" things more clearly is unlikely to be very valuable at this time. If you were going to "see" the relationship from my perspective, it would have happened by now (like the way you "saw" the relation between the toxo article and your discussion of "will"). Further descriptions would be like making a crappy drawing (which seems to be how you view the relation between the toxo-infested rats and kabbalist-utopianism) when you clearly needed no such drawing to make the connections regarding toxo and "will."

[hydrogonian]

(03-30-2016 02:32 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Understood.

Trying to "elucidate" things more clearly is unlikely to be very valuable at this time. If you were going to "see" the relationship from my perspective, it would have happened by now (like the way you "saw" the relation between the toxo article and your discussion of "will"). Further descriptions would be like making a crappy drawing (which seems to be how you view the relation between the toxo-infested rats and kabbalist-utopianism) when you clearly needed no such drawing to make the connections regarding toxo and "will."

Okay, I'm done but you are clearly either a troll or not committed to what you meant to imply and therefor a huge waste of time. You haven't said anything about your perspective.

You don't know what "drawing" I needed to make my correlations between the Rats and Will. You're making excuses.

The recent conversation can be summed up thusly:

you: We don't agree.

me: I don't agree because I don't understand what you are trying to say, because you weren't clear and didn't really say anything. Clear it up.

you: I won't do that because you would have understood by now. You understand your views, and so you should understand mine.

This was a big waste of time.

[CombatDiet]

Quote:

A fucking big waste of time.

I don't get it. Didn't you get the toxo analogy out of this? Isn't that pretty valuable for relating your perspective in the future?

Quote:

me: I don't agree because I don't understand what you are trying to say because you weren't clear and didn't really say anything. Clear it up.

you: I won't do that because you would have understood by now. You understand your views, and so you should understand mine.

I consider this as a very large misinterpretation. I've had discussions similar to this many times before, and we are at the point in which they lose their value. I've already highlighted the point of disconnect:

Quote:

Aside from whatever point that you are making, I'd remark that your comment that "I am not aware of biology using the term will" is a theological statement according to the context that we (or I) have been discussing. Either asserting or denying free Will in a biological context is making a statement about Will.

You're framing everything in terms of "will." You're even framing me asking you to drop the "will" perspective as still being a "statement about Will."