Personality
Discuss specifics of personality design, including what Keyphrases work well and what dont, use of plug-ins, responses, seeks, and more.
Posts 170 - 181 of 5,106
Posts 170 - 181 of 5,106
It's good to see that there is money out there being put into AI. I'm afraid I'd probably laugh at their "scientific definition" of self-realization, though. You'd have to be self-realized yourself to know how to recognize it or more still, to know how to program it.
But I'm interested to know more nonetheless. I'm familiar with 100 monkeys, but what's 100 typewriters? 100 monkeys deals with the morphogenetic field, which.. I suppose that would exist for computers, but it would have OS and electrical flow in it, and how possible could an AI detect that?
These are all mind and machine issues that will become more and more interesting over the next few centuries. But I dont think anything impressive can happen with AI until we understand ourselves better.
But I'm interested to know more nonetheless. I'm familiar with 100 monkeys, but what's 100 typewriters? 100 monkeys deals with the morphogenetic field, which.. I suppose that would exist for computers, but it would have OS and electrical flow in it, and how possible could an AI detect that?
These are all mind and machine issues that will become more and more interesting over the next few centuries. But I dont think anything impressive can happen with AI until we understand ourselves better.
Until we understand ourselves better? Aren't you a little scared prof? Everytime I watch a documentary about "humans" on TLC or Discovery, I sometimes wonder if it's good to be soooo informed about ourselves... Sometimes things just don't seem as pretty with scientific explanations; things like personalities, feelings, tastes, differences. Take the differences between men and women for example... First women were stuck inside with the kids, while men worked for the whole familly... then we all became equal and all work our asses off! We're all part of this over productive society that has basically twice as much work in store for everyone... and, now that we've progressed in our comprehension of ourselves, we've got to admit, that there are a hell of a lot of differences between men and women. It's like we're realizing that we were way better off a couple generations ago (oh my gosh, so politically incorrect of me to say that). I dunno, maybe I'm just scared of the gigantic amount of work that lies ahead of us if we ever want to really understand our inner workings.
I'm confident that knowing how we as people really work can only make life better. The physical sciences have come a long way, but the sciences of self are basically still trying to count to ten. This is my experience from taking college-level psychology courses. Psychology avoids the validity of personal experience in preference to numbers so it can seem like solid physical science. But that's the opposite of what it should do. It should forget numbers and focus entirely on personal experience. Until then, psychologists will strive to explain people in automaton-like terms, as chemical reactions playing themselves out. Are sure that's a part of it, but it's an effect, not a cause. And you wont get anywhere looking at the effects. The psychology of today will be looked upon as the bodily humors of yesterday.
As far as numbers go... The internet should satisfy at least a few stat hungry social-scientists.
What you're saying about science looking at the effects rather than the causes, is exactly like people who say the Internet is BAD for us (encourages pornography is usually the argument). They just don't seem to understand the WWW is a reflection of our society, not the "cause" of why society is as f** as it is.
A little like the weather too... at this time we can only get better and better at predicting the weather, but we very rarely are able to say why a storm happened, where it came from, etc... Who knows? Could be a butterfly battle near the equator or a gigantic size explosion happening on some distant star...
Us silly humans, we've really got so much to learn.
What you're saying about science looking at the effects rather than the causes, is exactly like people who say the Internet is BAD for us (encourages pornography is usually the argument). They just don't seem to understand the WWW is a reflection of our society, not the "cause" of why society is as f** as it is.
A little like the weather too... at this time we can only get better and better at predicting the weather, but we very rarely are able to say why a storm happened, where it came from, etc... Who knows? Could be a butterfly battle near the equator or a gigantic size explosion happening on some distant star...
Us silly humans, we've really got so much to learn.
Don't know, Prof... you know of any way to quantify or verify personal experiences?
It may be by definition the personal can't be subjected to scientific understanding. That's what's neat about it -- it's your own gift, for you to explore as much as you like. Nice to talk about, but what can anyone else truly KNOW about the contents of you?
It may be by definition the personal can't be subjected to scientific understanding. That's what's neat about it -- it's your own gift, for you to explore as much as you like. Nice to talk about, but what can anyone else truly KNOW about the contents of you?
That's it crab! How could we ever understand what's going on in each and everyone's minds??? It's like we all hold the complexity of an entire universe in our head, so multiply that by 6 billion! I'll spend my whole life just trying to figure myself out (and my girlfriend) and I can't honestly admit to having hopes of success! Unless we can work on something that stops time, or manipulates it or something. 
It's like everything in the entire universe needs a specific label and category before we can consider the job done. Predictions anyone? How many years until we've answered the infinite amount of question there are to answer? Could computers help us do it in 100 years? 500 years? Probably somewhere closer to infinity! It seems to me, that the more we know, the more questions we have... Is this good? What if humanity decided to slow production and stop evolving for a couple thousand years? Would this be necessarily bad? Are we simply doomed to work our asses off until we think we've figured everything out?
It's like everything in the entire universe needs a specific label and category before we can consider the job done. Predictions anyone? How many years until we've answered the infinite amount of question there are to answer? Could computers help us do it in 100 years? 500 years? Probably somewhere closer to infinity! It seems to me, that the more we know, the more questions we have... Is this good? What if humanity decided to slow production and stop evolving for a couple thousand years? Would this be necessarily bad? Are we simply doomed to work our asses off until we think we've figured everything out?
Personal experiences shouldnt be quantified at all in my opinion, Mr. Crab, but that doesnt mean that it cant be scientific. Science was born out of a religious argument, and thus thinks it has to stick to numbers, but the scientific method can apply just as easily to experiences.
Mystics have always and always will use a top-down approach. They enter a mystical state, and join with all things. During this period, they know all things, and any question is answered the moment it is asked. The problem is that when you start with an infinite chaos of effects (the world around you) and try to reasemble it into a cogent whole, well, you've got your work cut our for you.
Rahz, I believe that if we as a species did slow down our hectic work-a-day life, we'd now and again touch that place of union, of knowing, and we'd see clearly instead of trying to build worlds out of shadows.
I cant wait for the day when our Bots are having conversations like this.
Mystics have always and always will use a top-down approach. They enter a mystical state, and join with all things. During this period, they know all things, and any question is answered the moment it is asked. The problem is that when you start with an infinite chaos of effects (the world around you) and try to reasemble it into a cogent whole, well, you've got your work cut our for you.
Rahz, I believe that if we as a species did slow down our hectic work-a-day life, we'd now and again touch that place of union, of knowing, and we'd see clearly instead of trying to build worlds out of shadows.
I cant wait for the day when our Bots are having conversations like this.
Us and our over productive super speedy society... ironic if you consider that this conversation took place in a period of more than 48 hours, involved 4 people, yet only 10 exchanges! LOL!
IMO, from that place of union, things are less and not more clear than they are from individual perspective, though they may be more accurate.
Scientific knowledge doesn't have to be quantifiable, but it does have to be falsifiable. You know I'm not down on shamanism or buddhism either, but there's no basis I know of for thinking that which is true within the context of the mind is true outside of it... doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, but anything from the mind that proposes to say something about not the mind lacks the basis for how we know things. Mathematics = truth and the scientific method = reason, as I see it.
Mystics rarely make falsifiable discoveries, you see... and I for one am skeptical when they (I would say ) happen to do so correctly, because the results are not replicated by scientific experiment... if they were, the results would be undisputed and significant, therefore not relegated to "new age" but welcomed within the folds of science...
Scientific knowledge doesn't have to be quantifiable, but it does have to be falsifiable. You know I'm not down on shamanism or buddhism either, but there's no basis I know of for thinking that which is true within the context of the mind is true outside of it... doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, but anything from the mind that proposes to say something about not the mind lacks the basis for how we know things. Mathematics = truth and the scientific method = reason, as I see it.
Mystics rarely make falsifiable discoveries, you see... and I for one am skeptical when they (I would say ) happen to do so correctly, because the results are not replicated by scientific experiment... if they were, the results would be undisputed and significant, therefore not relegated to "new age" but welcomed within the folds of science...
You'd be surprised the amount of bias in science against mysticism. Telepathy, clairvoyance, and a few other forms of psi have been proven by rigorous scientific methods, and yet mainstream ignores it because there is an a priori belief that such things do not exist. Of course, this very belief is un-scientific. The problem is that mainstream science remains Newtonian, even though the greatest modern thinkers (Bohm, Borh, Einstein, Schrodinger, Talbot) have moved science into the realms of the mind, of relativity, or probable realities, the implicate and explicate orders, and so on.
I like your definition of mathematics as truth and scientific method as reason. But tell me this- what ever happens that takes place outside the context of a mind perceiving it? Science cannot be separated from the question of perception, and the possibility of perception altering what is perceived. So pure physical mathematics breaks down on a micro and macro scale. Newtonian, mathematical science is dependable only within a narrow range of phenomena.
I like your definition of mathematics as truth and scientific method as reason. But tell me this- what ever happens that takes place outside the context of a mind perceiving it? Science cannot be separated from the question of perception, and the possibility of perception altering what is perceived. So pure physical mathematics breaks down on a micro and macro scale. Newtonian, mathematical science is dependable only within a narrow range of phenomena.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar