Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Anybody who dismisses Nietzsche from "serious philosophical discussion" because of his aphorisms totally misses one of his central and easiest points.

EDIT: I also like the implication that Nietzsche is interesting.... for undergrads.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Message boards are public spaces, right? So I can show this thread to my students? Great example here.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Ah. The A.I. myth. There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence. Researchers are trying to recreate human intelligence in electronic form. That's human intelligence, but in a different format. Big part of the reason why relatively little progress has been made (compared to computing in general) is that the precise mechanisms behind human intelligence are still poorly understood. This will, of course, change. Once every neuron, synapse, pathway has been broken down to the atomic level and then rebuilt, "A.I." would follow a decade or two later. But so what? We managed to recreate our intelligence. The A.I. will be no different than we are, for the simple fact that we do not know what "intelligence" means outside of the human context. If we make the A.I. simply programmable, then that's not intelligence at all, regardless of how convincing it sounds. It is either a human or a computer.

structuralist, correlationist, ... garbage.

 

[♪alt13]

@[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Where do you teach? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

@[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Where do you teach? If you don't mind me asking.

I'm actually not teaching for the next year. I've got a research grant and moved to LA to do all of that. I'll bookmark this thread for later, since I always sneek a little Nietzsche into my syllabus.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm actually not teaching for the next year. I've got a research grant and moved to LA to do all of that. I'll bookmark this thread for later, since I always sneek a little Nietzsche into my syllabus.

Any suggested reading?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Lets start this 'ish with ma boi Kawl.

Saw the ill effects of capitalism-- proposed many interesting ideas, like false-consciousness, social metabolism (some of the first socio-environmental writings were his). Obviously some of his ideas are difficult to agree with, but a cool thinker nonetheless.


But yeah, no. Do you guys like Nietzsche? Paul of Tarsus? Are you guys lame, and stick to just Aristotle and Plato?
Aquinas, Avicenna, Khaldun?


Share some of your preferred philosophers, some of their writings, and why you like them.

This should be a fairly low-argument, high-learning thread that many will enjoy

What a great thread idea, OP. RIP Sandy Braille

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Any suggested reading?

Since we've already mentioned Misosophy... you might get a huge charge out of Deleuze's chapter on "thought" in difference&repetition. His book on Nietzsche is tonic. I'm re-reading Massumi's Parables for the Virtual right now.

 

[♪alt13]

Since we've already mentioned Misosophy... you might get a huge charge out of Deleuze's chapter on "thought" in difference&repetition. His book on Nietzsche is tonic. I'm re-reading Massumi's Parables for the Virtual right now.

I'll check it out thanks.

I read philosophy for the pleasure of being humbled. I think most ordinary people are turned off by it because they see it as a competition they can never win.

^Something to keep in mind when teaching us noobs.

I had a great teacher who humbled me with philosophy and a poor one who exalted himself.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

Deleuze is humbling. Brace yourself.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

 

[Siro]

It is moot because it is true that it would need to be independent to be sentient. A creation that was dependent on human programming would not qualify as A.I. , and therefore is clearly not what we are talking about.

It is very presumptuous in the least.

You would have to define obsolete.

Yes. Especially if I didn't have the problem of apoptosis(programed cell death)to shorten my life span.

Never said humans won't be able to upgrade, though I imagine it may be more difficult. Many people will simply choose not to, these are the people who I think will have quite an interest in romantic human philosophies.

If we can give birth to A.I., and I think we can, it is foolish to think that it would have any fewer eccentricities or aspirations than we do. The Singularity folks kind of prove my point.


Do you really think that humans won't someday create A.I.? I won't try and presume when it will happen but I think it is a eventual certainty that it will as long as scientific advances continue to be made.

I'm so confused. Are you actually reading my posts? You're responding to out of context phrases, without any indication that you tried to absorb the whole paragraph.

I never said that "A.I" isn't possible. I very clearly think it is. More than possible, it is almost certain. And there isn't anything presumptuous about the statement you quote. We have to use concepts in ways we can define and understand. Sentience may, or may not, be an emergent property of intelligence. It is obviously not an emergent property of processing power, since moderns computers do not show any signs of it regardless of their computing prowess. It can't simply be a property of parallelism since the internet and other parallel systems do not appear sentient either. As far as we can tell, it is simply a product of human cognition that is not a pre-requisite for generally intelligent processes, but is required for anything we would consider an intelligent machine. In other words, we have defined A.I. to mean "a machine that can think the way humans do". A machine that cannot would not be an A.I. regardless of how powerful that intelligence is.

We do not disagree on the rest of your points, but we should be careful not to create arbitrary stories about inevitable infinite upgradability, collective intelligence, cosmic scale dumb-to-smart-matter conversions, and so on. That's the main failure of transcendentalist thought. It turns beautiful and useful projections into mystic musings.

P.S. I'm having this conversation with you because I generally like your posts, and you seem interested in pursuing knowledge and ideas. No need for hostility, or for taking things personally. I am not ashamed of expressing my opinions, as I have put a lot of thought and effort into them. If you can't get past my tone (something I can't really help, I am who I am), I will happily leave you be.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm so confused. Are you actually reading my posts? You're responding to out of context phrases, without any indication that you tried to absorb the whole paragraph.

Bologna. I Have read your whole posts and absorbed them for what they were. I am simply multi quoting because you are filling a paragraph with multiple questions and concepts. This way I can respond without confusion.

I never said that "A.I" isn't possible.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you but [below] led me to believe that you may. Since you were not %100 clear I finished my last post with a question so that you would have the opportunity to clear it up. Thanks now I know we agree on that.

Ah. The A.I. myth. There is no such thing as sentient artificial intelligence.

I am having a problem understanding why you continually put words and concepts into my mouth. I never said;

but we should be careful not to create arbitrary stories about inevitable infinite upgradability, collective intelligence, cosmic scale dumb-to-smart-matter conversions, and so on.

I simply referred to the eventual emergence of A.I. You have taken that to mean that I must be a new age metaphysician.
I did speak to upgradability but never said infinite.
My original point if you recall was about the philosophical yearnings of man if/when A.I. were to emerge. You have not spoken at all to the psychology of man under that new paradigm.

If it is your goal to prove me wrong(as it seems like it is) then please prove me wrong without puting concepts in my mouth that make me sound like a hippie.

 

[Siro]

All I'm asking is for you to define what A.I. means to you. You repeat arguments that you read elsewhere, but you never discuss what these concepts mean to you. What does it mean for A.I. and man to merge? How is A.I. different from humans, apart from the substance they're made of? If you cannot explain how such A.I. would work, then there isn't much to debate.

To me, A.I. is just a deconstruction of human intelligence (understanding all its mechanisms), and using that to reconstruct it independently. I don't see what makes this a profoundly different intelligence. The typical singularity person seem to think of A.I. as something beyond human, without bothering to explain what exactly that means. Hell, I even read the argument that we cannot define it for the same reason a cat cannot define human intelligence; it is beyond comprehension. Okay... So it's a matter of faith, and I don't care to waste time discussing matters of faith.

 

[♪alt13]

Here is something we can debate. Definition of terms.

, we have defined A.I. to mean "a machine that can think the way humans do".

I do not agree with this definition. I would define A.I.

a machine that is sentient.

I suspect you would as well. A sentient being is clearly intelligent yet would not necessarily have to think the same way Humans do.

 

[♪alt13]

What does it mean for A.I. and man to merge?

This is what I mean I never spoke to the merging of man and machine. You are having a debate with me and are predicating your responses on your idea of what I think before I have said any thing at all.

 

[Siro]

Here is something we can debate. Definition of terms.


I do not agree with this definition. I would define A.I.

a machine that is sentient.

I suspect you would as well. A sentient being is clearly intelligent yet would not necessarily have to think the same way Humans do.

And what is sentience outside of the human example? Can you give me a description of a conscious being who works in a profoundly distinct way from humans? Not "more memory" or "faster processing". But a profoundly different. I don't think you can. I've tried, and I've read so many books by people who also tried. The whole concept stems from lack of understanding of the fact that human intelligence is COMPLETE intelligence. As in, it contains all the tools to provide possible explanations of all allowable phenomena. There is no other objective definition of a transcendent intelligence.

 

[♪alt13]

The typical singularity person

I"m not^

 

[Siro]

This is what I mean I never spoke to the merging of man and machine. You are having a debate with me and are predicating your responses on your idea of what I think before I have said any thing at all.

What do you mean? You talked about A.I. and humans merging in your previous post.

My original point if you recall was about the philosophical yearnings of man if/when A.I. were to emerge.

I was directly responding to your point about the possible merging of A.I. and man.

 

[♪alt13]

And what is sentience outside of the human example? Can you give me a description of a conscious being who works in a profoundly distinct way from humans? Not "more memory" or "faster processing".

Any being that had human intelligence with more memory and faster processing would be profoundly different. You've answered your own question.

You still have not spoken to my original point. which leads me to believe that you are not reading my posts.

...the philosophical yearnings of man if/when A.I. were to emerge. You have not spoken at all to the psychology of man under that new paradigm.