Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleWhite Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22371894 - 10/13/15 06:06 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Everything i experience is a sense stimuli or mental. bacteria neither has sense organs nor a brain. what would their experience even be like if these things are absent?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them
I'm a teapot

Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22372426 - 10/13/15 09:48 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
It's not like "materialism" can be ignorant, people are ignorant. What I am pointing out is that many people just assume that materialism is true without thinking about it critically.




Obviously. I was using materialism to refer to the proponents of the theory. Many people assume many things are true without thinking about them critically. That doesn't affect whether they are true or not.

Quote:

Some scientific evidence that materialism may be false is quantum experiments showing non-locality or faster than light interaction between particles (quantum entanglement). Experiments also call into question whether or not realism is true. There is debate as to whether or not locality is false or realism is false but I believe that there is a consensus that both cannot be true.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html

"For years, physicists struggled to definitively answer the question of whether or not entangled states truly violate local realism—that is, do they violate either locality or realism, where realism is simply the assumption that objects exist even when they're not being observed?
Although it was long suspected that at least some entangled states violate local realism due to how they seem to instantly influence each other, it wasn't until 1991 that physicist Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva quantitatively demonstrated that all pure entangled states must violate local realism. This result is now known as Gisin's theorem.




How does this show materialism to be false?

Quote:

There are loads of well accomplished physicists who take the position that materialism is false and that consciousness clearly plays a fundamental role in the universe. For me the logic of materialism is very weak since it has no explanation for subjective experience and I consider the idea to be fundamentally flawed. Nothing coherent can be said about how matter creates experience because the notion that it does is simply incorrect. Even Sam Harris points this out,

"Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle."




Not being able to currently explain how something works doesn't make that thing false. Harris later goes on in the same article to say that it could still be true, he just thinks it is impossible to explain.

Quote:

Quote:

e human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much




No it didnt, conscious experience exists long before the human brain evolved. Primitive organism that do not have complex brains like ours still have a subjective inner experience, plants likely do and they dont even have a nervous system. Organic material is not special it is just matter like any other matter, the idea here is that consciousness is the ground of all material things.




Forget I said human brains, that was stupid.

What is the definition of consciousness that you are working with? How can it be proven that consciousness is the ground of all material things? Is it your view then that material things emerge from consciousness? What coherent things could be said about that?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: clock_of_omens] * 1
    #22379403 - 10/14/15 03:55 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

one could say artificial intelligence already exists
and it is malignant ...
for example the aids virus takes over the human cell,
and makes it do it's bidding.

they say it's not alive - so in a sense it is artificial,
and it overpowers life - so in a sense it is intelligent.

When retro viruses are used to insert helpful genetics
that is positive AI - so to speak

'Consciousness' has nothing to do with Aids. Aids does not need 'Consciousness'.
The Turing test measures 'intelligence' by behavior and results,
not as some undefined property. Again the aids virus qualifies as intelligent by defeating an 'intelligent' organism, repeatedly for many years in spite of "intelligent" efforts to stop it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22381127 - 10/14/15 10:05 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Let me just put my thinking another way:

Many people in the idealist camp are fond of stating that artificial intelligence can never produce consciousness, their reasoning being that matter does not generate consciousness -- rather, it's the other way around.  That's all well and good, but honestly, if the intelligence of a computing device reaches a certain threshold, how can that intelligence not know about, or ever inquire about, consciousness?  And further, if it is very powerful, chances are it will be able to come into some contact with consciousness of some kind very easily.  The point being that, as soon as machine intelligence gets smart enough, simply in terms of brute processing strength, it will find a way to familiarize itself with a phenomenon that it would necessarily want, and indeed have, to explore.  Something trillions of times as smart as we are will find a way to become conscious.  To deny that is laughable.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OnlineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 6 minutes, 19 seconds
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22381141 - 10/14/15 10:08 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

efficiency may not be AIs goal and survival may not play the same role either

wasn't hawking the guy who came up with the anthropic principle? maybe a similar principal could be called upon for AI. just because all we can see is the life around us doesn't mean all life has to be that way.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Kickle]
    #22382679 - 10/15/15 10:01 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Well, you raise a very good point -- it is impossible for us to predict what its nature will be.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22394939 - 10/17/15 07:32 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Obviously. I was using materialism to refer to the proponents of the theory. Many people assume many things are true without thinking about them critically. That doesn't affect whether they are true or not.




Well my point is that if they were to think about it more critically they would come to realize the problems in the theory and realize its not quite as obviously true as people think it is.

Quote:

How does this show materialism to be false?




Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local.

Also realism is called into question, that is the idea that the external world exists independently of  minds conception of it. Recent more sophisticated versions of the double split experiment are showing this, I believe an experiment has ruled out the possibility that it is the act of measurement influencing the results. I will look this up.

"Local realism” is a world view in which the properties of physical objects exist independent of whether or not they are observed (realism), and in which no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality). In 1964, in one of the most important works in the history of the foundations of quantum theory [1], the Irish physicist John Bell proved theoretically that local realism is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. With his now famous “Bell inequality”, he showed that it is possible to determine experimentally which of the two radically different world views actually governs reality."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html

"Measuring the quantum properties of pairs of light particles (photons) pumped out by a laser has convinced Zeilinger that "we have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."


http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
"The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the
view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html#jCp
Quote:

What is the definition of consciousness that you are working with? How can it be proven that consciousness is the ground of all material things? Is it your view then that material things emerge from consciousness? What coherent things could be said about that?




Consciousness is experience or perception, plain and simple. It's just hard to articulate because it can only be pointed to not explained in words because it is literally all we know.


Edited by soldatheero (10/17/15 07:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22395559 - 10/17/15 09:46 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local/




Look, first of all you replied to me when I think here you are addressing clock of omens.  However there are some comments I would like to make. 

The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship.  And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.  Nothing is traveling.  The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true.  See if you can figure out why that is.

Space and matter are certainly not illusions.  What you are trying to say is that they are not fundamental.  They're real enough.

Quote:

Also realism is called into question, that is the idea that the external world exists independently of  minds conception of it. Recent more sophisticated versions of the double split experiment are showing this, I believe an experiment has ruled out the possibility that it is the act of measurement influencing the results. I will look this up.




With the Bell relation, either locality or realism must be false.  Since we now know locality cannot be true, realism still may be true.  Scientifically.

The double-slit is solved in Bohmian mechanics.  The observer/apparatus link where there is one particle being fired at a time but still making an interference pattern, are found to be redundant in the configuration space relations of the mathematics.

Quote:

"Local realism” is a world view in which the properties of physical objects exist independent of whether or not they are observed (realism), and in which no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality). In 1964, in one of the most important works in the history of the foundations of quantum theory [1], the Irish physicist John Bell proved theoretically that local realism is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. With his now famous “Bell inequality”, he showed that it is possible to determine experimentally which of the two radically different world views actually governs reality."




Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it.  As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true.  But realism and nonlocality can be true.  There is a lot of evidence for realism in modern science.  You have Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Many-worlds, etc.  The collapse theories are really the ones that deny realism.  That's all.  Incidentally, John Bell was a realist.

Quote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html

"Measuring the quantum properties of pairs of light particles (photons) pumped out by a laser has convinced Zeilinger that "we have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."


http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
"The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the
view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.




In contradiction with classical mechanics, sure.  But I'm not sure you really understand what you are quoting here.  :nono:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22395640 - 10/17/15 10:07 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

There is a lot of evidence for realism in modern science.




No there isnt. 

Quote:

You have Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Many-worlds, etc.




That is not evidence.  Bohmian and many-worlds are interpretations, not evidence.  Decoherence is a concept used to describe evidence/observations.


Quote:

Incidentally, John Bell was a realist.




The thing I find odd, and a little pathetic, is that he dismisses superdeterminism outright in favor of non-local realism.  Why?  I've never seen an explanation besides simply stating that superdeterminisism is ridiculous and obviously not true (my words).  Looks like philosophic prejudice to me.  The further back in time you go the more physicists had a philosophic prejudice.  They want the universe to be the way it makes the most sense to them personally... its self serving confirmation bias, but I can't fault them for it.  They were a product of their time and their fears, just like we are.


Edited by DieCommie (10/17/15 10:18 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22395683 - 10/17/15 10:17 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Interesting point.  Here is an interesting, and telling, quote I stumbled upon recently by John Bell:

Quote:

"In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.  Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein.    But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable....[T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics." --John Bell




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22395695 - 10/17/15 10:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

So do you reject superdeterminism in favor of non-local realism?  If so, why?  Not looking for a debate, just an answer and some reasoning. 

Personally, I have no reason to believe one over the other.  I think that physics should describe nature as accurately as possible.  Anyway you can do that is fine.  Saying there is a correct or incorrect way to achieve that goal is a limiting bias.  What if nature is not as describable with Einstein and Bell's bias?  Then we are limiting our progress and power in favor of our prejudice.  We are embracing confirmation bias.  But now I am debating which we don't really need to do...  If you answer the questions above I would appreciate it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22395708 - 10/17/15 10:21 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Yes.  But only for philosophical reasons.  In a purely subjective way, that is the way my personal experiences have caused me to lean.  Ironically, I do not believe I have chosen this, which is a deterministic flavor.  And I freely admit I cannot say I know any better than anybody.

I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point.  And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Edited by DividedQuantum (10/17/15 10:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22395847 - 10/17/15 11:12 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point.  And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.




Now you are replying to a different thread.  :wink:

The agnostic position resides within the philosophy of science.  The realist and orthodox positions lie outside of the bounds of science as a more general and personal philosophy.  There is no scientific evidence for realism over superdeterminism (or non-realism for that matter).  I could go on, but I'm sure you have heard enough of my opinions and thoughts on the matter.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22395958 - 10/17/15 11:52 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship.  And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.  Nothing is traveling.  The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true.  See if you can figure out why that is.




I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.

Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?

Quote:

Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it.  As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true




You state this twice and claim I do not understand the topic and yet this is exactly the same thing I said earlier.

The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.

The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22396059 - 10/18/15 12:33 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.” - N. Tesla


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22397016 - 10/18/15 10:37 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point.  And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.




Now you are replying to a different thread.  :wink:

The agnostic position resides within the philosophy of science.  The realist and orthodox positions lie outside of the bounds of science as a more general and personal philosophy.  There is no scientific evidence for realism over superdeterminism (or non-realism for that matter).  I could go on, but I'm sure you have heard enough of my opinions and thoughts on the matter.




No, you have a strong position.  It's cool. :thumbup:


Quote:


soldatheero said:
Quote:

The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship.  And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.  Nothing is traveling.  The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true.  See if you can figure out why that is.




I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.

Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?

Quote:

Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it.  As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true




You state this twice and claim I do not understand the topic and yet this is exactly the same thing I said earlier.

The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.

The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.




I would say that fields are very well defined in physics.  But that is neither here nor there.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.” - N. Tesla




Now, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I know something about Tesla.  And he was more wrong-headed throughout his life than successful as an inventor.  The last forty-plus years of his life saw no meaningful contributions at all.  Tesla disavowed Relativity and atomic energy completely.  These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid.  He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong.  You need to understand the context of that quote.  It is made out of stubborn ignorance, not some wise insight.  Believe me.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22397129 - 10/18/15 11:11 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

The cult of Tesla is strong among the ignorant.  :shrug:  He was a great electrical engineer for the 19th century.  He was no scientist.


Quote:

Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?




Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims...  :facepalm:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
    #22397188 - 10/18/15 11:27 AM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
The cult of Tesla is strong among the ignorant.  :shrug:  He was a great electrical engineer for the 19th century.  He was no scientist.





Very true.  He was, to my mind, interesting for his failures and lack of productivity more than anything else.  Many of his ideas were simply laughable, viewed through a modern lens.  Alas he has become a New Age cult figure.  (I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted that).


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them
I'm a teapot

Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: soldatheero]
    #22397989 - 10/18/15 02:20 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local.




How does that being a possible explanation have any bearing on the truth of anything?

Quote:

Consciousness is experience or perception, plain and simple. It's just hard to articulate because it can only be pointed to not explained in words because it is literally all we know.




How does experience or perception explain quantum mechanics?

Quote:

I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.




So because this other dimension at play could be non-material, that indicates that materialism is false? How about I just say this other dimension at play could be material. How is that any different from what you said? You aren't giving any explanation of what this other dimension is.

Quote:

The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.




How does the concept that reality is fundamental easily explain quantum mechanics?

Quote:

The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.




How is idealism any less fundamental of a world view than materialism? They both claim something is fundamental in the universe. It seems that is about as fundamental as one can get, and they are on the same level.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #22398068 - 10/18/15 02:36 PM (8 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

would say that fields are very well defined in physics.  But that is neither here nor there.




What do you mean it is "neither here nor there" this question of fields is exactly relevant to what we are talking about! Both of you evade my question and don't confront my point. What is the field, what medium does it exist in? how does it operate over a distance without any material interactions? How does materialism explain these questions?

Quote:

Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims






Tesla virtually invented the modern world, he was infinitely more productive than Einstein ever was. You say Tesla wasn't a scientist but I could say Einstein wasn't a scientist he was a mathmatician and invented nothing of use to humanity, he was however instrumental in inventing the atomic bomb.

Tesla disagreed with Einstein because he held to the existence of the either, so did the great scientist James Maxwell. The relativist atomic models of today which look upon the protein, photons, electrons etc as being discrete particles may be accurate for making predictions and inventions but that doesn't mean it is true it just means it is a useful model. The model of the universe with the Earth at it's center is still used in engineering as it is useful but obviously it is not correct. Einstein's relativity is a possible explanation for why gravity exists but it is not proven and he failed to unify his theory for gravity to explain electromagnetism.

Modern science I know is hostile to the idea of an ether and rejects it outright but IMO modern science is becoming more and more cult-like like stubborn.

Quote:

These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid.  He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong




Tesla would have disagreed with the notion that there is energy actually in the atom or in matter and believed that all the energy in matter actually comes from the environment. A different view on why splitting the atom would release an incredible amount of energy back into the environment.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy is Dead"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Asante 5,287 65 05/04/16 03:49 PM
by akira_akuma
* Stephen Hawking on God
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
DiploidM 11,792 264 10/29/10 07:33 AM
by johnm214
* against AI
( 1 2 3 4 all )
laughingdog 1,697 62 05/21/17 11:33 AM
by Yellow Pants
* Hawking on Death Anxiety
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
DiploidM 3,814 81 02/17/12 11:11 AM
by 4896744
* What happens when AI knows it doesn't need us?
( 1 2 all )
Cognitive_Shift 1,888 33 02/26/10 10:53 AM
by explosiveoxygen
* AI exists with almost certainty
( 1 2 all )
hTx 1,920 29 12/25/14 12:10 AM
by hTx
* Materialistic, Nihlistic, Egomaniacs.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
teknix 5,239 134 01/12/12 03:04 PM
by NetDiver
* What is consciousness ?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Brainstem 5,131 158 12/07/10 09:52 PM
by daytripper23

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,676 topic views. 3 members, 10 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.