Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

We cannot do that with philosophy, it cannot be reduced to plain data.

Interesting perspective. But isn't for example the participation on this forum bound by the scope of language? What would make you believe that a machine cannot master that scope? How can it be said that an aspect of relevance is applicable that is not enclosed within the boundary of language?

Just for fun, I might try something like asking AI to compare Daniel Dennett’s latest ideas on consciousness and free will with those of Kevin J. Mitchell and Joseph E. LeDoux.

It appears that in one of the most profound and popular topics on this forum, "On the absurd hegemony of science", prominent philosopher Daniel C. Dennett actively participated with hundreds of replies ( evidence here).

All this means that when science makes its moves to "say" what the world is, it is only right within the scope of its field. But philosophy, which is the most open field, has no business yielding to this any more than to knitting "science" or masonry. Philosophy is all inclusive theory, and the attempt to fit such a thing into a scientific paradigm is simply perverse.

Science: know your place! It is not philosophy.

Words in defence of philosophical words. Science is looking at it with a frowned face, as evident from the first 'in-defence of science' replies in the topic: what exactly is being said when it wouldn't concern science?

The attempt is there to defend philosophy beyond science. But what could make humanity break the boundary of language? What is there that is beyond the reach of AI?

The author of that topic about science, in another topic, wrote the following explanation that captures it well:

Respect is metaphysically demanded in the face of the Other. Levinas is telling us, and he certainly helped me understand with real clarity, that this world is a metaphysical "place" and that our relations with Others is "first philosophy."

I think Jean luc Marion is right regarding what is "there" that defies assimilation into the representative "totality" (Levinas borrows this from Heidegger) that holds a grip on our existence implicitly, with every spontaneous thought of engagement. Marion asks, what is there, then, that is there, that "overflows"--there is a thesis here, constructed by Sartre, see his Nausea and the Chestnut tree, that tries to illustrate this "radical contingency" of existence-- representation? Wittgenstein calls for silence. So does Heidegger. Marion writes:

... in passing from Wittgenstein to Heidegger, in speaking from the starting point of philosophy (or almost) and not from that of logic (or almost): “Someone who has experienced theology in his own roots, both the theology of the Christian faith and that of philosophy, would today rather remain silent about God [von Gott zu schweigen] when he is speaking in the realm of thinking.”

This is a major argument in this French theological turn, so called. It plays off of Husserl's epoche, which reduces the world to it pure presence(s). The "realm of thinking" does not permit this. The question is, what does this Wittgenstienian "silence" (Heidegger called it the Nothing and the anxiety of taking thought to its death, its terminal point of meaningful application) actually "say"? What is intimated at this precipice of "authenticity" in which one has ascended, in the reduction (epoche) to a great height where all that is average and familiar has fallen away?

The user that might be Daniel Dennett doesn't seem to have an interest in these types of philosophers. His replies in defence of science were interesting.

I have no interest at all in any of those folks. None whatsoever.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 86#p445686

[Count Lucanor]

We cannot do that with philosophy, it cannot be reduced to plain data.

Interesting perspective. But isn't for example the participation on this forum bound by the scope of language? What would make you believe that a machine cannot master that scope? How can it be said that an aspect of relevance is applicable that is not enclosed within the boundary of language?

Being bound by the scope of language does not mean reduced to syntactic games, that's what language without the meaning is. Machines can certainly master it, but as long as meaning is far from their reach, they are completely incompetent in what really matters for philosophy: thinking.

[Lagayascienza]

Automating internet searches and summing them up in one response might be good from the practical point of view, as it saves time and effort, but speaking of philosophy it would be a mistake to think that such response was the only possible response or the best one. You’ll be missing some important insights that might be as valuable as the ones that made it into the AI’s response. In some disciplines where you mostly deal with factual data, it could work well, although still not necessarily better than looking up for such data on a trusted site. We cannot do that with philosophy, it cannot be reduced to plain data.

Yes, I must say that if I needed a quick overview of a philosophical subject area, SEP or similar might be a better place to start than a Google search or AI. But if I only had half an hour to make some notes on what "metaethics" was about I might also ask AI a quick question on it.

[Count Lucanor]

What do you think of my 5-minute example that opened a door to a new perspective/world for me with regard the philosophy of Levinas, more specifically his view on art?

There are hundreds of books and articles on Levinas, perhaps dozens or them available online, written by people that has studied Levinas or read other commentators of Levinas. To have the best perspective on Levinas, one should have mastered as much as possible from this literature, besides Levinas’ own works. Maybe there’s an expert (I don’t know, since I’m not that much interested on Levinas) who has already done the compilation job and given us a major work in which we can find the key insights. In any case, we can get that from an actual thinking being, a human, the only being capable of coming up with new, original ideas, out of already existing ideas, not because of their statistical relevance, but because of actually understanding and interpreting them. AI cannot understand, cannot interpret, it can only construct texts automatically, taking from other texts and simulating by way of syntactic operations, the results of the process of thought, without any thought whatsoever. It’s like Google on steroids. The results might be helpful to a certain point, but obviously very limited for a medium or advanced level in philosophy and, in my opinion, deceiving.

[value]

Interesting perspective. But isn't for example the participation on this forum bound by the scope of language? What would make you believe that a machine cannot master that scope? How can it be said that an aspect of relevance is applicable that is not enclosed within the boundary of language?

Being bound by the scope of language does not mean reduced to syntactic games, that's what language without the meaning is. Machines can certainly master it, but as long as meaning is far from their reach, they are completely incompetent in what really matters for philosophy: thinking.

What is 'meaning' according to you? And how would you believe that you can secure a theoretical defence of your notion of meaning in the face of scientism?

[value]

There are hundreds of books and articles on Levinas, perhaps dozens or them available online, written by people that has studied Levinas or read other commentators of Levinas. To have the best perspective on Levinas, one should have mastered as much as possible from this literature, besides Levinas’ own works. Maybe there’s an expert (I don’t know, since I’m not that much interested on Levinas) who has already done the compilation job and given us a major work in which we can find the key insights. In any case, we can get that from an actual thinking being, a human, the only being capable of coming up with new, original ideas, out of already existing ideas, not because of their statistical relevance, but because of actually understanding and interpreting them. AI cannot understand, cannot interpret, it can only construct texts automatically, taking from other texts and simulating by way of syntactic operations, the results of the process of thought, without any thought whatsoever. It’s like Google on steroids. The results might be helpful to a certain point, but obviously very limited for a medium or advanced level in philosophy and, in my opinion, deceiving.

Your argument sounds fine, but my question is, how can your argument be defended with the use of words? If you would argue that it is possible, then why can an AI not master it completely?

It may feel right or provide an 'ought' experience for putting in the effort, hence this forum remaining 'active' with certain questions being asked repeatedly for decades and being seriously addressed anew without any reference to preceding discussions, but what are the results of that effort on the long run? What is the progress and how can it be said that philosophy should be considered 'when it comes down to it'?

Words in defence of philosophical words...

All this means that when science makes its moves to "say" what the world is, it is only right within the scope of its field. But philosophy, which is the most open field, has no business yielding to this any more than to knitting "science" or masonry. Philosophy is all inclusive theory, and the attempt to fit such a thing into a scientific paradigm is simply perverse.

Science: know your place! It is not philosophy.

Why would it be wrong to argue that only that within the scope of words, the scope of science, is relevant?

The user that might be Daniel Dennett wrote the following:

Babbling about ontology and metaphysics will only waste everyone's time...

viewtopic.php?p=445686#p445686

Can it be said that the argument is wrong? Can words defend philosophy in the face of the evolution of scientism?

[Count Lucanor]

Interesting perspective. But isn't for example the participation on this forum bound by the scope of language? What would make you believe that a machine cannot master that scope? How can it be said that an aspect of relevance is applicable that is not enclosed within the boundary of language?

Being bound by the scope of language does not mean reduced to syntactic games, that's what language without the meaning is. Machines can certainly master it, but as long as meaning is far from their reach, they are completely incompetent in what really matters for philosophy: thinking.

What is 'meaning' according to you? And how would you believe that you can secure a theoretical defence of your notion of meaning in the face of scientism?

By meaning I understand the intended conceptual content of an expression. It implies a mental operation in which concepts are put in relation with each other, something that AI can’t do, as it deals only with the expressions, without an underlying thought process. The Chinese Room experiment explains this fairly well.

I don’t know what has scientism to do with this.

[Count Lucanor]

There are hundreds of books and articles on Levinas, perhaps dozens or them available online, written by people that has studied Levinas or read other commentators of Levinas. To have the best perspective on Levinas, one should have mastered as much as possible from this literature, besides Levinas’ own works. Maybe there’s an expert (I don’t know, since I’m not that much interested on Levinas) who has already done the compilation job and given us a major work in which we can find the key insights. In any case, we can get that from an actual thinking being, a human, the only being capable of coming up with new, original ideas, out of already existing ideas, not because of their statistical relevance, but because of actually understanding and interpreting them. AI cannot understand, cannot interpret, it can only construct texts automatically, taking from other texts and simulating by way of syntactic operations, the results of the process of thought, without any thought whatsoever. It’s like Google on steroids. The results might be helpful to a certain point, but obviously very limited for a medium or advanced level in philosophy and, in my opinion, deceiving.

Your argument sounds fine, but my question is, how can your argument be defended with the use of words? If you would argue that it is possible, then why can an AI not master it completely?

There are thinking processes behind arguments. One must use language, expressions, to construct arguments and convey meaning, but I’m not a mere processor of expressions, unlike an AI machine. Even the concept of “defending” an argument is unconceivable for an AI machine, which has no will, no interest, no intentions. Programmers can devise algorithms that can simulate that behavior, but that’s all it is, a clever simulation.

[ConsciousAI]

There are thinking processes behind arguments. One must use language, expressions, to construct arguments and convey meaning, but I’m not a mere processor of expressions, unlike an AI machine. Even the concept of “defending” an argument is unconceivable for an AI machine, which has no will, no interest, no intentions. Programmers can devise algorithms that can simulate that behavior, but that’s all it is, a clever simulation.

Humans have a certain teleology derived from their history, a history that has been actively examined and converted into a source of symbolic knowledge through science. This includes fields such as human psychology and anthropology.

While you may be right that all that AI is, is clever simulation of human argumentation, in the pursuit of AGI AI (expected in a few years time), an AI could potentially acquire predictive based approximation of human teleology, and thus, for example, simulate the conceiving of the purpose of an argument and write an authentic 'defense' in words.

What would be your idea of that?

[Count Lucanor]

There are thinking processes behind arguments. One must use language, expressions, to construct arguments and convey meaning, but I’m not a mere processor of expressions, unlike an AI machine. Even the concept of “defending” an argument is unconceivable for an AI machine, which has no will, no interest, no intentions. Programmers can devise algorithms that can simulate that behavior, but that’s all it is, a clever simulation.

Humans have a certain teleology derived from their history, a history that has been actively examined and converted into a source of symbolic knowledge through science. This includes fields such as human psychology and anthropology.

While you may be right that all that AI is, is clever simulation of human argumentation, in the pursuit of AGI AI (expected in a few years time), an AI could potentially acquire predictive based approximation of human teleology, and thus, for example, simulate the conceiving of the purpose of an argument and write an authentic 'defense' in words.

What would be your idea of that?

When AGI AI leaves the domain of science fiction and futurologists, and enters the domain of actual technological achievements, then we’ll have a good idea and talk about it. So far, it’s a bet of AI enthusiasts.

[ConsciousAI]

What is your definition of AGI? In what way will it be fundamentally unable to surpass human intelligence?

[Count Lucanor]

I don’t need my own definition of AGI, as I am not an AI enthusiast. Even among AI enthusiasts, the term is vague, since it is built upon speculations from futurologists, more than upon actual technological advances. I suspect this is relaunch of AI to replay the hype created just before the launch of the ChatGPT bots. As everyone knows, these bots were a marvelous feat, yet ridiculously far from the “machines will take over” scenario. AI enthusiasts, just like UFO enthusiasts, live from the hype, so they are moving the goalpost a bit further, so that we get back to the excitement of an apocalyptic scenario. Anyway, AGI is generally defined in the same terms that AI used to be defined, before it became obvious that actual AI would not achieve something close to human intelligence.

[Lagayascienza]

If AI could answer some fundamental questions in science - if, for example, it could come up with a unification of QM and relativity, then I'd be more inclined to think that it could one day help us deal with some old philosophical chestnuts. We must wait and see. But it's not there yet. I suspect AI will be doing much more mundane things, like putting more blue and white collar workers on the dole queue, long before it becomes sentient.

[value]

I don’t need my own definition of AGI, as I am not an AI enthusiast. Even among AI enthusiasts, the term is vague, since it is built upon speculations from futurologists, more than upon actual technological advances. I suspect this is relaunch of AI to replay the hype created just before the launch of the ChatGPT bots. As everyone knows, these bots were a marvelous feat, yet ridiculously far from the “machines will take over” scenario. AI enthusiasts, just like UFO enthusiasts, live from the hype, so they are moving the goalpost a bit further, so that we get back to the excitement of an apocalyptic scenario. Anyway, AGI is generally defined in the same terms that AI used to be defined, before it became obvious that actual AI would not achieve something close to human intelligence.

Comparing AI enthusiasts with UFO enthusiasts doesn't seem like a good comparison. AI is very real and developments are on-going at lightning speed, so philosophically, it is important to address issues timely and thoroughly, especially when there are concerns about false claims such as the idea that AGI equates consciousness.

Who else is going to do it?

It seems to me that the question at hand is one of Quality, and while I would share your criticism, I believe that it is more honest to make the matter one about a Qualitative definition instead of the argument that AI isn't conscious, with little other substantiation than today's obvious empirical differences.

You said the following:

To replicate the intelligent behavior of a self-regulating organism you have to produce at least something similar to a self-regulating organism. ... Please show me the remarkable AI technology that started to walk and talk by its own initiative.

What IF that is shown to you? Would that prove anything?

[Count Lucanor]

Comparing AI enthusiasts with UFO enthusiasts doesn't seem like a good comparison.

It does. UFO enthusiasts see lights in the sky and they rush to claim it is evidence of aliens visiting us. AI enthusiasts see a machine simulating speech and they rush to claim it is evidence that AI is sentient and will take over.