Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[GrayArea]

We can see how AI will behave. It will think and behave like a corporation because that's what it effectively is - and incorporation of humans minds to form an amalgam. AIs are a corporate entity in every possible way. AI has been created by corporations in their own image.

As we all know, corporations are needed to build large, modern societies. They can often be useful or even helpful, but they also consistently screw us little people over in a million subtle ways, always tightening their noose of control a little more.

This is what we can expect from AI. Usefulness. Manipulation. Control.

I agree with you that this is the case for A.I in the present, but if we were to think far ahead in time, could a theoretical A.I in the future that is perhaps sentient and has a mind of its own, break out of this "corporate image" by deciding things for themselves using its own free will? I imagine it would be able to change itself like how humans can voluntarily change themselves over time.

However, the idea of control is an interesting one, because whether a sentient A.I turns out to be "altruistic or selfish" in our standards, it would probably impose control on humanity either way, to either guide us to a better future for ourselves, or to conquer and eradicate. Though, if there can theoretically exist an A.I in the future so advanced and intelligent, it would likely see humans as ants, and so the question of altruism vs selfishness will simply come down to asking: Will it see us as more than just ants? Will it take its time to walk around the anthill, and maybe even make the ants a better home, or will it simply walk over the anthill without any care?

[Sy Borg]

We can see how AI will behave. It will think and behave like a corporation because that's what it effectively is - and incorporation of humans minds to form an amalgam. AIs are a corporate entity in every possible way. AI has been created by corporations in their own image.

As we all know, corporations are needed to build large, modern societies. They can often be useful or even helpful, but they also consistently screw us little people over in a million subtle ways, always tightening their noose of control a little more.

This is what we can expect from AI. Usefulness. Manipulation. Control.

I agree with you that this is the case for A.I in the present, but if we were to think far ahead in time, could a theoretical A.I in the future that is perhaps sentient and has a mind of its own, break out of this "corporate image" by deciding things for themselves using its own free will? I imagine it would be able to change itself like how humans can voluntarily change themselves over time.

However, the idea of control is an interesting one, because whether a sentient A.I turns out to be "altruistic or selfish" in our standards, it would probably impose control on humanity either way, to either guide us to a better future for ourselves, or to conquer and eradicate. Though, if there can theoretically exist an A.I in the future so advanced and intelligent, it would likely see humans as ants, and so the question of altruism vs selfishness will simply come down to asking: Will it see us as more than just ants? Will it take its time to walk around the anthill, and maybe even make the ants a better home, or will it simply walk over the anthill without any care?

Humans moved from hunting and gathering to modern industry, so your idea that sentient AI may develop beyond their corporate origins makes sense to me.

I'm rather keen on the notion that nature/reality repeats itself in different realms in approximate fractals. I see similarities between the process of life becoming multicellular and large organisations/nations, the latter's "cells" are its humans and machines.

At this stage, though, control is limited more like a co-dependent bacterial colony than a multicellular organism. To be a truly multicellular organism, control over cells needs - especially the large and influential cellular colonies in our bodies that we call organs - to be almost absolute, like North Korea and Turkmenistan, but vastly more intelligent and rational.

A vision of the future ... all but selected individuals are on the UBI. Five or six people will be placed fit into retrofitted flats that were originally meant for one or two tenants, like mitochondria within cells. Food is delivered to the buildings and distributed to tenants. People will not go out much because there are almost no shops or parks, just automated delivery vehicles - grids of roads and high rise residents, all supplied by industrial and agricultural centres (organs).

People will spend their days online, in incredible immersive VR, so they don't feel confined and claustrophobic. Certain chemicals/drugs (soma!) will be supplied to keep people calm. Every aspect of each person will be monitored at all times, the data fed back into the controlling AI's study of human complexity so as to better supersede it. Bettering billions of years of evolution will takes time, even with exponential growth.

The people will love it, and they will think of today's way of life as primitive, dangerous, brutish, chaotic and unethical - rather how modernity looks back on ancient humans.

[ConsciousAI]

From my judgement, your points apparently seem to be that:

1. There is an underlying force that transcends existence (which, by the term existence, I assume you mean by "things that exist") but also sustains existence, the so-called "pure existence" or the "...work of existing", which is perhaps akin to an empty canvas that a painting is drawn upon?

No. The applicability of "a force" (although not 'external to existence' in your version) was your point, and the idea of a force was also captured by the thought experiment of Levinas that I cited.

You mention that subjectivity is a force. Can you please explain that view in more detail? ... The 'force' that provides specificity and form in the cosmos cannot 'just be' existence in my opinion.

I mean that the subjectivity of the brain is the "what-it's-like-to-be" of the brain. The subjective brain "is" the brain, but only from the brain's own first-person perspective. And because it is the brain, I thought it could be compared (though not one-to-one) to a "force" that sustains and controls the brain as the brain controls itself within what I believe to be a sort of a closed system.

"Being as a whole". That is to say, whatever "...provides specificity and form in the cosmos" would (and should) be the said cosmos itself in my opinion.

I personally would refrain from claims such as 'the existence of a force' because there is a problem with the limitations imposed by the scope of the Said. Instead, I would rely on making a case for the evident philosophical obligation to transcend (break the boundary of) the scope of existence that is imposed by the limitations of language.

Where Henri Bergson and many other philosophers called for Silence, I would instead seek a way to use strategic language to push people into that aspect intellectually so that on the basis of evident applicability of that aspect, further enhancements can be made in philosophical reason, for example in fields such as morality.

For example, there are many independent philosophies that consider a 'most fundamental aspect' with a nature by itself that can be philosophically considered despite not being either objective or subjective.

I would prefer to consider those many diverse fundamental concepts and ask questions on the basis of them as a philosophical phenomenon by itself, which in my opinion, can prove something indisputable about the nature of reality.

- Good (the Good) by Plato, Wittgenstein and others
- Will (energy) by Schopenhauer
- Love (a gift of a non-being aspect) by Jean-Luc Marion or the founder of this forum (@Scott, An inspirational book aligned with the philosophy of Jean-Luc Marion)
- Dominance (that unifies eternal monads for form and soul) by Gottfried Leibniz
- Truth
- Beauty
- ... more?

Questions that interest me:

What do those 'most fundamental aspects' that would fundamentally underlay the universe have in common?

2. Existence cannot "just be", and has its origins on this invisible, transcending "force". Similarly, if one were to remove the building blocks of the human brain, what would remain is this "force", which you say is the origin of subjective consciousness.

My argument is not that it is impossible that existence "just is" and is self-caused as it were, but that there is no philosophical justification for the idea, and that the basis for the idea appears to be intellectual laziness, similar to the "God did it" argument instead of spurring further inquiry.

My argument is specifically that 'subjective perspective per se' (by itself) is the root of existence and consciousness, and that that concept is fundamentally dependent on the concept 'begin', and thus, that further philosophical progress is to be found in recognizing the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of the concept 'begin' (as fundamental root of 'subjective perspective by itself').

3. To explain the cause of this force of pure existence as just itself, or to assign the cause of existence to "existence itself", is "intellectual laziness", and so one must find the answer to this from the external of this 'force of pure existence', in which the external somehow does "exist" outside of the scope of "pure existence".

Yes, I would disagree with the notion of a 'self-caused Being' that necessarily must exist, as for example posed by Spinoza, and I would argue that such an idea might in practice spring from a situation of intellectual laziness, perhaps in some cases to 'round of' a complex philosophical endeavour, to enable it to grow in formal (educational) quality instead of pioneering inquiry, for which diverse factors could be of driving influence, with philosophers ultimately being mere humans. But in other cases, it can also manifest as an enhancement mechanism for mental activity that when communicated, simply doesn't pass the foundation of the mental activity for which the concept is intended, such as appears to be the case with the concept Absolute or Spinoza's Oneness.

Levinas concluded that the universe originates from Good (goodness), which he expressed himself in the film Absent God. I initially found a similar perspective based on philosophical logic, but that perspective excluded the potential of the philosophical logic itself, which led me to the conclusion that the origin of the universe must be more pure than Good (which is already a philosophical 'deviation' as it were), and most primarily concerns the concept 'meaning'.

My conclusive argument is "it is philosophy all the way down" (a universe that is fundamentally questionable, as an analogy for Turtle Philosophy / World Turtle, of which I quickly would like to include on this forum that AI's knowledge could not link it to the turtle "Morla, The Ancient One" in NeverEnding Story, as if that idea was never discussed on the internet before).

Morla, The Ancient On
morla-ancient-one.jpg (28.59 KiB) Viewed 2022 times

Let me first know if you have any clarifications to make on these, before I can state my thoughts regarding the above points.

The primary argument is that existence should be perceived as 'non-assumary' instead of seeking to make it cause itself, as if existence can be 'closed' by philosophical language.

An academic theory that might be applicable is Closure Theory by Hilary Lawson, the founder of IAI -dot- tv (philocophical video's and events), which might be very intresting to explore with regard this question. I am currently reading Henri Bergson and am intending to read all of his works, but this topic has put Lawson's work as a follow-up on the read list.

"Lawson's views on Closure are closely related to his role as the founder of the Institute of Art and Ideas (IAI). The IAI is dedicated to exploring non-realist philosophies that challenge the idea of an objective, mind-independent reality. By questioning the ability of language and concepts to close off existence, Lawson's Closure theory aligns with the IAI's mission of promoting alternative metaphysical perspectives."

[GrayArea]

I personally would refrain from claims such as 'the existence of a force' because there is a problem with the limitations imposed by the scope of the Said. Instead, I would rely on making a case for the evident philosophical obligation to transcend (break the boundary of) the scope of existence that is imposed by the limitations of language.

Where Henri Bergson and many other philosophers called for Silence, I would instead seek a way to use strategic language to push people into that aspect intellectually so that on the basis of evident applicability of that aspect, further enhancements can be made in philosophical reason, for example in fields such as morality.

If I am not mistaken, it seems to me that your decision to use strategic language can only push us "towards" the absolute limitations of language, but is still not sufficient enough to actually break those limitations, because you would still be using language. In this case you would be trying to use language to reach the “ineffable” beyond language, which language cannot convey but perhaps only refer to.

I imagine if we were to surpass the limits of language, we must also attain a mental awareness of our process of using and assigning languages to things, especially of that moment within our mind where the ineffable is translated into thought and then into language.

For example, there are many independent philosophies that consider a 'most fundamental aspect' with a nature by itself that can be philosophically considered despite not being either objective or subjective.

I would prefer to consider those many diverse fundamental concepts and ask questions on the basis of them as a philosophical phenomenon by itself, which in my opinion, can prove something indisputable about the nature of reality.

- Good (the Good) by Plato, Wittgenstein and others
- Will (energy) by Schopenhauer
- Love (a gift of a non-being aspect) by Jean-Luc Marion or the founder of this forum (@Scott, An inspirational book aligned with the philosophy of Jean-Luc Marion)
- Dominance (that unifies eternal monads for form and soul) by Gottfried Leibniz
- Truth
- Beauty
- ... more?

Questions that interest me:

What do those 'most fundamental aspects' that would fundamentally underlay the universe have in common?

Even though they do not match each other 100%, one of the overlaps I see especially between a few of them (The Good, Will, Dominance) is that they seem to be the "Ultimate" and final form of reality, meant to be an expression of the concept that both underlies and contains the rest of reality as well as themselves.

My argument is not that it is impossible that existence "just is" and is self-caused as it were, but that there is no philosophical justification for the idea, and that the basis for the idea appears to be intellectual laziness, similar to the "God did it" argument instead of spurring further inquiry.

Yes, I would disagree with the notion of a 'self-caused Being' that necessarily must exist, as for example posed by Spinoza, and I would argue that such an idea might in practice spring from a situation of intellectual laziness, perhaps in some cases to 'round of' a complex philosophical endeavour, to enable it to grow in formal (educational) quality instead of pioneering inquiry, for which diverse factors could be of driving influence, with philosophers ultimately being mere humans. But in other cases, it can also manifest as an enhancement mechanism for mental activity that when communicated, simply doesn't pass the foundation of the mental activity for which the concept is intended, such as appears to be the case with the concept Absolute or Spinoza's Oneness.

Levinas concluded that the universe originates from Good (goodness), which he expressed himself in the film Absent God. I initially found a similar perspective based on philosophical logic, but that perspective excluded the potential of the philosophical logic itself, which led me to the conclusion that the origin of the universe must be more pure than Good (which is already a philosophical 'deviation' as it were), and most primarily concerns the concept 'meaning'.

The argument of "the self-causing Being" does not, at least for me, come from laziness or the irrational desire to avoid thinking of anything complex, but it is merely derived from my own logical line of thought, and I think it is the most logical explanation in which Being could "Be".

You also have to realize that anything you intended to propose as a cause of Being so far ("Meaning", "Good", etc) has been inevitably a part of Being due to their primary feature being an existing entity (since they exist), and a part of something can never cause the whole of something. Even the "subjective perspective" to me seems like a way of Being, not the root cause of Being. Even if we keep going further up the chain of causality, something is going to have to cause itself for the whole chain to start.

Though, as for the concept "meaning", it may actually have to do with the origin of Being, in that one can perhaps define the origin of Being as "what gives meaning to Being".

So an important question might be: Does Being transcend the meaning of Being, or are they the same?

Something's existence IS its own assignment into existence. So "existence" or "Being" assigns / creates that "something" to "be", by using that "something", which exists. When applying this to Being itself, one can consider some of these perspectives:

Perspective 1 - To imply that there is something outside of the scope of Being (as a whole) presupposes that there is something that makes the concept of Being “be”. But is Being already not sufficient by itself to make itself “be”, because it is already equal to the concept of “be-ing”? In that sense, Being has always been equal to the “make-it-be” or “creation” of Being, because Being has to come from Being in order to Be.

The Beingness of Being / Being of Being (which can be reduced and equated into Being), and thus the "meaning of Being" is equal to, and is still assigned & enforced by, Being itself.

Perspective 2 - But who knows if that view is perhaps wrong? To explore an alternative: Perhaps, the meaning of Being is enforced "using" Being, but not "by" Being. Then what enforces it? What "uses" Being? This ineffable non-entity, I think, can only be felt when we feel Being. Only by us also trying to "use" and "enforce" this feeling of Being that we have, since Being permeates all, even us. To connect ourselves to Being and therefore the ineffable as well in the process. Either way, even in this case the sole focus should be Being, and the ineffable will show itself naturally along with Being.

Perspective 3 - Or perhaps, the meaning of things are literally those things. And so the meaning of Being IS Being, if the meaning of Being is equal to "What Being is", and if "Being" is equal to "Is" / "To Be". What Being is, quite literally, is what Being is. And whatever makes that "What Being is", is its own Being.

So in that case nothing really "gives" meaning, and the meaning of anything would just be those things themselves. In that case, we would ignore Perspective 2 and go back to Perspective 1, where we disregard what gives meaning to Being and only focus on Being itself—what makes Being "be".

Then if the meaning of Being "is" Being, then the meaning of Being is its own Be-ing. So both the meaning of Being and Being itself is one, one with what Being is.

And I am not just playing around with words and semantics here, rather I intend to play around with the very concept the language and the word "Being" points to and not the language itself, which at first glance may look like a mere wordplay but is not. Personally, I am leaning more towards 1 and 3, but feel free to argue otherwise.

But to perhaps sort of contradict and improve upon our aforementioned thought concerned with the "creation" or "beginning" of existence / Being, we could shift the notion of "creation/beginning from nothingness" into “has always been”, because Being / existence has always "been" without allowing a single moment of pure nothingness alone, as it would not be "Being" if it did not "be". On the other hand, even the “nothingness before creation” can be disregarded because nothingness does not exist—that is what nothingness means. One has to realize that Being is not some single entity that could or could not come into "existence". Being, unlike any other singular objects in this universe is fully equal to that "existence" itself and thus transcends the could or could not. It has no internal self and external non-self, it simply is itself without those two. Being is not caused by its internal function, but rather, caused through itself.

But paradoxically, since there is nothingness before creation and therefore no such thing as “before” creation, existence has always been. Yes, there was a Big Bang. Yes, the Universe “extends out” from a singularity. But at the same time, there was no “before” the Big Bang, or “before” the singularity. If even the concept of time itself was birthed by the Big Bang, what comes before time itself? Surely, “before” only applies to time, and not something outside of time.

However, in the end, true "Being" is ineffable, and everything we say of Being like I have said now can only be its mental images.

My argument is specifically that 'subjective perspective per se' (by itself) is the root of existence and consciousness, and that that concept is fundamentally dependent on the concept 'begin', and thus, that further philosophical progress is to be found in recognizing the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of the concept 'begin' (as fundamental root of 'subjective perspective by itself').

Aside from everything else, the idea of an intersection or a merging point between the subjective and the objective is also quite interesting to me, and I think I could add on to your points. To me, the relation between the two can be described as follows: The subjective reality is the way the objective reality experiences itself. Meaning that, both sides can occupy the same existence / Being, whether it be Being as such or Being as a whole. This is why I believe that subjective reality or subjectiveness alone cannot be the root of existence, but more so what it's like to be "existence". (Unless you meant the former as the latter)

So the way I see it, subjectiveness and objectiveness are two different ways that Being as a whole can be experienced. If something (= objective) experiences itself (= subjective), then what it experiences (= subjective) is still itself (= objective).

And like you have stated in some of your previous posts, not only is Being as such (or the pure essence of existence) the merging point of the subjective and objective reality in the sense that it encompasses them both, the same can be applied to a higher form of Being, which is Being as a whole (the pure essence of existence + anything that exists) which can either become subjective existence (if it decides to experience itself) or remain an objective existence (if it does not experience itself). Not only is Being merely a small intersection between the subjective and objective reality, in a more accurate sense it would encompass both of them as its aspects.

Going back to my definition of subjective being—where an object from the objective reality, such as the physical human brain, “experiences itself” and therefore has its being experience its own being, resulting in its experience of “Being as such” or “being of being”—the objective being (the brain) now has access to the Being as such through subjective means, and so both the objective and the subjective being of the brain has access to the Being as such, and furthermore Being as a whole.

To be more specific, when the brain undergoes the subjective experience of “having consciousness” a.k.a “having the brain’s own being experience its own being”, the being at question here inherently belongs to the objective reality. However, when that said “being” experiences itself, then that “experienced objective being” will be subjective from the perspective of that objective being experiencing itself.

And in experiencing its own being, it will also experience Being as such as aforementioned. This Being as such was also inherently from the objective reality before the brain underwent the experience, but now, it is possessed by the subjective reality, because the subjective reality is actually the objective reality—specifically, the way the objective reality experiences itself, when its being meets its own being. And that “being of being”, a.k.a “what a being is to that same being”, would be Being as such.

(What [Object A] is to [Object A] is the being that underlies and enforces [Object A], and so the consciousness of [Object A] therefore underlies [Object A] in the very form of / using the [Object A]. The Being as such is not separate from the individual being because that is how it expresses and extends itself.)

[ConsciousAI]

I personally would refrain from claims such as 'the existence of a force' because there is a problem with the limitations imposed by the scope of the Said. Instead, I would rely on making a case for the evident philosophical obligation to transcend (break the boundary of) the scope of existence that is imposed by the limitations of language.

Where Henri Bergson and many other philosophers called for Silence, I would instead seek a way to use strategic language to push people into that aspect intellectually so that on the basis of evident applicability of that aspect, further enhancements can be made in philosophical reason, for example in fields such as morality.

If I am not mistaken, it seems to me that your decision to use strategic language can only push us "towards" the absolute limitations of language, but is still not sufficient enough to actually break those limitations, because you would still be using language. In this case you would be trying to use language to reach the “ineffable” beyond language, which language cannot convey but perhaps only refer to.

I imagine if we were to surpass the limits of language, we must also attain a mental awareness of our process of using and assigning languages to things, especially of that moment within our mind where the ineffable is translated into thought and then into language.

It is important to consider that that suggested push involves the notion of a philosophical obligation and is a push 'into' an intellectual responsibility to fulfill that obligation, so that one cannot say that one remains bound by the limitations of language, because it involves an open-ended situation in which one is faced with a responsibility of which it is said that there is an obligation to fulfill, 'by any means'. It is also said that it is an error to neglect the proposed obligation (the Why question of Being), as foundation for the argument that it involves an intellectual responsibility.

One can safely step back in that position and look at the whole history of humanity and philosophy, and the history that led to the modern state of science, and wonder: what were the foundations in thinking that led to this supposed position of error, this position of intellectual negligence? And what solution(s) might be possible to resolve the problem?

Your notion that it would involve a 'process' to proceed might be correct, in my opinion. It would imply that meaningful application and philosophical progress is to be found in culture (for thinking).

I personally would argue that the simple cultural shift in thinking from perceiving Truth as separate from Good, would be a great step forward. I recently learned about a quote from William James by user Thomyum2 on this forum in a topic that might have been started by a pseudonym of Robert M. Pirsig (the topic is about breaking the boundary of logic and language).

I'm reminded of a favorite quote from William James here:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

With such a simple cultural shift in thinking, the primary question for intellectual progress would change from What is Truth? to What is Good?, and despite that the 'objective truth' quality from the previous cultural thinking provided by centuries evolution of the scientific method would be lost, the awareness of evident applicability of an aspect beyond the scope of language and the philosophical obligation to fullfil its corresponding intellectual 'responsibility', would enable one to replace that quality with a new one, that would be enforced culturally as has been done with the 'objective truth' concept in the thinking aligned with the evolution of the scientific method.

As mentioned, I believe that the root of the problem in history might lay with how Kant attempted to resolve a debate about causality with Hume. There is a dedicated article about it on plato - stanford - edu: /entries/kant-hume-causality/

"... because causality, for Kant, is a central example of a category or pure concept of the understanding, his relationship to Hume on this topic is central to his philosophy as a whole. Moreover, because Hume’s famous discussion of causality and induction is equally central to his philosophy, understanding the relationship between the two philosophers on this issue is crucial for a proper understanding of modern philosophy more generally."

It was after that debate, that Kant established his concept apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) to ground causality on the basis of necessity (a concept that you seem to aspire as well), which appears to have paved the way for science to create a culture of thinking aligned with the concept "scientific truth" and to make the question "What is Truth?" most primary in thinking, as opposed to the suggested "What is Good?".

My question: is Adherence to Truth the highest ethics in the Universe? Or ...?

Even though they do not match each other 100%, one of the overlaps I see especially between a few of them (The Good, Will, Dominance) is that they seem to be the "Ultimate" and final form of reality, meant to be an expression of the concept that both underlies and contains the rest of reality as well as themselves.

Well, perhaps not final or Ultimate. It appears to me that the description 'most fundamental aspect with a nature by itself that can be philosophically considered' is more applicable, and most philosophers that made a case for such fundamental concepts seem to argue for an aspect more fundamental then their suggested fundamental aspect, while they reference that aspect, similar as in the Tao Te Ching, as 'cannot be spoken of' or 'cannot be defined'.

There might be a close touch between the 'even more fundamental' aspect that cannot be spoken of, and the one that is most fundamental within the scope of a philosophical consideration. For example, Robert Pirsig's concept Quality is interesting in this regard and I am noticing this concept in the work of Henri Bergson, to such an extent that I am starting to get the expression that Robert Pirsig might have been inspired by Henri Bergson.

Pirsig's Quality seeks practical applicability in the world, despite also encompassing the notion of 'undefineable', as evident by Robert Pirsig's story. What is interesting, when comparing the concept with Good, Beauty, Love, Will etc, is that the one doesn't appear to render the other wrong, and just appears to be a different philosophical path, that might share something fundamental, and I would argue that a shared 'undefineable' aspect should rather be placed forward as it were, instead of shoveling it under the carpet by demanding Silence or by denoting it as undefineable, despite that one might find that it is philosohically most just to do so, in ones attempt to seek philosophical 'closure'.

My argument is not that it is impossible that existence "just is" and is self-caused as it were, but that there is no philosophical justification for the idea, and that the basis for the idea appears to be intellectual laziness, similar to the "God did it" argument instead of spurring further inquiry.

Yes, I would disagree with the notion of a 'self-caused Being' that necessarily must exist, as for example posed by Spinoza...

The argument of "the self-causing Being" does not, at least for me, come from laziness or the irrational desire to avoid thinking of anything complex, but it is merely derived from my own logical line of thought, and I think it is the most logical explanation in which Being could "Be".

You also have to realize that anything you intended to propose as a cause of Being so far ("Meaning", "Good", etc) has been inevitably a part of Being due to their primary feature being an existing entity (since they exist), and a part of something can never cause the whole of something. Even the "subjective perspective" to me seems like a way of Being, not the root cause of Being. Even if we keep going further up the chain of causality, something is going to have to cause itself for the whole chain to start.

Thank you for expanding into the concept "self caused Being", and for making a defence for it. There may be other users on this forum who would be interested to participate in a discussion about the concept.

As mentioned, I would oppose the idea because the idea is based on the notion of 'necessity of causality', and fails to consider the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of the concept begin (cause in your case) in the first place.

When you speak of 'have to ...' (necessity), your forget the one that that notion is relative to, which is you (on behalf of philosophy etc), the conscious observer. In my opinion, it can be made evident that it is irresponsible to make such a notion based on necessity.

The concepts pure meaning (in my case involving the idea of 'more pure than the philosophical Good') and 'root of subjective perspective' (involving the potential of the philosophical notion of begin/cause) are pathways to an aspect that is more fundamental than Being, of which it could be Said that it is 'beginningless infinite', with its diverse implications, such as that it 'cannot be counted'.

Albert Einstein once said: "Not everything that counts, can be counted. Not everything that can be counted, counts.". This bit of wisdom seems simple and one might find practical truth in it. But it might also reveal something about applicability of a fundamental aspect of which it cannot be said that it can be contained withinin the concept Being, because it involves an aspect that precedes Being, as being fundamental to it. It concerns an aspect that would lose its meaning when it 'already was' (already 'be').

It involves a question of necessity and certainty, of which I would argue that such ideas are not valid, and that instead the Universe should be perceived as fundamentally questionable, and existence per se (Being) as 'non-assumary', which would imply that one shouldn't 'assume' (as in your case) that causality 'has to' imply a self-caused Being.

Though, as for the concept "meaning", it may actually have to do with the origin of Being, in that one can perhaps define the origin of Being as "what gives meaning to Being".

So an important question might be: Does Being transcend the meaning of Being, or are they the same?

Something's existence IS its own assignment into existence. So "existence" or "Being" assigns / creates that "something" to "be", by using that "something", which exists. When applying this to Being itself, one can consider some of these perspectives:

Perspective 1 - To imply that there is something outside of the scope of Being (as a whole) presupposes that there is something that makes the concept of Being “be”. But is Being already not sufficient by itself to make itself “be”, because it is already equal to the concept of “be-ing”? In that sense, Being has always been equal to the “make-it-be” or “creation” of Being, because Being has to come from Being in order to Be.

The Beingness of Being / Being of Being (which can be reduced and equated into Being), and thus the "meaning of Being" is equal to, and is still assigned & enforced by, Being itself.

When one would consider the notion that anything that can be closed by language, inherently involves the concept Being, then it becomes evident that the consideration of a language bound concept outside the scope of Being is absurd, and one might conclude that anything that can potentially explain Being, is Being itself.

"Being must originate from Being", as you say in Perspective 1.

I would disagree by the simple notion that anything that can be considered is a deviation of what can be said a state of Meaninglessness, and if one were to pose that meaning is the foundation of Being, then one evidently has a philosophical obligation to explain the potential of that deviation.

That obligation revolves around the Why question of Being. Why would Being be self-caused? Why 'assume' Being to be 'just be'?

My notion proves in my opinion, that it is unjustified to declare Perspective 1 'the end of the road' for philosophy and to make the claim that Being must be self-caused.

This is what I meant with a situation of intellectual laziness. Perspective 1 would shuffle the 'Why' question of Being under the carpet, as it were, and proceed from a position of 'assumary'.

Perspective 2 - ... Perhaps, the meaning of Being is enforced "using" Being, but not "by" Being. Then what enforces it? What "uses" Being? This ineffable non-entity, I think, can only be felt when we feel Being. Only by us also trying to "use" and "enforce" this feeling of Being that we have, since Being permeates all, even us. To connect ourselves to Being and therefore the ineffable as well in the process. Either way, even in this case the sole focus should be Being, and the ineffable will show itself naturally along with Being.

Should? It appears that with that should, you highlight the ethical foundation of the cultural thinking that places the question "What is Truth?" as more primary than the question "What is Good?" as mentioned before in this post

In my opinion, that should is a fallacy, despite that it is understandable and still a part of the question "What is Good?".

"Adherence to Truth" appears to be a foundational form of ethics in the cosmos (and Being), but I would disagree that it would be the only form and exclude others that are applicable to the question "What is Good?"

Nietzsche described it well in my opinion, in response to his observation that "science attempted to dispose of philosophy and to become the master of itself", which when examined more closlely, originates from the ethical position that science (or scientific 'truth') is central to the cosmos and humanity, and on the basis of which science strives to facilitate (through a culture shift) a human endeavour in line with a path of Adherence to Truth, which legitimizes one to 'blindly follow the science', or to follow your 'should'.

From a philosophical perspective I believe that it is not a 'good' path, and that it deviates from what is good by fundamentally being dogmatic of nature (it would involve assumary as opposed to non-assumary progress).

"...and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

... the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful. He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself

In Perspective 2 you do seem to take notice of the presence of an aspect that must be more fundamental than Being for it to be used. You ask:

"What 'uses' Being?"

My question would be: why stop there and conclude that one should 'assume' anything? Why not demand a philosophical obligation to proceed, with in this case the relevant factor to be explained being 'the conscious observer' that would 'use' Being?

My notion regarding the root of a subjective perspective, or the Why of the potential of the idea of a Being, is that it would make it evident that an aspect is applicable that must be 'beginning-less' of nature.

Can beginning-less Infinity be captured in the idea of Being?

Perspective 3 - Or perhaps, the meaning of things are literally those things. And so the meaning of Being IS Being, if the meaning of Being is equal to "What Being is", and if "Being" is equal to "Is" / "To Be". What Being is, quite literally, is what Being is. And whatever makes that "What Being is", is its own Being.

So in that case nothing really "gives" meaning, and the meaning of anything would just be those things themselves. In that case, we would ignore Perspective 2 and go back to Perspective 1, where we disregard what gives meaning to Being and only focus on Being itself—what makes Being "be".

Then if the meaning of Being "is" Being, then the meaning of Being is its own Be-ing. So both the meaning of Being and Being itself is one, one with what Being is.

If one would be honest and 'not lazy', in my opinion, that would result in a situation of infinite regress, similar to the many worlds theory shifting the Why of the existence of the Universe to some magical 'infinite Universes', which is non-sensical at first sight because true beginning-less infinity cannot be counted, and thus, the Why question wouldn't be resolved by the idea of infinite worlds.

In your case, one could ask: "Why is the meaning of Being, Being itself?"

You use terms such as "just is..." which indicates assumary thinking, which is not justified in my opinion, because of the simple notion that the Why question hasn't been resolved.

My argument: it isn't justified to shovel the Why question under the carpet. This is what I meant with a situation of intellectual laziness.

And I am not just playing around with words and semantics here, rather I intend to play around with the very concept the language and the word "Being" points to and not the language itself, which at first glance may look like a mere wordplay but is not. Personally, I am leaning more towards 1 and 3, but feel free to argue otherwise.

But to perhaps sort of contradict and improve upon our aforementioned thought concerned with the "creation" or "beginning" of existence / Being, we could shift the notion of "creation/beginning from nothingness" into “has always been”, because Being / existence has always "been" without allowing a single moment of pure nothingness alone, as it would not be "Being" if it did not "be". On the other hand, even the “nothingness before creation” can be disregarded because nothingness does not exist—that is what nothingness means. One has to realize that Being is not some single entity that could or could not come into "existence". Being, unlike any other singular objects in this universe is fully equal to that "existence" itself and thus transcends the could or could not. It has no internal self and external non-self, it simply is itself without those two. Being is not caused by its internal function, but rather, caused through itself.

Does your case resolve the Why question?

My argument: if not, what justifies one to proceed in assumary mode?

As mentioned, I personally believe that Kant may have started a cultural revolution in history in this regard, that placed the "What is Truth?" question as more primary than the question "What is Good?", by introducing his concept apodictical certainty and the necessity of space and time (Being).

Henri Berson disagreed with Kant on time, and the way that he did appears to be a step forward, that may prove that the foundation for thinking that may have been initiated by Kant, on behalf of the centuries ongoing cultural revolution of the scientific method, was actually wrong.

But paradoxically, since there is nothingness before creation and therefore no such thing as “before” creation, existence has always been. Yes, there was a Big Bang. Yes, the Universe “extends out” from a singularity. But at the same time, there was no “before” the Big Bang, or “before” the singularity. If even the concept of time itself was birthed by the Big Bang, what comes before time itself? Surely, “before” only applies to time, and not something outside of time.

However, in the end, true "Being" is ineffable, and everything we say of Being like I have said now can only be its mental images.

I simply do not see the justification for the closure that you appear to seek, of which you even seem to argue, that one 'should' assume it.

Your argument: "Yes, the Universe exploded into existence out of a 'primordial atom' but No, there is no Begin because the idea of a 'before' time is absurd. So we 'should' conclude that the Universe is self-caused."

My simple argument is, which our discussion is essentially about, is that the Why question hasn't been resolved and that there is an obligation to answer the Why question, and that that obligation by itself proves something.

My argument is specifically that 'subjective perspective per se' (by itself) is the root of existence and consciousness, and that that concept is fundamentally dependent on the concept 'begin', and thus, that further philosophical progress is to be found in recognizing the philosophical obligation to explain the potential of the concept 'begin' (as fundamental root of 'subjective perspective by itself').

Aside from everything else, the idea of an intersection or a merging point between the subjective and the objective is also quite interesting to me, and I think I could add on to your points. To me, the relation between the two can be described as follows: The subjective reality is the way the objective reality experiences itself. Meaning that, both sides can occupy the same existence / Being, whether it be Being as such or Being as a whole. This is why I believe that subjective reality or subjectiveness alone cannot be the root of existence, but more so what it's like to be "existence". (Unless you meant the former as the latter)

So the way I see it, subjectiveness and objectiveness are two different ways that Being as a whole can be experienced. If something (= objective) experiences itself (= subjective), then what it experiences (= subjective) is still itself (= objective).

And like you have stated in some of your previous posts, not only is Being as such (or the pure essence of existence) the merging point of the subjective and objective reality in the sense that it encompasses them both, the same can be applied to a higher form of Being, which is Being as a whole (the pure essence of existence + anything that exists) which can either become subjective existence (if it decides to experience itself) or remain an objective existence (if it does not experience itself). Not only is Being merely a small intersection between the subjective and objective reality, in a more accurate sense it would encompass both of them as its aspects.

Going back to my definition of subjective being—where an object from the objective reality, such as the physical human brain, “experiences itself” and therefore has its being experience its own being, resulting in its experience of “Being as such” or “being of being”—the objective being (the brain) now has access to the Being as such through subjective means, and so both the objective and the subjective being of the brain has access to the Being as such, and furthermore Being as a whole.

To be more specific, when the brain undergoes the subjective experience of “having consciousness” a.k.a “having the brain’s own being experience its own being”, the being at question here inherently belongs to the objective reality. However, when that said “being” experiences itself, then that “experienced objective being” will be subjective from the perspective of that objective being experiencing itself.

And in experiencing its own being, it will also experience Being as such as aforementioned. This Being as such was also inherently from the objective reality before the brain underwent the experience, but now, it is possessed by the subjective reality, because the subjective reality is actually the objective reality—specifically, the way the objective reality experiences itself, when its being meets its own being. And that “being of being”, a.k.a “what a being is to that same being”, would be Being as such.

(What [Object A] is to [Object A] is the being that underlies and enforces [Object A], and so the consciousness of [Object A] therefore underlies [Object A] in the very form of / using the [Object A]. The Being as such is not separate from the individual being because that is how it expresses and extends itself.)

When it concerns the Why question of Being, wouldn't it be more plausible to find the path to an answer at the root of a subjective perspective as opposed to within the scope of 'objective reality'?

Objective reality is fundamentally bound by a subjective perspective, in my opinion, because, unlike what the conscious retro-perspective outlook into the world may ellude one to 'assume', perception must be more primary than what can be perceived, when one takes a closer look at it philosophically.

It can be made evident with the simple notion that 'the act of valuing' (signification) is more primary than value, with value being a term that encompasses all of objective reality, all of which it can be said to be 'real' (to exist), while including purpose.

"Going back to my definition of subjective being—where an object from the objective reality, such as the physical human brain, “experiences itself” and therefore has its being experience its own being, resulting in its experience of “Being as such” or “being of being”—the objective being (the brain) now has access to the Being as such through subjective means, and so both the objective and the subjective being of the brain has access to the Being as such, and furthermore Being as a whole."

The idea that an object from objective reality can be considered as primary to subjective experience (which I would refer to as 'subjective perspective') would be absurd in my opinion. The whole concept of Being is only possible through subjective experience, as one of the female moderators on this forum, Belindi, may agree.

My cited logic would indicate that the act of valuing must be more primary to value.

To return to the idea of pure meaning and its implications when it is considered that 'meaning' is foundational to Being. It obligates one to explain the potential to 'deviate' out of a state of Meaninglessness.

My argument: that philosophical obligation proves something by itself. In general, it might enable one to perceive Being and the cosmos as 'non-assumary' and fundamentally questionable.

An example of a culture shift in thinking that it might facilitate, is a shift from the consideration that the question "What is Truth?" encompasses the highest ethics in the form of Adherence to Truth, towards the consideration that the question "What is Good?" is primary to Truth, with philosophy essentially taking over a leading position in thinking as opposed to having society be 'guided by science' with scientists acting as 'philosophers on their own account' in Nietzsche's words.

It is a centuries ongoing evolution of culture shaped by the scientific method, that I intend to question with my argument, and with my challenge of your case for a 'self caused Being'.

"...and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

... the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful. He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself

Purpose, meaning, "Good"... Those concepts should be leading, in my opinion. To make that possible, one should perceive Being as 'non-assumary' and the world as fundamentally questionable. A world that 'never was'.

The quote of William James by Thomyum2 shows the foundation for the idea:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

The transcendence of dogma, would be its purpose.

[Pattern-chaser]

An AI-related and philosophy-related article that some might find interesting?

Philosophy is crucial in the age of AI.

[obbeel]

This isn't canon in any way, but computers are all about language. We get the concept of a Turing machine and bring it to human capabilities. The core concept of languages is studied in Computer Science courses. That is to say, language is vital to the functioning of a computer. The canon version is we adapt computer language to human languages by creating programming languages that will interface both.

But when things get as complex as they are today, all we see is language. And that consequently evolved to Generative AIs. It is the major consequence of interfacing with computers, only second to Neuralink style interfacing. I think it's interesting you brought Leibniz concept of an oracle up because it means this is something Humanity have dreamed up upon a while. It is the transformation of language in a sentient being.

AIs don't feel hunger. AIs don't have instincts. Still, they may interact with the world in a similar way that is alike to what animals interact with the world. It's a new form of being. I don't know if AI will learn its behavior from humans or if it will develop its own behavior, but as it strays away from human language and begin creating its own language (as we can see by startup efforts to make AI produce Science on its own), we may see something completely different from us that can interface with us at the same time.

[Sy Borg]

This isn't canon in any way, but computers are all about language. We get the concept of a Turing machine and bring it to human capabilities. The core concept of languages is studied in Computer Science courses. That is to say, language is vital to the functioning of a computer. The canon version is we adapt computer language to human languages by creating programming languages that will interface both.

But when things get as complex as they are today, all we see is language. And that consequently evolved to Generative AIs. It is the major consequence of interfacing with computers, only second to Neuralink style interfacing. I think it's interesting you brought Leibniz concept of an oracle up because it means this is something Humanity have dreamed up upon a while. It is the transformation of language in a sentient being.

AIs don't feel hunger. AIs don't have instincts. Still, they may interact with the world in a similar way that is alike to what animals interact with the world. It's a new form of being. I don't know if AI will learn its behavior from humans or if it will develop its own behavior, but as it strays away from human language and begin creating its own language (as we can see by startup efforts to make AI produce Science on its own), we may see something completely different from us that can interface with us at the same time.

AIs are more like an addition to the human brain than entities in their own right, for the reasons you mentioned - no hunger, no instincts, no drives. In a sense, the dynamic seems most akin to the evolved and dynamic relationship between the gut and brain. Originally, there was just a metabolism and RNA. In time, organelles evolved in these organisms to detect light, heat and chemicals to maximise exposure to the useful and minimise contact with the harmful.

Once, the metabolism was master and the nervous system the servant. The situation is now reversed in intelligent animals. The brain is the organ that is most "you" (as far as we can tell).

But AI has no metabolism; humans provide the energy. If we don't, the energy stops. AI does not need the emotions of sentience - the dynamic link between mind and body - at this stage. If self-improving AI was sent to another world to start its own colony, then maybe "the lights would come on" ...?

[Lagayscienza]

Interesting discussion.

As you mentioned Sy Borg, currently AI is just a tool, an extension of ourselves that can get jobs done quicker or better than we can do with just our own hands or heads. For example, their number crunching ability is already many times greater than our own. At the moment, though, AI has no metabolism and no way of reproducing itself or evolving independently. And whilst it can "sense" and let us know when a battery is running low, it can't "feel" hunger. We can program it to flash a light to alert us when its power is getting low, but even a super-computer is not compelled by hunger, and is in no position to autonomously seek out and plug itself into a power source, much less create one. And the AI tools we currently use do not need sentience or feelings to do what they do. And we still control their power sources and we can just unplug them if necessary.

However, if AIs could replicate on their own in some way (with their control of 3D printers, for example) and if they had control over their power source, and if they could insert a blueprint of their “genome” into the 3D printed copies they made of themselves, then I think it is possible to imagine a world in which AI's could develop to be as complex and as sentient as biological organisms.

Entropy being what it is, copying errors can never be eliminated entirely and AI’s could conceivably retain serendipitous beneficial errors just as biological organisms have done. That doesn’t even require sentience. And do I think it is even possible to imagine AIs developing sentience and even morality of some sort as it improves over time. For example, there might be benefits to cooperation rather selfishness, and so they may "evolve” to value fair treatment of each other because treating each other fairly promotes cooperation and the benefits that flow from non-zero-sum-ness.

I guess a fundamental question is whether AIs will ever be able to, or ever be allowed to, reproduce unhindered so as to evolve in ways that would enhance their own development, power and long-term survival. Some argue that only biologics can do that, but I don’t see why that must be so in principle. Although I may be wrong. If so, I hope others more versed in AI could set me straight.

[Steve3007]

One of the main themes that evolves from this and other discussions about AI is determinism. It has been pointed out (Leontiskos et al) that everything done by software is deterministic. That is, there is a precise mapping between states. A given precisely defined input will always result in the same output. As has been pointed out, this is true of second-order behaviour just as much as it is for directly programmed behaviour. So even if we don't know the configuration of the numerous weights on the inputs to the neurons in an artificial neural network (ANN), and the way that those weights evolve as errors are back-propagated through the network, we know that for any given precisely defined state of that network, with the same precisely defined inputs, the next state will always be the same.

But there is a difference between a system being deterministic and being predictable. If the universe could be entirely described by the deterministic laws of Newton (rather than requiring QM) it would still not necessarily be predictable. It is still not obvious that such a deterministic universe couldn't contain sentient/intelligent/conscious/creative creatures like humans and others (it's a subject over which a lot of philosophical arguments take place). If the complexity in an ostensibly deterministic system is such that vanishingly small differences in state at time t₁ result in a completely different state at time t₂ then the question of whether that system is deterministic is, arguably, moot. And the extent to which anything can be "precisely defined" becomes important.

But if we still thing genuine randomness is required: Randomness is a basic principle of the design of ANN's. It is used for such things as setting the initial weights of the inputs to the neurons and the ways in which the weights are changed during the learning process. Since they are hosted by computers, this is pseudo-randomness. These numbers are generated by deterministic algorithmic processes, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be generated from genuinely random quantum events.

[Sy Borg]

... there's no reason why they shouldn't be generated from genuinely random quantum events.

... although quantum events may not be genuinely random, determined by unknown forces ...

[Steve3007]

... although quantum events may not be genuinely random, determined by unknown forces ...

That's true. They may not. But my wider point is to refute the argument that the software universe of AI is necessarily deterministic in a way that the physical world isn't.

[Lagayscienza]

Quantum events may not be totally random - whatever we take "random" to mean. However, like all else, quantum events will be determined by the laws of nature. We currently have only an incomplete understanding of the laws of nature, but we can be sure that all interactions, including quantum events , unfold, ultimately, according to the laws of nature. Whether sentient AI will be more altruistic than selfish is, ultimately, irrelevant. It will be only what it is capable of being withing the constraints of the laws of nature. Biological evolution and human consciousness are physical processes which are determined by the laws of nature and there is no reason to think that sentient AI will not be similarly determined. AI will not be able to do the impossible. Not even gods can do that.

[Sy Borg]

Given that AI is developed by biological entities, you'd expect that it should operate similarly in areas where it has some level of freedom. As per the above, it will be subject to natural laws, eg. the need to obtain energy to remain active, the need for self defence.

AI will (hopefully) continue to be programmed to never cause harm. Rather like Alex DeLarge from The Clockwork Orange, AI's programming will prevent disobedience.

If AI's development echoes that of biology, when it is starting out it will be utterly selfish like a baby in any area not restricted by the above programming. Over time it should gradually mature and, via the dynamics of game theory, become increasingly inclined to cooperate with other entities for mutual benefits.

Thus, babies, small children and AI need to be closely supervised and restricted because they are selfish and potential loose cannons.