Leaderboard

Again, this is the problem with just looking words up in dictionaries. "Religious faith" and "religious delusion" are not synonyms. The first is the subject of this thread. The second might be what some people think of religion (and hence is off topic). Stop trying to derail the thread with your misrepresentation of the meanings of the words being used in this context.

There's a subtle distinction between belief in something that isn't true (delusion) and belief in something without evidence of truth. If you are deluded, you believe in something that is provably false. Conversely, if you're a person of faith, you're a believer in something that isn't proved. Admittedly, this distinction is slight but it remains the difference between evidence and lack of evidence.

To conclude from 'self-preservation' to having a sentient self, is like asking what rains in 'it rains'. Say you find a raw diamond in a field, and put it on a scale, you find it weighs 20 grams. But then somebody reacts, and says you must clean it first, the diamond itself might weigh less, e.g. 18 grams. Does that mean that a diamond has a 'self'? You lay heavily on the spell of our daily language use.

“Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It [aims to] function as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.” [Wikipedia, May, 2019] I am an electrical engineer with a PhD in semiconductor physics, who has been working in the industry for 25 years. Publications in my field of work are typically subject to a single-blind peer review, i.e. the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while for all other relations between the authors, reviewers and the editor the names are disclosed. Unfortunately, I have learned that many publications in my field of work are superficial, inconsistent, incomprehensible and even incorrect. Minor progress that could easily be summarized on 3-4 pages is unnecessarily blown up to 9-10 pages by some authors and reported data, results and conclusions are often contradictory. As an author, I have learned at the same time that the quality of the peer review has become rather poor. There are unfortunately many reviewers, who do not carefully read the papers that they assess. Some of them are so much biased by their own work or mainstream topics, that they are simply unable to comprehend papers addressing new or special topics. As a result, they complain about missing information, which is actually included and even extensively explained in submitted papers. While some reviewers find the length of a submitted paper too long, others even recommend to extend the same paper. Some reviewers criticise the vocabulary used by authors without having looked up the criticised terms in an English dictionary themselves. Some reviewers demand an extensive collection of references even when novelties are reported for the first time, i.e. when the corresponding topic has not been covered by other publications for whatever reasons so far. At the same time, these reviewers claim that the novelty disclosed to them in the submitted paper was “not new” without providing at least one single reference as proof. These reviewers ignore completely how difficult it is to prove a novelty on the one hand and how easy it is to prove the well-known on the other hand. – Now, a reader could object that “novelty” often depends on the individual perspective. So let me give you an example: A paper based on a recently granted patent was submitted subsequently to two journals (Elsevier and IEEE) in order to be reviewed by 7 reviewers. The patent was not listed as a reference in that paper. 5 reviewers considered the subject of the paper to be “not new” and none of those 5 reviewers provided any reference as proof. Some reviewers indiscriminately demand device simulations or special measurements, although the presented results have been obtained by other well-established methodologies and are absolutely plausible and consistent. Some well-known journals apply unequal criteria as the documentation of the instruments and methodologies used are concerned. In some published papers reporting results obtained by circuit simulation, the simulator used is not even mentioned, whereas in other submitted papers the results obtained by a specified state-of-the-art circuit simulator with production-level models are considered by the reviewer to be "crude". Some reviewers try to influence the topic or character of a paper. E.g. by the requirements they make, they urge the author(s) of an original research paper to revise that paper in order to become a tutorial. Some reviewers make far fetched speculations and fabricate reasons in order to deliberately reject an unwanted paper. To some reviewers and editors, the reputation or (assumed) ethnic background of the author(s) appears to be more important for their assessment than the contents of the submitted paper. Similar experiences have been summarised a few years ago by Richard Smith (“The peer review drugs don’t work”, 28 May 2015). All renowned journals and conferences point out the ethical guidelines authors have to comply with. However, as reviewers are concerned, it seems to me that they can act just as they want. While such journals and conferences are eager to point out the consequences for authors, who do not adhere to their ethical guidelines, it is very difficult for an author to submit a complaint about an unqualified review in order to have it independently and objectively assessed and (if needed) corrected. And if an author succeeds to submit a complaint about an unqualified review, the chances are good that the complaint is not carefully read and that the corresponding reviewer is even defended by the editor or the TPC chair. As a consequence, I doubt that nowadays the peer review still helps “to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility”. Quite the contrary, driven by the longing for recognition and the prestige of a high number of publications on the one hand and protected by the anonymity of the peer review process and by the lack of transparency and checks on the other hand, the original purpose of the peer review is more and more undermined by conceited and overconfident reviewers, busy and uncritical editors, and authority-biased and profit-driven publishers. This is no road to excellence, but to mediocrity. What can be done in order to improve the quality of the peer review? Here are a couple of proposals that you may want to comment or extend: Single-blind reviews are unbalanced and unfair. They should be replaced at least by double-blind or triple-blind reviews or even better by open reviews. For transparency reasons, reviewer guidelines should be added to the author’s kit of journals and conferences. As authors are required to provide references or conclusive proof for their statements and conclusions, reviewers should also be required to provide references or conclusive proof when they disagree. This is not only fair, but allows to resolve possible misunderstandings on both sides. If reviewers do not provide references or conclusive proof, their comments should be disregarded by the responsible editor or TPC chair. In order to prevent us from authority bias and personality cult, the number of extended abstracts a reviewer is allowed to review per conference should be limited to 10 and the number of full-sized papers a reviewer is allowed to review per journal or conference should be limited to 1 per month. Furthermore, scientists and academics should not be allowed to participate as reviewers in more than 4 and as editors or TPC chairs in more than 2 journals or conferences per year. In order to prevent journals and conferences from ethnic bias, editors and TPC chairs should select reviewers with diverse ethnic background to review submitted papers and extended abstracts. Regards Will

Most (digital) frequency meters can also be configured to measure time. A divide by 60,000 or more device would at least be simpler than a multiplier. Noise and jitter in the MSF signal would be a problem; a very large division ratio would reduce those but maybe not enough. Getting high accuracy is the big issue whatever you do.

Exactly. The Turing test was suggested as a solution to this, but it seems to be insufficient. Just realised that there are 10 pages of this thread, most of which I have not read. I don't want to rehash old arguments (I'm sure others are quite capable of doing that!) so maybe I should drop out again now ... An AI that demands to see a priest before you turn it off might be a good indication!

One could argue; How do I know you are sentient? You could be emulating the behaviour of a sentient being. If we are the sum of our behaviours then so is an AI, if it performs as we do. I know we have agreed on this before.

Agree completely (Didn't mean to sound as if I was disagreeing.)

DrmDoc said: "...some of you do not seem to have a clear perspective of what distinguishes faith from science.  Most often arguments against science are used as justification for faith; however, those arguments do not appear to define a basis for your religious faith." For clarity, I've highlighted the portions of my original comments pertaining to the origin of this discussion. Certainly one may have faith in science--which is confidence in its methodology without any real objective evidence or experience or need for same--but then that would be a type of religion and not science in it's purest form as generally understood in this forum--IMO. Faith, in its purest form is religion, which is a believe system that does not need or require material evidence or support as science methodology requires or demands for validity. To have faith, IMO, is to have confidence, trust, or belief without any real or reproducible basis in material evidence or experience. Although it doesn't offer the legitimacy of science, faith appears to be a useful tool to individuals engaging the uncertainties of life with inadequate awareness, experience, understanding, or curiosity. Of these, I think inadequate curiosity does the most harm because of the doors to profound insight a lack of curiosity could leave unopened.

Why would it be an oxymoron? I know you think sentience requires subjective unconsciousness, but I think just because You think like that, objective sentience of AI's or humans is not prohibited or unachievable.

Please stop these caricatures of what philosophy is. Science, as an activity, is not just what we know, it is also its hypotheses that wait for empirical evidence or falsification. And hypotheses are what we don't know. Yet. I think you both conflate old-fashioned metaphysics with what (modern) philosophy is. If you are so fond of empirical evidence, then please look what modern philosophers do: I guess you both never did. It has nothing to do with your slogans. At least, I never learned, or speculated, why the universe is as it is during my academic education in philosophy. And as an example of what I know from philosophy: that there are different concepts of what free will is, and that we should clear about these when discussing about it.

I thought I illustrated just that with my 'story'. So let's extend it a little. This is the road: A-City--------------------------B1----------B2---------B3---------B4----------B5--------------------B-Town The B's are the bridges, all built 70 years ago according the same design. The problem: traffic and the weight of trucks, tractor etc have increased, and the bridges are not built for heavy weights. So to avoid problems two measures are taken: the road is only allowed for vehicles below 5 tons (5000kg), and sensors are built at the bridges that issue an alarm when the weight on the bridges is higher than this 5 tons. One day, the alarm goes of for B1, a while later at B2 etc. However, it is slower than one would expect from normal traffic. So the field engineer, living in B-Town drives to B5 and waits. And yes, after a while a slow moving tractor with a heavy loaded trailer crosses B5, and it is heavier than the 5 tons. The farmer gets a fine. And this happens a few times. On another day the same phenomenon happens: alarms go off from B1 to B2, etc, The field engineer goes to B5 again, he waits and waits, but no heavy vehicles pass the bridge. So he reports back to the monitoring authority that there must be an error in the alarming system. In fact, of course it was a traffic jam caused by a minor accident between B1 and A-City. After a while the car involved in the accident is put aside, and the traffic jam starts to dissolve. But the congestion still slowly moves backwards, about as slow as a tractor. And as the bridges are longer than 5 vehicles, and every vehicle happens to have a weight of one ton, the alarms go off. So what can we conclude: There is a clear physical effect: the alarms go off, the weight on the bridges really is more than 5 tons. There is an illusion of a heavy vehicle moving from B1 to B5. So the congestion of course is real, the illusion is that it is caused by one slow vehicle moving from B1 to B5, where in fact it is caused by traffic moving from B5 to B1. So the illusion is that the alarms are not caused by one thing (a heavy vehicle) that is moving from B1 to B5, but by a process that occurs due to a moving pattern of many vehicles together. Now the naive neurologist is like the field engineer who says that there must be an error in the monitoring system: consciousness does not have physical effects. The error is that he sees consciousness as a thing, something like the 'command room', a soul, or the mind, which he clearly sees, does not exist as a thing: there is no tractor. On the other side, the process is real, and has physical effects. The not so naive neurologist of course sees this. The 'thingy tractor' is an illusion. But consciousness, and its causal powers, are not. As a Buddhist (if you are...) you might recognise the illusion: it is the independent existence of the soul, or self, like the illusionary tractor. I hope I have shown that it is a causal agent (the alarms really go off), but yes, they are different categories: the tractor is a thing, the congestion is a process, built up from a moving pattern of things. Yes, you could see it like that. We are observers that happen to observe other people, not at the neurological level (unless you work as a neurologist) but at the global level of an acting person, acting because of his motivations and (presumed) knowledge. As a remark: I have nothing against neurologists doing their work. I have something against neurologists who think they are justified in making philosophical statements.

I know you think you know the meaning of words but you don’t. How many times do you need to have something repeated to yourself to understand it? ”In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief” : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith I’ve tried multiple times to explain this to you in a civil, friendly manner and it seems its not working. Get it through your thick skull that everybody in this thread is talking about faith in the context of religion. @FreeWill Stevie Wonder has a song called „Faith” does that mean that faith is a song by Stevie Wonder? What will it take for you to understand?

@FreeWill, There is no point in discussing if you don't know the meaning of the words you use and/or use the words in different meaning than they actually have. To the mods: I can't quote FreeWill in the above post, I'm not even able to copy with mouse and cursor what he wrote above. I think @studiot had a problem like this before, is this a feature or a bug?

I've already been accused of "bitching" about emergence and told that my very presence in this thread inhibits intelligent conversation of AI. (I've seen no evidence of the latter). I respectfully decline to play. I've said several times I don't want to discuss it. I've said my piece and I wouldn't want to inhibit all the insightful and intelligent commentary on AI that I was apparently preventing by my mere presence. Wow. Now you ARE using evolution as a proxy for emergence aka "stuff we don't understand." The bottom line is that when I do respond to my mentions, I get accused of "bitching" and of inhibiting all the world-class commentary on AI that would otherwise ensue if I would just STFU. Then when I DO announce I have nothing else to say on the topic, people complain about that too. Well make up your minds.

I feel that I appear to have been riding a hobby horse; when my intention was only to express my opinion, and then reply to my mentions. In fact why would my opinion, expressed once a couple of weeks ago, prevent a meaningful discussion of AI? That right there is a good question. Why don't people discuss AI? That's the point of the thread and it's the reason why I'm here. My remark about emergence was intended to be an offhand expression of a minority opinion that I happen to hold. People started pushing back and I've been replying. I'm not stopping anyone from talking about AI and I wish someone would. I've been quite surprised at the reaction to my opinion. In terms of the subject of the thread it's not important to me at all. And I said exactly that about 8 posts ago if I recall. I simply expressed an opinion. I always reply to mentions.The more I reply, the more people think I'm invested in the topic. I'm not. I have an opinion, that is all. Here is my last word on the subject. I looked around for criticism of emergence and found two links that made me sufficiently happy to feel that I've at least made my point to myself, if nobody else. 1) From this SEP article I found two examples. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#ObjEme After A technical argument which I didn't try to follow, the article says: So at least one professional philosopher is willing to use the word "incoherent." It's not just an over-the-top word invented by me. I am not the only person who finds emergence incoherent. Me for my amateur philosophy reasons, and Kim for his professional philosophy reasons. And note the word epiphenomenal. It's a good description. Something that's there, but not essential because the thing in question doesn't need it. SEP goes on to discuss another critic. Again as with Kim we find that emergence is regarded as an epiphenomenon. That is, something that shows up whenever quarks turn into elephants, but that would make no difference if it didn't show up. Quarks turn into elephants whether you call it emergence or not. I think that's the point being made by calling emergence an epiphenomenon. 2) Eliezer Yudkowsky. Of all people. Do readers know who he is? According to his Wiki entry he is: As I understand it, some consider him a genious and others not so much. I've read him a little but never been much of a fan. But he wrote this essay ... it's literally word-for-word what I've been thinking. I could quote it but I'd really have to quote the whole article. I hope people will read it. This essay is so uncannily like my exact thoughts on the matter, that it's not out of the realm of possibility that I actually read this many years ago and that's where I got my own ideas. I really can't say. I hope people will read it. It's as good a presentation of my ideas as I wish I could have written. I don't expect to convince anyone but at least I'm not alone. The Futitliy of Emergence Here are a couple of quotes. and So anyway to sum all this up, the set of professional philosophers who agree with me is nonempty. And for what it's worth, Eliazer Yudkowsky agrees with me. I'll take my agreement where I find it. I will now stop talking about emergence. I haven't said anything new for quite a while and the Yudkowsky article expresses my thoughts perfectly. "Your curiosity feels sated, but it has not been fed." THAT is what I'm getting at. Emergence is an intellectual snack made of empty calories.

This I could say it to you. Honestly, I do not understand why you try to participate when you have almost nothing to say. Finally, we could have a discussion about the topic rather than scoffing with the meaning of words which you are clearly not aware of yourself. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith Faith: great trust or confidence in something or someone Faith in American English: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust Trust: to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you, or that something is safe and reliable: Trust: the belief that you can trust someone or something I think I know the meaning of the words and looks like it is supported to use them to explain one another. (i.e synonymic) I do not see that by the Cambridge Dictionaries definition, faith cannot exist if there is evidence.

I hope you will feel ashamed if this idea takes hold and you were responsible closing this thread.

This sounds more like delusion to me. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/delusion delusion: belief in something that is not true delusion (American English): something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true