Leaderboard

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, 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.