dimreepr

I'm uncertain about why. No, it's about how context limits understanding.

And we're back to the question of, what is a paradox? And how is a paradox possible?

How many light bulbs does it take to change a physist?

And how it relates too, reality...

It's about the absurdity of a relative, context... 🙄

Tell that to the lion, BTW what does HIP mean?

Accept for that damned cat...

Without a bias, we can be certain; without that bloody rabbit hole...🤔 You're forgetting your physics... 😉

But they are different... The old uncertainty problem...

There is no comparison.

This thread reminds me of the film "Meet Joe Black" in which death, a human personification of a concept, tries to understand life, from the bias that brings you "Hollywood"...

But it's understanding of that is 01 etc... It's context of the written word is a picture that's no different to a sunflower, that's why we invented OCR; that's like assuming my lawnmower understands why it has to mow the lawn, because our shared context is the lawn.

Well yes, an ant hill is a building, is your house conscious and intelligent?

Well my understanding is based on what I learned at the Open University about 15 years ago, when I nearly completed the computer science degree course (don't ask why, grrrr). I realise my understanding is far from complete, or even close; but can you explain how our understanding may differ, given my content in the thread?

Exactly that... We share a very common language, and while I recognise my linguistic abilities are sub-par, the real problem is, we fundamentally don't share the necessary context for me to explain it to you properly, more my fault than your's because I'm the explainee. My bias, worts and all... 😉

As human's we have a vast dataset of related contiguous languages', but it's impossible for me to actually know what, for example, jesus actually meant with his "sermon on the mount", because there's a break in our relative context; I can have a good guess because we share a fundamental context. But sometimes meaning is lost over one or two generations, not to mention small geographical differences in culture. The only context an AI has is it's initial programmer, bias, worts and all, so it's evolution is based on very rocky ground. So I think the lion analog, esspecially for a captive lion, is acceptable, if anything the lions context is fundamentally closer to a human. It emerged in ant's too, based on defending the anthill, which is neither.

Is it though?

How does a lion explain why 'that' lioness is so attractive? That we can train our pet's, is communication, but how does it lead to understanding; does a drug sniffing dog understand why "drugs are bad, mkay"?... Back to topic, no-one can win a war before it starts...

The only way we know that another human is thinking, is because of relative data in our memory bank's, so we can only really tell when a child is conscious, is when the child has enough relative data in order to communicate with an adult and be understood; a task that they are far more capable of with another child, of a similar age and a similar culture. I can't remember the name of the philosopher that postulated, that even if a lion could speak our language, there wouldn't be enough relative data for us to understand it, or it us. Other than on the most basic level, like we have with our trained pet's.

I think it's safe to assume, on this site, that we all agree that the placebo effect is real, and that it depends on deception. By which I mean our subjective expectation of the effectiveness of the medication (sugar pill) we're given. But a recent (small) study, in which the patients were told that they'd be given a sugar pill, the results were almost the same as deceptive trial; one of the patients suffering from severe IBS, was medically trained and knew a sugar pill would have no medical benefit, but she took them anyway; not only was her IBS symptoms gone, but when she ran out of pills, the symptoms returned almost over night. Anyone care to take a stab at a possible explanation?

This reminds me of the film about how Turing cracked the enigma code (can't remember the title), it's not enough to just crack the code, you have to pretend that you haven't. Causality, in any buggers language, is inevitable; you can't change what you've already done, because that would be a paradox and a paradox is the very definition of impossible. If what you say is true, all the terrorist could do is sit and watch the video.

That's certainly the most likely way to a machine consciousness, but how would we know?

Bugger it, now I'm going to have to watch that one again...😣😆

There's nothing more interesting than the soul, whatever word you choose to describe it. There's nothing more valuable than the soul; yet everyday we choose to ignore it and damage it, because we think money/status is more valuable, than being content.

Given the context of my post's is a paradox, can you explain how writing it down makes it true; FLT for example, would be made possible by "star wars", with that logic.