Easy Truth

Does this mean that in the operating room, they are using masks for no good reason?

Sadly, there are many who claim to believe it. Promoting it. Hinting that identification is impossible. It is the core of brainwashing or mind control. The idea is that "difference" is an illusion. Which should also imply that similarity is also an illusion. Contradicting itself as in A is B, C, and D is also an illusion. Once contradictions exist, meaning that they can exist, then anything goes.

There is another interpretation that I have seen. It is in the church of Scientology and some Buddhist philosophies. The idea is that collective consciousness creates everything. Anything is solid because we all agree that it is. By all, they mean all consciousnesses... dead or alive. A wall is solid until we agree that it is not and then you can walk through it. The problem that was frightening for me was that it was stated somewhere in the writings that A is not A, that A is B is C is D. An attack on the law of identity is the start of evil. I had concluded that such a statement is an attempt at control. Meaning teaching you that you don't know what you know. Or what you see is not reality. When A is not A, then we will tell you what exists or not. Since nothing is itself, what you see is not valid. If science determines something like that, I will become defensive based on this suspicion alone. That was the most important contribution that Rand made to my life. To identify those who want to control and their means.

Agreed. But there is another kind of contradiction: The Mistake. One does not know if it is a contradiction, but it is held in the mind as referencing something that exists. It takes drilling down to determine that it is a contradiction. But ... there are other concepts that are valid, that exist yet do not. Like the concept of "nothing". Or even non-existence. We use the word non-existence, it is "something", but not out there. How would one not equivocate, unless consciousness is not existence? That's interesting, I did not know that, which related to the next question I was about to ask the OP. If existence is entirely consciousness, who's is it? Like does that mean science will determine that you are all in my dream? Cool! I'm all for it. And I'm not supernatural either. I always knew that was what was really going on. Just didn't have sufficient knowledge to prove it.

Maybe you didn't intend this but it sounds like a form of substance dualism. Seems like you are saying there is the realm of existence, and the realm of consciousness, and existence came about first. I might be misreading you. But it goes more to the point if you say "existence is all there is". Yes, but how do you differentiate between a "contradiction exists", and yet does not? You may say a contradiction does not exist. Yet you use the word. You refer to "something" ... that does not exist. In other words, contradictions are part of "all that there is" but they are mental entities.

One cannot precede the other, I would agree. Up does not precede down. But if there is up, there is down. Similarly, consciousness and existence are concomitants. Awareness by definition is awareness of something. Even if it is awareness of awareness, then it is aware of something ... within everything i.e. existence. Something can't be "a" nothing that is created, as nothing is not something ... otherwise a contradiction. Primacy in this context does not mean one precedes the other as in: first one then the other. It means: One cannot/should not consider one before or without the other. As in, first there was consciousness. And then came existence. The implication is that time existed as in ... first this then that. That in itself implies existence ... of time and of existence. Existence is "necessary" for consciousness to exist, epistemologically speaking. Consciousness is synonymous with being or "I am". Without existence, how can you "be" if "you are not"? How can you be when you don't exist? If consciousness is all there is, then contradictions exist. That is the problem with the primacy of consciousness. There is no delineation between contradiction within consciousness vs. outside of consciousness. Nonsense would "exist" in the same way, shape, and form as things that make sense. The bottom line, contradictions DO exist, but in the mind. They don't exist in the world outside/independent of the mind. Outside and inside are all metaphors in this context because there are no "spacial/physical" borders in the mind. It's not like one thought bangs against another. It is as if they do. Meaning mental entities don't exist, but they exist as metaphors or concepts. And they are valid/(they exist) in that context. So, to argue that everything is consciousness does not account for that delineation. It argues for the nonsensical as being sensical.

To answer the OP: As far as a valid concept goes, at the point where there are two or more referents to the concept. Two or more concretes that have been abstracted from. That is when the concept is valid. But I think you are asking when is an induction valid knowledge. For instance, how many times should you perceive a process to conclude that it is a fact? Or that it exists? Or there is a causal connection? For instance, gravity. Everyone saw apples falling. When did the concept of gravity become valid? I'm sure others before Newton saw and made some conclusion like that. Is it valid because of a critical mass of people say it is? When it is part of the norm? the mainstream culture? Of course as objectivists, we reject collective validation, herd mentality. But I have not taken the course on induction so I wonder about it too.

I would agree, but this has to be said in a different way. After all, we do use the word "nothing". We are talking about the concept "nothing". So one could say you are aware of nothingness, although you are not perceptually aware of it. So awareness has nuances that have to be communicated.

Yes, that part may be sarcasm. But you have to admit that determining that you have created such an entity is a tall order. There are even more questions to answer regarding creating consciousness. Creating feelings for instance, experiences like you are having etc. Is that necessary, or this entity will not feel anything but be conscious? I wonder if we should be more precise and say volitional consciousness. For instance is an AI system with a microphone, voice recognition already conscious of something? What standard are we going by? The best we can do is say it mimics "me" perfectly, so it's good enough.

A self replicating machine, improving its survivability with an evolutionary algorithm with the ability to go beyond its static programming seems to be the tell tale sign of volition. The key manifestation of volition seems to be "the ability" to go against it's core survival programing. To need to survive is AN OPTION. A human can go against it's programed desire for self preservation ie to commit suicide. But a plant or Giraffe or dog or cat can't/won't. A machine will evolve (and that is a key to free will it seems), to a point of being able to judge a life worth living. On the macro level, the ability to choose to live or to choose to die seems to be at the heart of it. Therefore an AI system that would consider the option of suicide would be manifesting an essential "look" of something that has volition. To be able to judge a life that is NOT worth living. But there are other questions to be answered too. Lions have sense of rights, they pee to mark their territories, and generation after generation just do the same thing. They don't know what rights are, they are not conscious of it. But they behave like they do. They also don't become more civilized or go to the moon. This machine will have to be able to travel through the universe potentially unbounded. With all this, the issue of "is it conscious" is still not answered until one can become it, and then return to oneself again. Which brings up the question of "am I the only conscious thing here". Are you all robots mimicking being conscious? Grames obviously is actually a robot. I can't prove it. But until you are being with sufficient capabilities, you will see that he is. Until then I'll be making arbitrary assertions that you should accept ... since I'm not a robot.

No not to prove that it is real, but to create it. The assertion would be to "be" the antecedent to volition. If someone controls you, they are the antecedent cause to your actions. To be the antecedent cause of existence, means to be that which existed before time and space existed. Isn't that an argument for determinism? The atoms clashing did it. Not you. Or, you are atoms clashing. Are you? What are you exactly? When we have "sufficient knowledge", we will make one just like you.

Granted, you have not said that, but we are talking about creating volition. We know it exists and it is axiomatic. (similar to existence and consciousness) The assertion is If it exists, it can be recreated. Isn't it epistemologically inappropriate to ask for an antecedent cause of something that is axiomatic (be it existence, consciousness, volition). We are going to make it happen. There are steps will will take, things we will put into place and boom it will be created. Then we caused it, right? But then we are also asserting that it can't be caused. What it brings up is the age old question of If volition exists and we are not a reaction based machine, then why does volition exist as in what causes it to exist? Wouldn't that be inappropriate to ask?

Existence is basically the concept "ALL", or "EVERYTHING". There is only one. You want to recreate it? A weaker case can be made regarding consciousness. There is only one you. Or is there? What does recreating you mean?

But what does information processing mean? Isn't it simply a capability to react, a potential to react. If Y is able to be effected more elaborately than Y, does that mean it is higher in consciousness? Is choice a reaction? If so, then do we have volition? Where does maintenance of it's form come in. Like a planet has gravity to keep it round and compact. Does that mean it is a consciousness doing that? Is a table consciously making itself a table? (As opposed to a microbe) Is causation equivalent to consciousness? If not, what is the difference?

The "creating" we talk about here is different than reproduction with ready made replicating cells. We propate life, not creating it out of electrical impulses. These supposed logic gates and memory have to "want" to live. You can simulate that right now. But is simulation the real thing? And how would you know? Unlike an artificial heart that pumps and does what the heart does, can we create consciousness and freewill as it's core component? Why can you say it with certainty. Why don't you go further and say that free will is an illusion. We just don't know what the mechanism is. With sufficient knowledge free will goes away. This may or may not be true, but you are not making that case for some reason. We can program in "optional" conceptualization which is sort of what we have within. We choose to form a concept or not to. As a random or purposeful act, to be discovered (how its done). Are you saying free will is like a random number generator, a etherial dice? Again, once "the mechanism" behind free will is discovered, it goes against the idea of free will. It would mean that free will exists, simply because we don't know what it is and how it operates, i.e. contextually based on what we know. The problem is that we would contradict what we "know". In theory, one could pour in knowledge, a specific amount of specific mental entities. Two identical mental entity containers will have the same consciousness until different new data comes in. It would imply that "we want" means, the chemicals we are composed of are interacting a certain way. And if that is the case, then we are determined to behave a certain way.

FALSE. Artificial means something. To create a volitional entity MEANS to create that which is determined, predictable, machinery. Meaning it will not have a mind of its own. You're the one who's not getting it.

The implication of all this is that "free will" should not be axiomatic. That is can be created, or that it does have a reason. The "conscious machine" idea is a metaphor. Your mixing definitions or contexts. Kind of like the mental entities you brought up. It's something to be worked with in thinking. But a machine is a machine. Consciousness is not a machine. This is a problem that causes awful political systems when the philosopher thinks of humans as being machines. mechanistic ... ultimately deterministic. One fundamental problem with "creating" consciousness is the duplication issue. If you are copied, is your copy you? Or being you, means one unique existent? There are other philosophical problems.

From the article above. Basically summarized my position: The essence of the argument is this: “AI lacks three things we have that make us special and that a machine by its very nature cannot have: consciousness, motivation, and volition.”

Are you conceding that human animals are machines with volition?

Yes, but the hypothesis has to based on something that is possible. I may have to amend my position on the issue of values. I may be thinking that a machine can never have "moral values". But maybe Grames and maybe Greg have a point, it can have values. Right off the bat, collection of data is something it is going to do, as if it were motivated. Now does that mean it has that as a value? Maybe and maybe not. Sort of like ascribing "love" to two magnets. As if they love each other, attracted to each other etc. It is as if this machine we are talking about has values from the outside similar to a plant that wants to grow toward the sun. We conclude that based on it's behavior. But then, that is not enough. As in, water pours downward, it acts as if it wants to do that, but cause and effect does not mean the cause wants the effect. Or does it?

The question to be answered would be does it want to be happy. And before that is "does it want", or "can it want". The only way would be if a human can transfer themself into "it", and then back. But only that human would know for sure. Unless we have telepathy where that transfer between the human and the machine can be confirmed through others experiencing it (through telepathy). But the problem is "our" human consciousness, would be put in a deterministic machine. If our brain is a deterministic machine, then we should not have free will. But we do. So to make the argument for the eventual existence of such a machine is to argue that free will is an illusion.

For an AI system to confirm that Objectivism is correct, it will have to be alive. Otherwise, it cannot conclude what is right or wrong. Unless, it is reading books or getting such input and concluding things. The AI you are talking about can only be consciousness. One way to do it is to clone a human and hope that it will be exposed to enough information and is honest enough to conclude that Objectivism is correct. You have to be open to the fact that it may conclude that communism is better. Why would a machine become interested in certain sciences and philosophies and not others? The question of motive has to be answered without magical/mystical/fictional assertions about things that WILL exist. Your assertion is ultimately arbitrary and faith based.

No, not either, they are different. AI currently could be said to use logic in what it is doing. It can use logic without any relation to reality if there is such input. Give it garbage as input and it will find patterns and it will emulate or conclude based on that. But a sentient being, has to be alive. It is life that requires it to identify based on reality. Otherwise it perishes. It seems like I am arguing that its emergence is based on some evolutionary algorithm or process. I'm not sure about that right now. The key element there is the goal/motive is to survive. That is what gives rise to values. Not just using logic. Meanwhile, this can be programmed in. That you must survive, identify ways to survive. Ultimately it is a machine, motion that does not have free will.

You and Grames have been watching too many Harry Potter movies. Of course I am saying it is deterministic. They are MACHINES. The idea of "advanced enough" is preposterous. Our writing is not advanced enough to turn fiction into reality ... but some day ... We are not advanced enough to realize that in some parts of the universe 2+2 is 5.5674

No Grames, you can't lump in aliens that are alive with a machine that is not alive. The life form would value life in some way. But I can see the idea that the machine would also be "responding" to objective reality. The microphone would perceive sounds, camera vision etc. The pattern recognition it does would be deduction, and coming up with the pattern to recognize would be some sort of induction. Therefore, it is "motivated" to induct and deduct. That would be it's valuing at it's foundation. But once it perceives recognizes patterns, it has to do something about it to have values. Values manifestation would be some type of goal directedness, wouldn't it? So we don't know what the goal is that it would come up with unless it is programmed in. But if no goal is programmed in, you're saying that it would come up with a goal. I don't see the reason for that. Why would an AI machine inevitably come up with goals or values.