AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 86
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I think that's why
he could not understand that it was about dreams.
I, indeed, often fly in my dreams and, indeed, often face the problem of landing from a great height.
Future management meeting of the company
If we delve deeper into the phenomenon of consciousness, it turns out that there is no strict single definition, and the mechanism of functioning is so abstract that it is devoid of any signs by which one consciousness can be distinguished from another. It is like two mirrors that can be absolutely identical but reflect different "pictures" in different surroundings. The question then should be put as follows: "Does the object have signs of consciousness or not?". And if yes (the ability to reflect surrounding objects and itself), then such an "object" is already quite a subject.
And the inhibition of research, in my opinion, started from the fear of dominant subjects of society to lose control over the rest. It is very natural, natural, vital. In general, as always.
I think that's why
he couldn't understand that it was about dreams.
I do indeed often fly in my dreams and indeed often have the problem of landing from a great height.
From the text, I couldn't immediately realise it was about flying in dreams. Fear of landing or falling in dreams is a real condition, it is not considered pathological. Unless, of course, when waking up the pulse does not go over 250. Treat if I'm not mistaken sedatives and sedatives. But yes, the condition is not ace))))))) Well dreams are very rarely remembered).
If we delve deeper into the phenomenon of consciousness, it turns out that there is no strict single definition, and the mechanism of functioning is so abstract that it is devoid of any signs by which one consciousness can be distinguished from another. It is like two mirrors that can be absolutely identical but reflect different "pictures" in different surroundings. The question then should be put as follows: "Does the object have signs of consciousness or not?". And if yes (the ability to reflect surrounding objects and itself), then such an "object" is already a subject.
Our Consciousness deceives us.
We "hallucinate" the living in the dead, forms in chaos, the soul in a statue, values in emptiness, movement in rest, water in the desert, cold in burning, love in indifference, pleasure in self-destruction, and so on. Traps of the Mind. The animate AI is one of the traps.
If we had proposed the concept of interactive statistical database as a form of Consciousness to the German philosophers of the 18th and 19th century, they would have been surprised. They would have pointed out the obvious inertness, external dependence, lack of inner life, inability of goal-setting, underdevelopment of the psyche , and so on.
There isno strict definition, the mechanism of functioning is abstract, but there are inherent attributes, among which the freedom of choice stands out.
One cannot call a subject someone who does not have freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice cannot be programmed, because freedom and algorithm are incompatible opposites.
Our freedom is conditioned by billions of years of evolution of dead and living matter, which nobody told how to form.
Our Consciousness is deceiving us.
What we call "I" and to what "our" belongs is consciousness. It turns out that consciousness belongs to the body in which it lives, not vice versa.
Example: if you ask a person in an unconscious state (the reason is not important) "who are you?" (i.e. "whose body is lying here?") and he does not answer (consciousness is switched off), his body shows itself as an object that can be moved somewhere and subjected to some actions (for example, attempts to bring him to consciousness). And the true owner of the body, who usually makes his own decisions for his body, is temporarily absent.
There isno strict definition, the mechanism of functioning is abstract, but there are inherent attributes, among which stands out - freedom of choice.
One cannot call a subject someone who does not have freedom of choice.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting the word"subject". I used it precisely in the context of "one who can make decisions". A subject, accordingly, does not. So the subject is capable of making decisions, of exercising choice, if there is one. And here the key point is what is behind this ability to make decisions, what gives rise to it.
Freedom of choice cannot be programmed, because freedom and algorithm are incompatible opposites.
Our freedom is conditioned by billions of years of evolution of dead and living matter, which no one told us how to form.
Our "free" psyche is "programmed". Only there are nuances, what is freedom and what is an algorithm (can it be a subject).
For example, a trading algorithm that buys and sells according to some strategy, is it free? You claim that it is not, due to its "programmedness". But nobody knows in advance when the algorithm will buy or sell, because the future is unknown. I.e. its behaviour is not explicitly defined at the programming stage, but only conditionally "if such and such conditions occur, then do this and that". It is not the actions themselves that are described, but the decision-making mechanism. And if there are decisions to be made, is this algorithm already a subject in making these decisions?
Thus, freedom is conditional, i.e. it is conditioned by the situation with which the subject deals (more precisely, by its reflection in the subject). "Being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being?" - there is no unanimous opinion at the moment.
For example, a trading algorithm that buys and sells according to some strategy, is it free? You claim that it is not, because it is "programmed". But, after all, nobody knows in advance when the algorithm will buy or sell, because the future is unknown. I.e. its behaviour is not explicitly defined at the programming stage, but only conditionally "if such and such conditions occur, do this and that". It is not the actions themselves that are described, but the decision-making mechanism. And if there are decisions to be made, is this algorithm already a subject in making these decisions?
Thus, freedom is conditional, i.e. it is conditioned by the situation with which the subject deals (more precisely, by its reflection in the subject). "Being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being?" - there is no unanimous opinion at the moment.
the subject in the same situations can act differently, decisions are influenced by experience and mood.
an object in the same situations will act in the same way, perhaps the decision can be influenced by previous experience (self-learning), but there is still no mood.
Mood can be understood as a combination of internal factors, such as emotional state, the effects of drugs and non-drugs.
So the difference between subject and object is only the presence or absence of "mood"?
Just for the sake of argument.
I deliberately omit the question of the presence of "consciousness".
Marketing works :)
Peter, in his poetic manner, continues to rant about the non-existent problems of consciousness and AI (which nobody has seen so far) 😀 and what went what came what went. You could already write an essay about wrestling with your worries about non-existent things.
Marketing works :)
But Peter is in the trend) Von, Ilon Musk and his comrades are also concerned about uncontrolled development of AI and demand in their letter to slow it down and control it urgently).
No matter how many times I tried to search for something useful through this newfangled AI, I always came across ungodly lies. Good old-fashioned googling is somehow more reliable.