Allen Herbert Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 All living organisms are governed by the Double Helix. Is this the divine, or, happen sense chance. An open end question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Phil, you come back always. Respect. Just for you. Do you know what a man of earth maybe, Phil. A lantern of imaginings , and inside a lamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Goodnight and God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 "Well, seems to me that the human mind is more advanced than the computer chip since it’s the former that created the latter. That's a God story." Phil. Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 " It's not the belief in God per se but the belief in the concept of God that an A.I. would likely have to inherit for it to self-evolve into something independently conscious and self-reflective." Good you are still thinking. So, let us deal with the philosophy of the God concept and the relevance to our discussion. So, from the good book..."humans are created in God's image" God created life, so, us being in his image we could also create life. Or, evolution moves ever moves forward, and a superior life form is naturally created from the husk of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 We are prove that that the universe is a thinking living entity. So, if we except that simple concept. Think, all possibilities, are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Those who burn lamps during the day. At night they wonder why they have no light, Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 i admire the imagery Phil. i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 The image comes with the word. Yeah I got that. I like it for the context you chose. It fits Your words as it fits the OP quite well imo. I would also applaud the image without words, it strongly evokes my own interpretation. 1 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 "h, Allen, all the platitudes in the world ain’t going to save our souls." Phil. Define souls, Phil. Define platitudes. Your understandings, so we can walk together hand in hand. "sk you this, would you genuinely want to be the one responsible for creating an artificial consciousness that labors under the illusion of having a self if you can't even begin to deny having this illusion about yourself, your self?" Phil. Nice thought Phil, that I would personally be responsible for artificial consciousness, but their are many gifted folks working in this field of scientific discovery. Do not worry, I also think we are something special....unchallenged in our superior evolution gifted by God or happenchance. Maybe we are, or, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Technology, the ever marching soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 A very simplistic question is the creation of superior life purely the act of conception between our species? Or, a creation of life from our ability to create life? For the believers in the books " we were created in the image of God" so logically it follows that we also have that Godlike ability to create life. A philosophical thought. I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 "would you genuinely want to be the one responsible for creating an artificial consciousness consciousness that labors under the illusion of having a self". Phil. Pure unsupported supposition that it would have a superior illusion of self. Friend of foe is the answer from me you are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, often used as a thought-terminating cliché. Platitudes have been criticized as giving a false impression of wisdom, making it easy to accept falsehoods. A platitude is even worse than a cliché. It’s a sanctimonious cliché, a statement that is not only old and overused but often moralistic and imperious. ... [P]latitudes have an aphoristic quality, they seem like timeless moral lessons. They therefore shape our view of the world, and can lull us into accepting things that are actually false and foolish. For the purposes of this thread, it’s important to note that humans are perfectly capable of making platitudinous photos, photos that are trite, cliché, and that can lull us into false or at least very shallow places. As opposed to AI, humanness has been elevated and centralized in this thread as if it’s always of great value. As a matter of fact, humans come up with plenty of crap, both in writing and in photographing. Sure, we have hearts and some think we have souls. Neither of those prevents us from shooting each other or falling pray to triteness and dribble at times. It stands to reason that a machine, at times, would create things, including art, of much more significance than some of the things humans create, even if it turns out we all do have souls. Souls aren’t an insurance policy against platitudes or banal photos. We give humans the authority to declare things ART. We make ourselves necessary components to art, a rather self-serving and somewhat tautological exercise, IMO, humans declaring that humans are necessary for this or that. But it actually turns out that some stuff declared to be art isn’t and is, instead, trite crap. In other words, part of humanity is our fallibility, and that fallibility probably extends to declarations about art. We may, indeed, have nothing at all on the machines we create, even though we create them, other than through our own self-elevating but still-fallible understandings and declarations. There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 We give ART the authority to declare what is HUMAN. That’s the function of art. I’m skeptical of declarations on what the function of art is just as I’m skeptical of assuming art is functional. My point is to question the centrality of humanness to art, whether it’s humans declaring what is art or art declaring what is human. Humans view, feel, and appreciate art. Humans also view, feel, and appreciate trees and rivers. But I think it’s important not to overestimate the attachment to humanness of art, especially as, more and more, machines will be creating it. Anthropocentrism has a strong grip. Machine art, as well as space exploration and environmentalism, might help loosen that grip, which has sometimes had negative effects on the physical world around us and, therefore, on humans as well. The potential of machine or AI art is vast and exciting as well as humbling. Maybe art will now have the authority to make declarations that go well beyond humanity. We may be the only ones to understand, just as we’re the only ones to understand anything, but art’s declarations, though they may be TO humans, haven’t and certainly won’t in the future be only about what IS human. There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidrosen Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 We’ll be in trouble when AI develops feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 We’ll be in trouble when AI develops feelings. Not sure how tongue-in-cheek you’re trying to be, but I’m not suggesting AI has or will have feelings. I don’t think an AI system would need to HAVE feelings in order to make art that would make me feel. Just like I don’t think Chopin had to be sad when he composed his funeral march. Art is often transformative from input to output, from source to viewer. Trees and sunsets don’t feel but I sure do respond with feeling when I see them ... There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) If art wants to have emotional resonance, it needs to have emotional resonance. There are many ways that can come about. Rock formations can have great emotional resonance and I don’t believe rocks or whatever events produced those rocks have experienced the state of mind that are produced when I view them. Edited February 22, 2019 by The Shadow There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) You can’t anthropomorphize something that already is integrally human Again, this is begging the question. We’re discussing whether machines can produce art. You can’t simply declare art as something integrally human when that’s the very thing we’re disagreeing about. You’d have to give actual reasons why a machine can’t produce art comparable to what a human can produce WITHOUT resorting to repeating over and over again that art is a human endeavor. Now, of course, there are many ways to beg this question, for instance, by insisting without reason that art has to be made by a conscious being or has to be produced by an emotional being. But those would simply be not so sly ways of saying art must be produced by a human. As consciousness and emotions become more understood and have more and more physical explanations and we understand them more and more as physical systems, it makes so much sense that a machine will reproduce at least enough aspects of both emotion and consciousness to produce art that will not only mimic human art but that will likely eventually far surpass it in range. For some reason, this is a threat to some. I see it as a great opportunity and something filled with possibility. Edited February 22, 2019 by The Shadow There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 self-evident truth and non-controversial fact that art pertains to the human condition lol Reason by self-evidence precludes discussion. Thanks for that. Finis. There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Soulless computers don't produce art. They can't think and they don't know right from wrong. Software engineers who write the programs produce the art, fake the thinking and hopefully restrict their danger. Like the Wizard of Oz, when you pull back the AI curtain, all you see is some guy pulling a bunch of levers. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Sssst! Soon everyone will be suspect for uttering such statements of universal morality. In the ever more relativistic fake cop-out coward world we live in today there are no such things as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ anymore, and everyone and everything is supposedly free from such choice, hallelujah! I’m going back to the abstract... Knowing right from wrong is what makes us human. Without it, then we're just computers. 1 Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 "We’ll be in trouble when AI develops feelings." David. "We will all be in trouble when our species develop feelings" Allen. Hey Ho we are not too troubled by them we just ignore them. " ascribing human characteristics to A.I. beyond it merely being a tool to yield, like paintbrushes and cameras are tools." Phil. Once a open a time we were little shrew type creatures if we believe in the evolutionary Darwin theories. Describing human characteristics to a little shrew is beyond it merely being a tool to yield, like paintbrushes and cameras are tools." Phil. Tick top goes the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) Alan, Phil. Technology has moved on from your commodore 64;) Edited March 9, 2019 by Allen Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now