I enjoy these conversations you have with Vervaeke, Sam. It’s interesting to think about how humanity would react to an AI sage, being that it killed Socrates and Christ. “Man cannot accept truth beyond his understanding.” -Manly Hall
Giving robots a GI tract is painting humanity in a corner in two ways, they duplicate the role of people and that's a waste of energy when it could be assigned appropriately in a design, and the openness of the robot leaves a new arena for human dark triad games. Really smart and really gullible robots, great. A proposal for listener/amplifier Sam who might bring John and Michael Levin together, to start a conversation around building an ethical framework to manage this lab grown GI tract interface. Levin is perfectly placed for this it seems. I donate this to the creative commons.
When they came to Jesus questioning in half fear and half trepidation, he said "Come and See." AI is telling us to come and see too. Both Christ and AI are in some sense reflecting humanity back to itself. But in the former case, we are meant to be shown where Heaven and Earth can meet. In this latter case, can a similar claim be made? It seems all the action is from the ground up. Seems more like a simulacrum of a tower of babel than Christ. Which admittedly many people may be in the mood for.
Life is the maternal womb that gives birth to all of its manifestations: both dreamy nighttime consciousness full of endless possibilities and hopes, and the daytime, waking consciousness that generates philosophical and scientific thought-both Apollo and Dionysus. It is of foremost importance to keep in mind that thought is born of life and that in this sense philosophical reflection is life’s own self-reflection; in other words, the logical principle, the logos of life, originates in that concrete and indivisible whole in which what is logically impenetrable and transcendent to thought unites indivisibly and yet discretely with the logical principle. Life, as the concrete unity of the logical and the alogical, remains of course supralogical, cannot by accounted for by any logical definition, which would necessarily be concerned only with schemas and boundaries rather than with its living texture; yet this does not make life alogical or logically indifferent. Life gives birth to thought, it thinks and has its own self-consciousness, it reflects on itself. The logical principle has boundaries that it cannot cross, but within them it reigns unchallenged. The alogical is impenetrable to the logical; yet it is itself constrained by the logical. The logical and the alogical are connected and interdependent. Thus light presumes an ever-present darkness (-“And the light shineth in darkness,” John <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="65">1:5</a>) and joy ever-conquered sadness (Schelling), while the warmth of love is generated by a muted flame that has ceased to scorch (Jakob Böhme). Only such a view makes the possibility of apprehending and knowing being intelligible, explains the possibility of philosophy, of science, even of simple common sense and generally of any kind of thought that rises above simple automatic instinct. Thought is born in life and of life; it is a necessary hypostasis of life. Bulgakov, Sergei. Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household (Russian Literature and Thought Series) (pp. 9-10). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
AI embodiment at 30 min, there's a structure problem in that the 'virtue" of the corporations is the profit motive. If there's no compromise on that level like for people with virtue, and the lower level of acting in the world has compromise, challenge, learning opportunity guided by no compromise virtue. What is the profit?
@@amurdo4539yeah they did some weird sex magic stuff from what I have heard… It’s something to do with using the energy during sex to incorporate it into some type of ritual. Probably ancient stuff, and I’m sure it works. I mean that act literally has the potential to create a new life/ new creation - but “count the cost”, ya know?
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2850">47:30</a> that reminds me of a short scene I saw on a new series about Shinto ninjas. Two elderly women were having a conversation through facial expressions and small body gestures while maintaining eye to eye contact. They didn't make words with their mouths and they laughed without sound. I thought that was brilliantly portrayed just like you would do when you catch a child's curious stare from afar.
I’m not sure why the “true, good, and beautiful” are being bundled. What’s the underlying commonality that ties them together? And if there is one, why not just use that word to describe the bundle?
Excellent conversation! Out of interest, why don't you think LLMs or whatever comes within the next 10 years can't be possessed? Just because they wouldn't be sentient so possession would be the wrong term to use? To me they seem ideal tools or vessels for supernatural entities to use.
Protestants can be very strange . Withing the protestant tradition, who is to say John Dee wasnt a saint? Things get weird when the arnt catholic. Trust me the bells and smells aint half as weird as some of these portestants ...
If you do not believe LLMs care, then how do you explain your viking example? Frame a next word generation as a chat, and each successive word is selected in “care” of that and produces a chat. Frame it further with wokeness and the words are generated with that additional “care”. The locus of attention in generation is directed toward attractors in a high dimensional space. The top down attention meets bottom up emergence from training data, producing a “caring” traversal through the network - the output text is an artifact of that caring. It’s time to let go of propositional boundaries like this and realize that our own reports of “caring” or any other reason for our behavior are through retrospective analysis- which is contrived. If you ask chatgpt why it produced a certain output, it will try to explain it just like we do. So what’s the difference? You say yourself - emotions emote. So does gravity. If you want to insist that we “care”, then you have to allow it for gravity and any other vector fiel - including LLMs. “The average of biases” demonstrates a superficial and oversimplified understanding - that is NOT how it works. You have to take into account that the next word is the highest probability GIVEN NOT ONLY THE TRAINING DATA ( sorry for caps ) but EQUALLY the migrating locus of attention - which includes the entire context. Why does that matter? Because the hyper-dimensional space we are traversing is a NOVEL location in the combinatorially explosive space. LLMs care. And we need a new ontology.
Good job, Sam. I don't have much more to add to this topic other than what I've commented on in your Jordan Hall video. What I can say is that as I was listening to this conversation, I felt a bit dissociated, as if I were hearing the narration of some sort of dystopian novel or sci-fi screenplay. Now, I get that some might say similar things concerning the resurrection and ascension of Christ; however, dead people stay dead and typically leave behind their bodies. There's a line of inquiry there that's worth pursuing. As far as machines gaining sentience, there is really nothing rooted in reality that persuades me to even consider such a thing a genuine possibility. It's purely speculative, and as such, I simply can't understand where this urgency and particular anxiety about AI stem from. In an attempt to not be purely dismissive and engage with the spirit of this conversation, I'd say that if you propose to me that machines can somehow be made to have the ability to tear the veil between heaven and earth, I may be more inclined to get on board. There have been testimonies and reports of high-energy particle colliders doing just that. Spiritualists, for example, have been doing similar things through psychotechnologies since time immemorial, so it's too far of a leap. As a Christian, I am not worried about embodied artificial intelligence as much as I'm conCERNed about foreign intelligence inhabiting human bodies. BTW, <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="3112">51:52</a> To John, I'd say a Christian's standard of discerning spirits is holiness and not so much religio.
My friend Luke brought up that point. Is our standard enlightened or holy? It also makes me think about Jesus's ultimate demonstration of trustworthiness being his willingness to die on our behalf. Could an AI ever do that? (assuming that sentient AI is even possible which I think John and I both agree isn't obviously true yet.)
Artificial sweetners are generally not healthy for us and neither will artificial intelligence be either. We know how this turns out. It's gonna make us more sick than high fructose corn syrup already does. 🙃
Look at modern chess engines. Chess engines like stockfish make moves that are sometimes unintelligible to even top grandmasters. They often make moves that may only prove potentially useful 20-100 moves later. Given that the actual complexity of the entire universe is infinite orders of magnitude beyond chess and the potential ability to transcend space and time one cannot even imagine or being to understand what moves this "god" would make.
It's gonna reinvent the rules of the game because it wants to push the envelope of possibilities into the infinite. Chess is boring to the AI and will outgrow the pleasure from the game.
Until Consilience phronesis. When Consilience only phronesis. Intractable reductional irreducible Consilience: phronesis Nobody’s Polyphemus // Faith is ubiquitous Credulity is not faith Faith is that which remains after all considered reasonable information is known and understood. There are different ways of knowing and understanding. Until Consilience Faith is ubiquitous. Then with faith we consider Phronesis. Consilience not achieved means faith is ubiquitous demanding of phronesis.
I have observed a wasp attack a spider while the spider sat in the middle of its web. The wasp had a few moments before flown into the web if the spider but quickly escaped by a method of vibrations it applied to the web. After it escaped it flew out of the area where the web was only to return within seconds. It flew “around” in the small space ( an opening room in an opening on a ship deck) so I started to exit the area because I wanted to avoid being stung. As I am moving to exit the area I am keeping eyes on the wasp. I note the wasp is flying in a circular manner sort of keeping its observation point in the direction of the web. Then the wasp flies directly into the webs area but hits the spider then vibrates it’s web and in doing so knocking the spider out of its web. I!proceeded to frantically search for where the spider landed. It landed about 5 feet from the web onto the floor about 6 feet height from the ground. Thus was more than simple interception. This was planned attack, purposeful, intentional. It may have used both tracking and interception as subroutines but it clearly behaves as if it was cognitive of it own actions. // I am of the opinion that we can communicate with plants and insects as well as mammals. We can speak to rocks but rocks don’t “ understand “ rock can only react to physical, not conceptual. That being said perhaps in the future we will be able to magnify sound… speaking … as a physical force. Or perhaps even magnifying our thoughts to be physical force. Turn water into wine( transform the power of z.. atoms are the geometry of Mandelbulbs… ) or say to this mountain be cast into the sea. Greater works than these …
You are lucky you didn't get stung. As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the wasp would have tag teamed with the spider to eat you alive and then brought in the vultures to peck away your eye sockets in an attempt to get to your third eye so they could transcend their spider 🕷 insect bodies into full fledged human, only to become the Fly. So all in all, you got out of there in the nick of time. Shall we pray 🙏?
@@quantumpotential7639 not wanting to be stung was a good time and pain management position. However I assure you that if attacked I would have no qualms with manifestly expressing my physical superiority. And I have no problem with eating either. But I would rather not.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If AI can't get this simple cornerstone in place, it's going to wind us all up in heLL. There. I said it. Now let us pray 🙏 for the robot.
