juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
@Echogem222 Does AI dream? If you turn it off so it can "rest," does it dream?
Absolute Truth
- Thread starter Modesty
- Start date
Echogem222
Well-Known Member
I've actually just realized a way that I can prove that emotions are indeed logical (all of the time). Logical understanding is like a puzzle, when the puzzle is completed about 1+1 it's possible to understand that 1+1=2, and why it does. But when that topic is incomplete, it's possible to think that 1+1 does not equal 2 using logic. The reason for this is pretty straightforward, in that if people were not always logical, when someone points out why 1+1 does not equal 5 but 2, we wouldn't understand that explanation. In other words, logic can result in people making mistakes, but those mistakes are still logical mistakes, not illogical mistakes, because illogical mistakes are actually impossible.
Here's an example of a situation where someone's emotional reaction might initially seem illogical, but with a deeper understanding of their underlying motivations and beliefs, we can see the logical basis:
Example: A Fearful Reaction to Public Speaking
Let's consider a scenario where a person experiences intense fear and anxiety when asked to speak in public. At first glance, this emotional reaction may seem illogical or irrational, as speaking in public may not pose any immediate physical threat.
Incomplete Puzzle of Logic:
-The person has a fear of public speaking, leading to anxiety and avoidance.
-The fear seems disproportionate to the actual threat posed by public speaking.
-Observers might perceive the emotional response as illogical or excessive.
Completing the Puzzle:
-Upon further investigation, it is revealed that the person had a traumatic experience during a public speaking event in their past. This experience left a lasting emotional impact, creating an association between public speaking and fear.
-The emotional reaction is rooted in a subconscious defense mechanism designed to protect the individual from potential emotional distress or embarrassment. Their mind perceives public speaking as a threat due to the past trauma.
-The fear response, though seemingly illogical in the current context, was originally a logical survival mechanism that helped the person avoid similar distressing situations in the past.
In this example, the initial emotional reaction appears illogical when considering the immediate context of public speaking. However, by delving into the person's history and experiences, we can complete the puzzle of logic and understand the logical basis for their fear. The fear is a result of their brain's attempt to protect them from perceived threats based on past events.
Through therapy or other forms of emotional support, the person may gradually work to reevaluate their emotional response and develop a more complete understanding of public speaking. By addressing the underlying trauma and gradually changing their perception of public speaking, they may overcome their fear and develop a more balanced emotional response to the situation.
This example illustrates how emotions can appear illogical on the surface but have a logical basis when considering the broader context and individual experiences. Understanding the full picture of a person's emotional reactions often requires looking beyond the immediate situation to uncover the underlying beliefs, memories, and past experiences that shape their emotional responses.
In other words, you only see illogical as being possible because you have an incomplete understanding of the knowledge you need to understand such things. (Yes, this re-invents what logic is, but without doing this, our understanding of logic will remain flawed)
Here's an example of a situation where someone's emotional reaction might initially seem illogical, but with a deeper understanding of their underlying motivations and beliefs, we can see the logical basis:
Example: A Fearful Reaction to Public Speaking
Let's consider a scenario where a person experiences intense fear and anxiety when asked to speak in public. At first glance, this emotional reaction may seem illogical or irrational, as speaking in public may not pose any immediate physical threat.
Incomplete Puzzle of Logic:
-The person has a fear of public speaking, leading to anxiety and avoidance.
-The fear seems disproportionate to the actual threat posed by public speaking.
-Observers might perceive the emotional response as illogical or excessive.
Completing the Puzzle:
-Upon further investigation, it is revealed that the person had a traumatic experience during a public speaking event in their past. This experience left a lasting emotional impact, creating an association between public speaking and fear.
-The emotional reaction is rooted in a subconscious defense mechanism designed to protect the individual from potential emotional distress or embarrassment. Their mind perceives public speaking as a threat due to the past trauma.
-The fear response, though seemingly illogical in the current context, was originally a logical survival mechanism that helped the person avoid similar distressing situations in the past.
In this example, the initial emotional reaction appears illogical when considering the immediate context of public speaking. However, by delving into the person's history and experiences, we can complete the puzzle of logic and understand the logical basis for their fear. The fear is a result of their brain's attempt to protect them from perceived threats based on past events.
Through therapy or other forms of emotional support, the person may gradually work to reevaluate their emotional response and develop a more complete understanding of public speaking. By addressing the underlying trauma and gradually changing their perception of public speaking, they may overcome their fear and develop a more balanced emotional response to the situation.
This example illustrates how emotions can appear illogical on the surface but have a logical basis when considering the broader context and individual experiences. Understanding the full picture of a person's emotional reactions often requires looking beyond the immediate situation to uncover the underlying beliefs, memories, and past experiences that shape their emotional responses.
In other words, you only see illogical as being possible because you have an incomplete understanding of the knowledge you need to understand such things. (Yes, this re-invents what logic is, but without doing this, our understanding of logic will remain flawed)
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
So we're right back to "garbage in / garbage out."
Incomplete knowledge provides an incomplete answer. Erroneous knowledge provides an erroneous answer. Those answers may be "logical" in the sense you are applying, but they are still incomplete and erroneous.
According to your standards, "logic" provides an answer - just not necessarily the correct answer. (It is like New Math...it isn't about getting the answer correct, it is about how the problem is worked...
) And you wish to base a religion on this form of reasoning? And you don't yet see how this could not possibly be any better than what already exists?
It seems to me if a person is in search of Absolute Truth, adding further confusion in no way furthers that search and only obscures what can be seen.
To reiterate...does AI dream? This is a salient point.
Incomplete knowledge provides an incomplete answer. Erroneous knowledge provides an erroneous answer. Those answers may be "logical" in the sense you are applying, but they are still incomplete and erroneous.
According to your standards, "logic" provides an answer - just not necessarily the correct answer. (It is like New Math...it isn't about getting the answer correct, it is about how the problem is worked...
) And you wish to base a religion on this form of reasoning? And you don't yet see how this could not possibly be any better than what already exists?It seems to me if a person is in search of Absolute Truth, adding further confusion in no way furthers that search and only obscures what can be seen.
To reiterate...does AI dream? This is a salient point.
Last edited:
Echogem222
Well-Known Member
I don't know if AI dreams or not. Why does that matter?So we're right back to "garbage in / garbage out."
Incomplete knowledge provides an incomplete answer. Erroneous knowledge provides an erroneous answer. Those answers may be "logical" in the sense you are applying, but they are still incomplete and erroneous.
According to your standards, "logic" provides an answer - just not necessarily the correct answer. (It is like New Math...it isn't about getting the answer correct, it is about how the problem is worked...
It seems to me if a person is in search of Absolute Truth, adding further confusion in no way furthers that search and only obscures what can be seen.
To reiterate...does AI dream? This is a salient point.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I don't mean to offend but I'm wondering if this is plagiarized? I'm fairly good at grammar but you do not ever see me post like this as I'm quite lazy.. if it is can you please site your source if not then I apologize.
Oh and where in Washington State? I'm from Olympia!
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
All intelligent life dreams. We don't know why.
It seems to me you have an inordinate focus on the Intelligence part of AI. I cannot ignore the Artificial part of AI. Logic devoid of emotion is not life, anymore than emotion devoid of logic...and here I essentially mean reasoning, not necessarily classical or formal logic.
I've argued in the past here many times, most folks that come through touting "logic" in point of fact once things are discussed and the issues uncovered reveal that it is rhetoric - not logic - that is the influential reasoning. Indeed, classical logic was taught as a part of rhetoric. It is a common misperception, and what is in actuality rhetoric is often passed as logic, even with clearly evident tugs on heartstrings. Rhetorical persuaders use any means at their disposal, including seemingly innocuous untruths in an effort to convince those who do not take the time to reason through the arguments. The truly gullible, or desperate, or infatuated, are just as likely to latch onto such rhetoric verbatim - even when it calls itself logic.
The only connection we as humans will ever find to attach machine logic to emotions is if AI dreams. Until then, emotions are beyond the ability for AI to experientially connect with.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Echogem222
Well-Known Member
Wow, we're in the same city. It's not plagiarized, but I often use ChatGPT to help me organize my thoughts. I always look over what is explained before posting.
Echogem222
Well-Known Member
"All intelligent life dreams"? No, not true, there are plenty of people who don't dream due to health issues. It sounds like you're stating your subjective opinion quite a bit, with a lack of reasonability of being able to convince me or anyone else not holding the same beliefs as you. But that's your opinion, so you have the right to hold that opinion.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Right back atcha.
At least my opinion is based in far more research and founded in far more science than someone asking an AI for advice.
<shrug> I will continue to use my Critical Thinking faculties, and where things don't add up I will challenge. Ask anybody here that knows me.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I personally Faith has to be built on Logic and Reason.
Logically if God gives a Covernant that we will not be left alone without guidance and sends Messengers to fulfil that Covernant, and in turn they give Prophecy as a way to prove their Message from God, then it can be reasonably expected the Prophecy will be fulfilled. The Bible gives this as a test on a Prophet.
We must also use logic and reason to embrace God given Messengers. I see a Faith buikt without Logic and reason is faith built on sand.
I see It is our downfall when we do not use logic and reason to determine if a Messenger is Valid.
It is also very logical that God Annoints the Messengers, as that is how it has always been, yet illogicality, people try to claim a finality of God's Messengers with their own choice of Faith.
Regards Tony
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
(regarding dreams)
- In a 1998 study of 1,000 Austrians, 32% reported dreaming less than once per month.
- Many thousands of years ago in North Africa near the mountain called Atlas, one group of native peoples was said to never have any dreams.
- Those individuals who recall few or no dreams over many years appear to suffer no ill consequences.
People Who Do Not Dream
It appears that there are some people who rarely or never dream or never recall the dreams they have. At least, this is what they tell us.
www.psychologytoday.com
Emphasis mine. Not dreaming and not recalling dreams are two very different things.
Did you eat supper? Do you remember what you ate for supper?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I understand your reasoning...it isn't logic, and most certainly is not classical logic.
Illogically some try to claim finality of God's message to all living and future human beings for the next 800 yrs, locked by the written words with their own choice of faith and self-declared 'messenger' -- as if 'God' ever 'decreed' such a crazy thing
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Today, logic is a branch of mathematics and a branch of philosophy. In most large universities, both departments offer courses in logic, and there is usually a lot of overlap between them. Formal languages, deductive systems, and model-theoretic semantics are mathematical objects and, as such, the logician is interested in their mathematical properties and relations. Soundness, completeness, and most of the other results reported below are typical examples. Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity. So logic is at least closely allied with epistemology. Logic is also a central branch of computer science, due, in part, to interesting computational relations in logical systems, and, in part, to the close connection between formal deductive argumentation and reasoning (see the entries on recursive functions, computability and complexity, and philosophy of computer science).
This raises questions concerning the philosophical relevance of the various mathematical aspects of logic. How do deducibility and validity, as properties of formal languages – sets of strings on a fixed alphabet – relate to correct reasoning? What do the mathematical results reported below have to do with the original philosophical issues concerning valid reasoning? This is an instance of the philosophical problem of explaining how mathematics applies to non-mathematical reality.
---
Before the 20th century, mathematicians saw their work mostly as empirical or descriptive, an uncovering of the laws of the physical universe; each question had only one correct answer. Logic was seen as an explanation of reasoning, and few people could see room for more than one explanation. So-called "classical" logic, developed by Frege, Russell, and others, was the dominant paradigm of logic. Well into the late 20th century, the "one logic only" viewpoint persisted, though a few isolated mathematicians -- Brouwer, Lukasiewicz, Belnap, etc. -- pursued different, nonclassical visions of what "the one true logic" should be.
The formalist revolution began with non-Euclidean geometries in the late 19th century and spread gradually through mathematics. Mathematicians began to see that the physical universe is neither knowable nor necessary to their work. Mathematics came to be viewed as a game of marks on paper, or an investigation of pure thought; different assumptions yield different theories. By the late 20th century, this change of philosophy had spread to logic. Researchers saw different logics merely as different types of abstract structures, no longer requiring philosophical justifications. Gradually, without fanfare, the pluralist (many logics) viewpoint became prevalent in research literature.
---
the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. The three laws can be stated symbolically as follows. (1) For all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or: ∼(p · ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means “and.” (2) Either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or: p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or.” (3) If a propositional function F is true of an individual variable x, then F is true of x, or: F(x) ⊃ F(x), in which ⊃ means “formally implies.” Another formulation of the principle of identity asserts that a thing is identical with itself, or (∀x) (x = x), in which ∀ means “for every”; or simply that x is x.
Aristotle cited the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle as examples of axioms. He partly exempted future contingents, or statements about unsure future events, from the law of excluded middle, holding that it is not (now) either true or false that there will be a naval battle tomorrow but that the complex proposition that either there will be a naval battle tomorrow or that there will not is (now) true. In the epochal Principia Mathematica (1910–13) of Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, this law occurs as a theorem rather than as an axiom.
www.britannica.com
This raises questions concerning the philosophical relevance of the various mathematical aspects of logic. How do deducibility and validity, as properties of formal languages – sets of strings on a fixed alphabet – relate to correct reasoning? What do the mathematical results reported below have to do with the original philosophical issues concerning valid reasoning? This is an instance of the philosophical problem of explaining how mathematics applies to non-mathematical reality.
Classical Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
---
Before the 20th century, mathematicians saw their work mostly as empirical or descriptive, an uncovering of the laws of the physical universe; each question had only one correct answer. Logic was seen as an explanation of reasoning, and few people could see room for more than one explanation. So-called "classical" logic, developed by Frege, Russell, and others, was the dominant paradigm of logic. Well into the late 20th century, the "one logic only" viewpoint persisted, though a few isolated mathematicians -- Brouwer, Lukasiewicz, Belnap, etc. -- pursued different, nonclassical visions of what "the one true logic" should be.
The formalist revolution began with non-Euclidean geometries in the late 19th century and spread gradually through mathematics. Mathematicians began to see that the physical universe is neither knowable nor necessary to their work. Mathematics came to be viewed as a game of marks on paper, or an investigation of pure thought; different assumptions yield different theories. By the late 20th century, this change of philosophy had spread to logic. Researchers saw different logics merely as different types of abstract structures, no longer requiring philosophical justifications. Gradually, without fanfare, the pluralist (many logics) viewpoint became prevalent in research literature.
Classical and Nonclassical Logics
'Classical and Nonclassical Logics', an undergraduate textbook for an introductory course on mathematical logic, by Eric Schechter. Classical is contrasted with relevant, constructive, fuzzy, and other logics.
math.vanderbilt.edu
---
the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. The three laws can be stated symbolically as follows. (1) For all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or: ∼(p · ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means “and.” (2) Either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or: p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or.” (3) If a propositional function F is true of an individual variable x, then F is true of x, or: F(x) ⊃ F(x), in which ⊃ means “formally implies.” Another formulation of the principle of identity asserts that a thing is identical with itself, or (∀x) (x = x), in which ∀ means “for every”; or simply that x is x.
Aristotle cited the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle as examples of axioms. He partly exempted future contingents, or statements about unsure future events, from the law of excluded middle, holding that it is not (now) either true or false that there will be a naval battle tomorrow but that the complex proposition that either there will be a naval battle tomorrow or that there will not is (now) true. In the epochal Principia Mathematica (1910–13) of Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, this law occurs as a theorem rather than as an axiom.
Laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts | Britannica
Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. The three laws can be stated symbolically. Learn more about the laws of thought in this article.
www.britannica.com
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
It is Biblical.
Isaiah 62:2 "The nations will see your righteousness, And all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name Which the mouth of the Lord will designate.
Isaiah 65:15 “You will leave your name for a curse to My chosen ones, And the Lord God will slay you. But My servants will be called by another name.
And as well, it was to happen after Jesus the Christ.
Revelation 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.’.."
Revelation 3:12 "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
What is it that we have to overcome to accept God's New Name RJM? Maybe the Oneness of the Messengers with God?
Regards Tony
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Luckily we can use my own rational mind to determine what is logical and reasonable when determining the truth of a Messenger of God.Today, logic is a branch of mathematics and a branch of philosophy. In most large universities, both departments offer courses in logic, and there is usually a lot of overlap between them. Formal languages, deductive systems, and model-theoretic semantics are mathematical objects and, as such, the logician is interested in their mathematical properties and relations. Soundness, completeness, and most of the other results reported below are typical examples. Philosophically, logic is at least closely related to the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity. So logic is at least closely allied with epistemology. Logic is also a central branch of computer science, due, in part, to interesting computational relations in logical systems, and, in part, to the close connection between formal deductive argumentation and reasoning (see the entries on recursive functions, computability and complexity, and philosophy of computer science).
This raises questions concerning the philosophical relevance of the various mathematical aspects of logic. How do deducibility and validity, as properties of formal languages – sets of strings on a fixed alphabet – relate to correct reasoning? What do the mathematical results reported below have to do with the original philosophical issues concerning valid reasoning? This is an instance of the philosophical problem of explaining how mathematics applies to non-mathematical reality.
Classical Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
---
Before the 20th century, mathematicians saw their work mostly as empirical or descriptive, an uncovering of the laws of the physical universe; each question had only one correct answer. Logic was seen as an explanation of reasoning, and few people could see room for more than one explanation. So-called "classical" logic, developed by Frege, Russell, and others, was the dominant paradigm of logic. Well into the late 20th century, the "one logic only" viewpoint persisted, though a few isolated mathematicians -- Brouwer, Lukasiewicz, Belnap, etc. -- pursued different, nonclassical visions of what "the one true logic" should be.
The formalist revolution began with non-Euclidean geometries in the late 19th century and spread gradually through mathematics. Mathematicians began to see that the physical universe is neither knowable nor necessary to their work. Mathematics came to be viewed as a game of marks on paper, or an investigation of pure thought; different assumptions yield different theories. By the late 20th century, this change of philosophy had spread to logic. Researchers saw different logics merely as different types of abstract structures, no longer requiring philosophical justifications. Gradually, without fanfare, the pluralist (many logics) viewpoint became prevalent in research literature.
Classical and Nonclassical Logics
'Classical and Nonclassical Logics', an undergraduate textbook for an introductory course on mathematical logic, by Eric Schechter. Classical is contrasted with relevant, constructive, fuzzy, and other logics.math.vanderbilt.edu
---
the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. The three laws can be stated symbolically as follows. (1) For all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or: ∼(p · ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means “and.” (2) Either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or: p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or.” (3) If a propositional function F is true of an individual variable x, then F is true of x, or: F(x) ⊃ F(x), in which ⊃ means “formally implies.” Another formulation of the principle of identity asserts that a thing is identical with itself, or (∀x) (x = x), in which ∀ means “for every”; or simply that x is x.
Aristotle cited the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle as examples of axioms. He partly exempted future contingents, or statements about unsure future events, from the law of excluded middle, holding that it is not (now) either true or false that there will be a naval battle tomorrow but that the complex proposition that either there will be a naval battle tomorrow or that there will not is (now) true. In the epochal Principia Mathematica (1910–13) of Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, this law occurs as a theorem rather than as an axiom.
Laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts | Britannica
Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. The three laws can be stated symbolically. Learn more about the laws of thought in this article.
One does not need any other persons logic and reason, all it requires is a strong sense of the need for justice and a loving heart.
Regards Tony
Dead words
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
No destination but adherence to the writings of a self-announced upgrade to Jesus Christ, who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and whose rulings will be final truth for all humanity for the next 800 years
Go figure ...