7 ms·

Because his background strongly suggests that he's far from scientifically objective when it comes to sentience. On another note maybe he saw an opportunity fo

Because his background strongly suggests that he's far from scientifically objective when it comes to sentience. On another note maybe he saw an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame here. My personal experience with religious (Christian) young people is that they find it very hard to control their special narcissisms. Very hard to even recognize them as such as they masquerade behind false humbleness and ethics and several other layers. What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task. I'd thought that of all companies they would be much better in posting the right people for the right roles.

lupire 4y ago
You're supposed that Google does not discriminate on the basis of religious belief? In a country where that is explicitly illegal?
crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
This reads like an appeal for more religious discrimination in science. Is that what you're saying?
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.
  - toponaut 4y ago
    "the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it. Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.
    - deltaonefour 4y ago
      I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias. >Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true. Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.
  - timthorn 4y ago
    They really aren't. Some religions or sects might be, but it isn't a fundamental dichotomy. If you look at the history of Christianity and Islam, much good science was done by the faiths.
    - threefourteen 4y ago
      Much good science was done in spite of the faiths as Galileo would testify. The Church was accepting the science when there was absolutely no other way.
      - ecshafer 4y ago
        Galileo was imprisoned for insulting the Pope in his book. This had nothing to do with religion, but rather good old fashion, people with power don't like having that power abused. There's a reason other astronomers weren't so persecuted for their ideas, it was how they presented them, not the idea itself.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      We're discussing specifically mysticism here, which has a much stronger claim to have a fundamental dichotomy with science. (Regardless of which creed it's associated with.)
      - crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
        All that's needed is alignment with the cosmos. A model need only be able to commute with reality to provide a useful metaphorical explanation. And then the challenge becomes decoding the metaphor to figure out the literal alignments and misfits. This is why every religious/spiritual perspective needs more investigation and experimentation, not less. Once science is more shaped by applied category theory, this will become a common understanding. Speaking as someone who made a joke design-your-own-religion religion that's a creative packaging of neuroscience, math, computer science, and psychology, I was very surprised to start being able to connect deeper with people carrying deeply-held religious/spiritual beliefs and to start identifying wisdom from their perspectives. This also allowed both parties to at least open up to considering each others' perspectives and sometimes shifting them. And believing a model is literally true or metaphorically commutative isn't a necessary distinction for a model to be useful, though it does seem to impact the depth to which it can be embodied. Turning belief on and off is a skill I see discussed way more in mystic circles than in science circles, where belief denial seems to be the norm.
  - tjs8rj 4y ago
    Saying religion is the opposite of science is like saying philosophy is the opposite of science. Religion is a philosophy, it’s an incredibly diverse, rarely entirely faith based, etc Deep theoretical physics in some ways has more in common with religion or philosophy than with experimental and verified physics. To the extreme: science itself is faith-based at the deepest levels. Like that experiments are replicable, that the universe behaves predictably, that anything exists in any real sense, that we can trust our own perception and observations at all, etc Science is a useful construct that seems to work, it’s also deeply intertwined with philosophy (including the philosophy of religion)
    - deltaonefour 4y ago
      I hate philosophers and I think the entire field is illegitimate. Not to be insulting to you personally. It's just my opinion of the field in general. I have nothing against you. I look at your entire field with very high disdain. To me it one of the most inconsistent, illogical and irrational and useless academic fields in existence. Useless is ok. Irrational is not ok. I once gave a deep, complex and logical argument to a philosopher about why i thought philosophy was complete bullshit. He laughed at me and said my argument included elements of philosophy, and since my argument contained philosophy I was basically proving philosophy to be not bullshit. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend how stupid that argument is, then it's fine. I actually have nothing more to say on the matter. Agree to disagree.
      - crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
        https://josephnoelwalker.com/139-david-deutsch/ https://josephnoelwalker.com/139-david-deutsch/ Philosophy is currently reshaping science and math. I'm curious what your take is on the discussion in this link.
        deltaonefour 4y ago
        My take is it has absolutely nothing to do with why I think philosophy is complete garbage. Think of it this way. If let's say a cultist religious sect believes in science and contributes to science then at the same time this cultist religion also believes that the universe is a bubble sitting on the nose of a cosmic hippo.... Then despite the good science, the entire cultist religion is still utter bullshit. That being said it is still highly questionable how large and how meaningful philosophies contributions are to math and science. Historically they may have been one in the same field, but today there is clearly a category error. I would say philosophy contributed nothing to math and science. It only seems that way. What's actually going on is if a philosopher contributes something to math, he is actually doing mathematics, he is not doing philosophy. Same with science. If a philosopher reshapes science he is doing science, he is not doing philosophy. Because philosophy is a bullshit category that literally encompasses everything under the sun I dismiss it entirely. I didn't read the article or listen to the audio you sent me. I may if I have time later on in the week. But in my opinion, that is an article on math, not philosophy. Nothing is philosophy it's all bullshit to me. Also please don't tell me my argument here is philosophical and therefore contradictory. Absolutely please don't sink that low.
- threefourteen 4y ago
  I'm just saying that I would think twice before agreeing on letting an alcoholic run a bar or a short-sighted person flying a fighter jet.
crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
Also, where's the scientific approach Google's putting forward?
deltaonefour 4y ago
You can't be scientifically objective about sentience. First of all sentience is a loaded word it's not even fully defined. Is a mouse or a bug sentient but this AI clearly is not? It's not clear, but that an artifact of the word "sentient" which itself is just a word that is ambiguously defined. Second, what exactly is the scientific test you would run to judge if something is sentient? It's hard to test, especially given the fact that the word isn't even formally defined. >What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task. This would be a form of discrimination and is illegal if they assigned him jobs based off of his religious background. They assigned him jobs while ignoring his religious background which makes sense.
Konohamaru 4y ago
> My personal experience with religious (Christian) young people is that they find it very hard to control their special narcissism. American Christianity is absolutely not reflective of historical Christianity, especially not in its theology. If you want to see a good take-down of American Christianity, read Samuel Clemens. And no, American Christianity did not change one bit since the time Mr. Clemens flourished (mid-late 19th century).
- Bud 4y ago
  Of course it changed. It got even worse.

lupire 4y ago

You're supposed that Google does not discriminate on the basis of religious belief? In a country where that is explicitly illegal?

crawfordcomeaux 4y ago

This reads like an appeal for more religious discrimination in science. Is that what you're saying?

deltaonefour 4y ago
Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.
- toponaut 4y ago
  "the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it. Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias. >Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true. Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.
- timthorn 4y ago
  They really aren't. Some religions or sects might be, but it isn't a fundamental dichotomy. If you look at the history of Christianity and Islam, much good science was done by the faiths.
  - threefourteen 4y ago
    Much good science was done in spite of the faiths as Galileo would testify. The Church was accepting the science when there was absolutely no other way.
    - ecshafer 4y ago
      Galileo was imprisoned for insulting the Pope in his book. This had nothing to do with religion, but rather good old fashion, people with power don't like having that power abused. There's a reason other astronomers weren't so persecuted for their ideas, it was how they presented them, not the idea itself.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    We're discussing specifically mysticism here, which has a much stronger claim to have a fundamental dichotomy with science. (Regardless of which creed it's associated with.)
    - crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
      All that's needed is alignment with the cosmos. A model need only be able to commute with reality to provide a useful metaphorical explanation. And then the challenge becomes decoding the metaphor to figure out the literal alignments and misfits. This is why every religious/spiritual perspective needs more investigation and experimentation, not less. Once science is more shaped by applied category theory, this will become a common understanding. Speaking as someone who made a joke design-your-own-religion religion that's a creative packaging of neuroscience, math, computer science, and psychology, I was very surprised to start being able to connect deeper with people carrying deeply-held religious/spiritual beliefs and to start identifying wisdom from their perspectives. This also allowed both parties to at least open up to considering each others' perspectives and sometimes shifting them. And believing a model is literally true or metaphorically commutative isn't a necessary distinction for a model to be useful, though it does seem to impact the depth to which it can be embodied. Turning belief on and off is a skill I see discussed way more in mystic circles than in science circles, where belief denial seems to be the norm.
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  Saying religion is the opposite of science is like saying philosophy is the opposite of science. Religion is a philosophy, it’s an incredibly diverse, rarely entirely faith based, etc Deep theoretical physics in some ways has more in common with religion or philosophy than with experimental and verified physics. To the extreme: science itself is faith-based at the deepest levels. Like that experiments are replicable, that the universe behaves predictably, that anything exists in any real sense, that we can trust our own perception and observations at all, etc Science is a useful construct that seems to work, it’s also deeply intertwined with philosophy (including the philosophy of religion)
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    I hate philosophers and I think the entire field is illegitimate. Not to be insulting to you personally. It's just my opinion of the field in general. I have nothing against you. I look at your entire field with very high disdain. To me it one of the most inconsistent, illogical and irrational and useless academic fields in existence. Useless is ok. Irrational is not ok. I once gave a deep, complex and logical argument to a philosopher about why i thought philosophy was complete bullshit. He laughed at me and said my argument included elements of philosophy, and since my argument contained philosophy I was basically proving philosophy to be not bullshit. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend how stupid that argument is, then it's fine. I actually have nothing more to say on the matter. Agree to disagree.
    - crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
      https://josephnoelwalker.com/139-david-deutsch/ https://josephnoelwalker.com/139-david-deutsch/ Philosophy is currently reshaping science and math. I'm curious what your take is on the discussion in this link.
      - deltaonefour 4y ago
        My take is it has absolutely nothing to do with why I think philosophy is complete garbage. Think of it this way. If let's say a cultist religious sect believes in science and contributes to science then at the same time this cultist religion also believes that the universe is a bubble sitting on the nose of a cosmic hippo.... Then despite the good science, the entire cultist religion is still utter bullshit. That being said it is still highly questionable how large and how meaningful philosophies contributions are to math and science. Historically they may have been one in the same field, but today there is clearly a category error. I would say philosophy contributed nothing to math and science. It only seems that way. What's actually going on is if a philosopher contributes something to math, he is actually doing mathematics, he is not doing philosophy. Same with science. If a philosopher reshapes science he is doing science, he is not doing philosophy. Because philosophy is a bullshit category that literally encompasses everything under the sun I dismiss it entirely. I didn't read the article or listen to the audio you sent me. I may if I have time later on in the week. But in my opinion, that is an article on math, not philosophy. Nothing is philosophy it's all bullshit to me. Also please don't tell me my argument here is philosophical and therefore contradictory. Absolutely please don't sink that low.
threefourteen 4y ago
I'm just saying that I would think twice before agreeing on letting an alcoholic run a bar or a short-sighted person flying a fighter jet.

crawfordcomeaux 4y ago

Also, where's the scientific approach Google's putting forward?

deltaonefour 4y ago

You can't be scientifically objective about sentience. First of all sentience is a loaded word it's not even fully defined. Is a mouse or a bug sentient but this AI clearly is not? It's not clear, but that an artifact of the word "sentient" which itself is just a word that is ambiguously defined. Second, what exactly is the scientific test you would run to judge if something is sentient? It's hard to test, especially given the fact that the word isn't even formally defined. >What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task. This would be a form of discrimination and is illegal if they assigned him jobs based off of his religious background. They assigned him jobs while ignoring his religious background which makes sense.

Konohamaru 4y ago

> My personal experience with religious (Christian) young people is that they find it very hard to control their special narcissism. American Christianity is absolutely not reflective of historical Christianity, especially not in its theology. If you want to see a good take-down of American Christianity, read Samuel Clemens. And no, American Christianity did not change one bit since the time Mr. Clemens flourished (mid-late 19th century).

Bud 4y ago
Of course it changed. It got even worse.