Podcast appearances and mentions of John Searle

Welcome to Dev Game Club, where this week we continue our series on walking simulators with 2012's Dear Esther, played here in a 2017 "Landmark Edition" but based on a 2007 Source mod for Half-Life 2. We of course set the game in its time, spend a fair amount of time on randomness and meaning, and open the cellar door. Dev Game Club looks at classic video games and plays through them over several episodes, providing commentary. Sections played: The whole shebang Issues covered: walking simulators, 2012 in games, a little history of The Chinese Room (the company), a little digression on The Chinese Room (the thought experiment), influences, developing in the mod community, the role of randomness, discovering the randomness, justifying the randomness, mod communities replaying games, not discussing games as you play them, writers having the same space to play, 30 seconds of depressing poetry, "cellar door," a quality of lovely phonemes, the facts we know and the things we might interpret, a dreamy narrative space, Tim reveals his baseball knowledge, a metaphor for grief and an otherworldly space, rebirth, a car accident setting vs a gurney setting, things you can miss, not a thing video games would do, appreciating a new design space, directors' commentaries, crematory urns, one of the props, the impact of the ultrasound, needing to relate to the characters, the potential for missing things. Games, people, and influences mentioned or discussed: Fez, The Stanley Parable, The Chinese Room, Dishonored, Halo 4, Diablo III, Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance, Forza Horizon, New Super Mario Bros U, Far Cry 3, XCOM Enemy Unknown, Alan Wake's American Nightware, Hitman Absolution, Assassin's Creed 3, Max Payne 3, Mass Effect 3, Borderlands 2, Darksiders 2, Spec Ops: The Line, Dragon's Dogma, Fez, Journey, The Walking Dead, Hotline Miami, Spelunky, Papo y Yo, Bastion, Super Hexagon, Sumo Digital, Dan Pinchbeck, Jessica Curry, Rob Briscoe, Independent Games Festival, Korsakovia, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs, Everyone's Gone to the Rapture, Unity, CryEngine, Little Orpheus, Still Wakes the Deep, Vampire: Bloodlines (series), Hardsuit Labs, Brian Mitsoda, John Searle, Alan Turing, William S. Burroughs, Nigel Carrington, Proteus, Halo, Drew Barrymore, Donnie Darko, Rogue Legacy 2, David Lynch, Lost Highway, Inland Empire, Laura Dern, Waiting for Godot, True West, Sam Shepard, Firewatch, LucasArts, 343 Games, Kevin Schmitt, Metal Gear, Death Stranding, Trespasser, Tacoma, Jedi Starfighter, Daron Stinnett, Outer Wilds, Kirk Hamilton, Aaron Evers, Mark Garcia. Next time: The Stanley Parable Twitch: timlongojr  Discord  DevGameClub@gmail.com 

Audient!This episode imposes upon us (well Jake mostly) the horrors of shoddy writing and bad aesthetics. And yet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation seems to be very much alive. How is that? Why?We get to touch on some long-neglected Star here, Il vaut mieux Lyotard que jamais, hearkening back to its post-structuralist origins.  We go back down memory lane to when me and Jake were reading this exact critique of that exact attitude, that time between Analytic philosopher John Searle and the evil Continentalist Jacques Derrida and his essay Signature, Event, Cuntext. There, Derrida shows how each utterance, of necessity, breaches whatever context is assigned to it, thus always opening the way for what Holmes keeps pretending to have had already hermetically closed: the other possibility. Sherlock Holmes is shown to play out a fantasy of control, one that professionalizes thinking in much the same way an AI does. Holmes' "method of logical deduction" is explored in this vein to reveal a logical abduction, where Truth is nowhere acknowledged, and the process simply arrives at the least improbable outcome. Alas, since the entire context, the full "One", will always be breachable - we were thinking also of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem here - the probability will forever be dangling, insecure; or worse, open to various biases of 'normativity.'Jake, once again, recalls Jack Bauer, as a distilled version, a sublimated Sherlock Holmes; one that stopped bothering about that (quite flimsy) justification, along with the 'method' Holmes uses to construct it. If it was always bullshit, why not go right to the point?Our perverts also hone in on the obvious closeted Homosexuality that emanates from this dynamic duo, and all the libidinal affirmations and denials that move this - many times unspoken, but always quite present - sexually-tense relationship. 'No Homo,' this time operating as a literary device...Stars:IL VAUT MIEUX LYOTARD QUE JAMAIS; Pervs 'R Us; Beast & Sovereign.

This Postmodern Realities episode is a conversation with JOURNAL author R. Keith Loftin about his article, “John Searle: Unwitting Ally of the Soul”. This is also part of our ongoing Philosophers Series. https://www.equip.org/articles/john-searle-unwitting-ally-of-the-soul/Related articles and podcasts by this author:Episode 407 Consciousness, AI, and the Imago DeiConsciousness, AI, and the Imago DeiEpisode 232 Who Made God?But Who Made God?Swimming Upstream: Why the Natural Law Resists TotalitarianismDon't miss an episode; please subscribe to the Postmodern Realities podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Please help spread the word about Postmodern Realities by giving us a rating and review when you subscribe to the podcast. The more ratings and reviews we have, the more new listeners can discover our content.

Ivan Zhang, co-founder of Cohere, discusses the company's enterprise-focused AI solutions. He explains Cohere's early emphasis on embedding technology and training models for secure environments. Zhang highlights their implementation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation in healthcare, significantly reducing doctor preparation time. He explores the shift from monolithic AI models to heterogeneous systems and the importance of improving various AI system components. Zhang shares insights on using synthetic data to teach models reasoning, the democratization of software development through AI, and how his gaming skills transfer to running an AI company. He advises young developers to fully embrace AI technologies and offers perspectives on AI reliability, potential risks, and future model architectures. https://cohere.com/ https://ivanzhang.ca/ https://x.com/1vnzh TOC: 00:00:00 Intro 00:03:20 AI & Language Model Evolution 00:06:09 Future AI Apps & Development 00:09:29 Impact on Software Dev Practices 00:13:03 Philosophical & Societal Implications 00:16:30 Compute Efficiency & RAG 00:20:39 Adoption Challenges & Solutions 00:22:30 GPU Optimization & Kubernetes Limits 00:24:16 Cohere's Implementation Approach 00:28:13 Gaming's Professional Influence 00:34:45 Transformer Optimizations 00:36:45 Future Models & System-Level Focus 00:39:20 Inference-Time Computation & Reasoning 00:42:05 Capturing Human Thought in AI 00:43:15 Research, Hiring & Developer Advice REFS: 00:02:31 Cohere, https://cohere.com/ 00:02:40 The Transformer architecture, https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 00:03:22 The Innovator's Dilemma, https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies-Management-Innovation/dp/1633691780 00:09:15 The actor model, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model 00:14:35 John Searle's Chinese Room Argument, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ 00:18:00 Retrieval-Augmented Generation, https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 00:18:40 Retrieval-Augmented Generation, https://docs.cohere.com/v2/docs/retrieval-augmented-generation-rag 00:35:39 Let's Verify Step by Step, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.20050 00:39:20 Adaptive Inference-Time Compute, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02725 00:43:20 Ryan Greenblatt ARC entry, https://redwoodresearch.substack.com/p/getting-50-sota-on-arc-agi-with-gpt Disclaimer: This show is part of our Cohere partnership series

Murray Shanahan is a professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London and a senior research scientist at DeepMind. He challenges our assumptions about AI consciousness and urges us to rethink how we talk about machine intelligence. We explore the dangers of anthropomorphizing AI, the limitations of current language in describing AI capabilities, and the fascinating intersection of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Show notes and full references: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ICtBI574W-xGi8Z2ZtUNeKWiOiGZ_DRsp9EnyYAISws/edit?usp=sharing Prof Murray Shanahan: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mpsha/ (look at his selected publications) https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=00bnGpAAAAAJ&hl=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Shanahan https://x.com/mpshanahan Interviewer: Dr. Tim Scarfe Refs (links in the Google doc linked above): Role play with large language models Waluigi effect "Conscious Exotica" - Paper by Murray Shanahan (2016) "Simulators" - Article by Janis from LessWrong "Embodiment and the Inner Life" - Book by Murray Shanahan (2010) "The Technological Singularity" - Book by Murray Shanahan (2015) "Simulacra as Conscious Exotica" - Paper by Murray Shanahan (newer paper of the original focussed on LLMs) A recent paper by Anthropic on using autoencoders to find features in language models (referring to the "Scaling Monosemanticity" paper) Work by Peter Godfrey-Smith on octopus consciousness "Metaphors We Live By" - Book by George Lakoff (1980s) Work by Aaron Sloman on the concept of "space of possible minds" (1984 article mentioned) Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" (posthumously published) Daniel Dennett's work on the "intentional stance" Alan Turing's original paper on the Turing Test (1950) Thomas Nagel's paper "What is it like to be a bat?" (1974) John Searle's Chinese Room Argument (mentioned but not detailed) Work by Richard Evans on tackling reasoning problems Claude Shannon's quote on knowledge and control "Are We Bodies or Souls?" - Book by Richard Swinburne Reference to work by Ethan Perez and others at Anthropic on potential deceptive behavior in language models Reference to a paper by Murray Shanahan and Antonia Creswell on the "selection inference framework" Mention of work by Francois Chollet, particularly the ARC (Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus) challenge Reference to Elizabeth Spelke's work on core knowledge in infants Mention of Karl Friston's work on planning as inference (active inference) The film "Ex Machina" - Murray Shanahan was the scientific advisor "The Waluigi Effect" Anthropic's constitutional AI approach Loom system by Lara Reynolds and Kyle McDonald for visualizing conversation trees DeepMind's AlphaGo (mentioned multiple times as an example) Mention of the "Golden Gate Claude" experiment Reference to an interview Tim Scarfe conducted with University of Toronto students about self-attention controllability theorem Mention of an interview with Irina Rish Reference to an interview Tim Scarfe conducted with Daniel Dennett Reference to an interview with Maria Santa Caterina Mention of an interview with Philip Goff Nick Chater and Martin Christianson's book ("The Language Game: How Improvisation Created Language and Changed the World") Peter Singer's work from 1975 on ascribing moral status to conscious beings Demis Hassabis' discussion on the "ladder of creativity" Reference to B.F. Skinner and behaviorism

Segundo Roger Penrose (Nobel de Física em 2020, para quem gosta de validação de autoridade acadêmica), toda essa discussão sobre os “perigos dos avanços da inteligência artificial” e a possibilidade dessa “inteligência” substituir a mente humana não passa de alarmismo vulgar, alimentado por muita ficção científica e pouca ciência e filosofia. Não que figuras importantes da ciência não defendessem tal possibilidade distópica, onde as máquinas poderão nos copiar, nos substituir, nos eliminar e prevalescer sobre a Terra. Autores como Marvin Minsky, pioneiro na inteligência artificial, consideram nossa mente como “computadores feitos de carne” e, como tal, seria perfeitamente possível pensar que toda nossa percepção de beleza, humor, consciência e livre-arbítrio poderiam emergir naturalmente de robôs eletrônicos com comportamento algorítmico suficientemente complexo. O grande problema de nossos tempos é que muitas vezes bons cientistas não produzem boa filosofia e bons filósofos não entendem de ciência. E ambos já não produzem nenhuma especulação mística ou religiosa, pois o pensamento religioso foi caricaturado numa interpretação vulgar de “dogma” (mas isso é outro assunto). Os filósofos da ciência, como John Searle, parecem, a princípio, os mais qualificados para responder a autores como Minsky, ao afirmar com bastante lucidez que computadores não são essencialmente diferentes de calculadoras mecânicas que operam com rodas, alavancas ou qualquer outra coisa capaz de transmitir sinais. Um computador, por mais avançado que seja, “entende” suas operações tal como um ábaco. Leia mais aqui.

Is the real world unreachable due to the mediation of language? Or has the linguistic turn in philosophy and academia gone too far?Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesJoin post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson, professor of logic Michael Potter and philosopher of language John Searle as they discuss what debates over language add or takeaway from the discipline of philosophy. The three philosophers do not shy away from metaphysics and the potential of removing meaning from our understanding of the world. Listen to learn more about the linguistic turn and its implications. There are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=the-limits-of-my-worldSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to the Monique on the Mic Podcast! I'm Monique B. Thomas, and today's episode is a unique treat. Join me and my mentor, the incredible Greg Enriquez, as we stroll through the scenic streets of Bari, Italy, during an international singing camp. This episode captures our candid conversations about the intersection of art and everyday life, the nuances of teaching and singing, and the often unspoken loneliness of being an artist.We dive into:The intrinsic artistry in every professionThe challenges and rewards of being a misunderstood artist.The importance of structure in vocal training amidst the trend of ultimate freedom in teaching.How societal perceptions of gender roles have evolved in the vocal world.The impact of science and technology on vocal pedagogy and the need for a balanced approach.Expect some delightful digressions as we chat about everything from vocal techniques to the nature of human consciousness, all while navigating the picturesque yet busy streets (with a few humorous interruptions!).Whether you're an artist feeling isolated, a vocal student seeking deeper insights, or simply someone intrigued by the creative process, this episode is for you. Greg's profound thoughts on pedagogy and my reflections on sustaining a vocal career offer valuable takeaways.Tune in for a walk-and-talk experience that's as enlightening as it is entertaining. And remember, you're never alone in your artistic journey.

Welcome to the Monique on the Mic Podcast! I'm Monique B. Thomas, and today's episode is a unique treat. Join me and my mentor, the incredible Greg Enriquez, as we stroll through the scenic streets of Bari, Italy, during an international singing camp. This episode captures our candid conversations about the intersection of art and everyday life, the nuances of teaching and singing, and the often unspoken loneliness of being an artist.We dive into:The intrinsic artistry in every professionThe challenges and rewards of being a misunderstood artist.The importance of structure in vocal training amidst the trend of ultimate freedom in teaching.How societal perceptions of gender roles have evolved in the vocal world.The impact of science and technology on vocal pedagogy and the need for a balanced approach.Expect some delightful digressions as we chat about everything from vocal techniques to the nature of human consciousness, all while navigating the picturesque yet busy streets (with a few humorous interruptions!).Whether you're an artist feeling isolated, a vocal student seeking deeper insights, or simply someone intrigued by the creative process, this episode is for you. Greg's profound thoughts on pedagogy and my reflections on sustaining a vocal career offer valuable takeaways.Tune in for a walk-and-talk experience that's as enlightening as it is entertaining. And remember, you're never alone in your artistic journey.

In this episode of Discover Daily, we explore the cutting-edge advancements in AI voice cloning technology, focusing on OpenAI's new "Voice Engine" model. Learn about the potential applications, ethical concerns, and the industry's approach to responsible deployment of this powerful technology. We also delve into the National WWII Museum's innovative use of AI in their "Voices From the Front" exhibit, which allows visitors to interact with virtual veterans and preserve their stories for future generations. Explore the Philosophical Debate Surrounding AI and UnderstandingIn the second half of the episode, we introduce the famous Chinese Room thought experiment proposed by philosopher John Searle. This thought-provoking argument challenges the notion of "strong AI" and questions whether computers can truly understand and have genuine mental states. Join us as we examine the implications of this thought experiment on the nature of intelligence and the future of AI development. Discover Daily brings you a fascinating blend of cutting-edge technology and philosophical discourse, all in one engaging podcast.For more on these stories:OpenAI voice cloning techhttps://www.perplexity.ai/search/OpenAI-voice-cloning-vbBufFBaTy6P8q93fBe.2gWW2 survivors turned into AIhttps://www.perplexity.ai/search/WW2-survivors-turned-Bf.jn3wbT3qUzG2k5SA9fwChinese room thought experimenthttps://www.perplexity.ai/search/Chinese-room-thought-yzagvajmQuulDcgnNXr._wPerplexity is the fastest and most powerful way to search the web. Perplexity crawls the web and curates the most relevant and up-to-date sources (from academic papers to Reddit threads) to create the perfect response to any question or topic you're interested in. Take the world's knowledge with you anywhere. Available on iOS and Android Join our growing Discord community for the latest updates and exclusive content. Follow us on: Instagram Threads X (Twitter) YouTube Linkedin

John R. Searle, 2010. This short treatise looks at how we construct a social reality from our sense impressions; at how, for example, we construct a ‘five-pound note' with all that implies in terms of value and social meaning, from the printed piece of paper we see and touch. In The Construction of Social Reality, eminent philosopher John Searle examines the structure of social reality (or those portions of the world that are facts only by human agreement, such as money, marriage, property, and government), and contrasts it to a brute reality that is independent of human agreement. Searle shows that brute reality provides the indisputable foundation for all social reality, and that social reality, while very real, is maintained by nothing more than custom and habit.

Episode: 1912 Am I conscious, or do I just think I am?  Today, guest scientist Andrew Boyd explores how we think.

Language is the ultimate Lego. With it, we can take simple elements and construct them into an edifice of meaning. Its power is not only in mapping signs to concepts but in that individual words can be composed into larger structures. How did this systematicity arise in language?Simon Kirby is the head of Linguistics and English Language at The University of Edinburgh and one of the founders of the Centre for Langauge Evolution and Change. Over several decades he and his collaborators have run many elegant experiments that show that this property of language emerges inexorably as a system of communication is passed from generation to generation. Experiments with computer simulations, humans, and even baboons demonstrate that as a language is learned mistakes are made - much like the mutations in genes. Crucially, the mistakes that better match the language to the structure of the world (as conceived by the learner) are the ones that are most likely to be passed on.Links Simon's website with art, music, and talks on language evolution Simon's academic homepage Simon on X Multiverses Podcast homeOutline(00:00) Introduction(2:45) What makes language special?(5:30) Language extends our biological bounds(7:55) Language makes culture, culture makes language(9:30) John Searle: world to word and word to world(13:30) Compositionality: the expressivity of language is based on its Lego-like combinations(16:30) Could unique genes explain the fact of language compositionality?(17:20) … Not fully, though they might make our brains able to support compositional language(18:20) Using simulations to model language learning and search for the emergence of structure(19:35) Compositionality emerges from the transmission of representations across generations(20:18) The learners need to make mistakes, but not random mistakes(21:35) Just like biological evolution, we need variation(27:00) When, by chance, linguistic features echo the structure of the world these are more memorable(33:45) Language experiments with humans (Hannah Cornish)(36:32) Sign language experiments in the lab (Yasamin Motamedi)(38:45) Spontaneous emergence of sign language in populations(41:18) Communication is key to making language efficient, while transmission gives structure(47:10) Without intentional design these processes produce optimized systems(50:39) We need to perceive similarity in states of the world for linguistic structure to emerge(57:05) Why isn't language ubiquitous in nature …(58:00) … why do only humans have cultural transmissions(59:56) Over-imitation: Victoria Horner & Andrew Whiten, humans love to copy each other(1:06:00) Is language a spandrel?(1:07:10) How much of language is about information transfer? Partner-swapping conversations (Gareth Roberts)(1:08:49) Language learning = play?(1:12:25) Iterated learning experiments with baboons (& Tetris!)(1:17:50) Endogenous rewards for copying(1:20:30) Art as another angle on the same problems

Het is de zomer van 2024. De Republikeinse en Democratische conventies staan op hun beurt hun kandidaten te nomineren. Hoe staan de kandidaten ervoor? Zijn het Trump en Biden? Hoe sterk of zwak zijn ze? Wat heeft het hete voorjaar vol strafprocessen en voorverkiezingen met ze gedaan? En waarom? In deze aflevering doen Kenneth en David een gedachtenexperiment (inclusief imaginiaire kaviaar en champagne) en verplaatsen zichzelf naar 2024 als de presidentsverkiezingen voor de deur staan om Amerika te aanschouwen. Boek aanbevelingen: - Colin Woodard, 'American Nations - A History of The Eleven Regional Cultures of North America'; - John Searle, 'Mind' Vragen of suggesties? Stuur een email naar podcast@manusama.com of vind ons op Twitter/X: @KennethManusama en @dmdebruijn.

O Robot compara-se com o argumento do quarto chinês de John Searle. Num exercício de autocrítica (notável para um ente sem consciência), procura identificar os seus próprios perigos.

In episode 88 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Professor Stevan Harnad.Stevan Harnad is professor of psychology and cognitive science at Université du Québec à Montréal, adjunct professor of cognitive science at McGill University, and professor emeritus of cognitive science at the University of Southampton. His research is on category learning, categorical perception, symbol grounding, the evolution of language, and animal and human sentience (otherwise known as “consciousness”). He is also an advocate for open access and an activist for animal rights.Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here or reach us at editor@thegradient.pubSubscribe to The Gradient Podcast:  Apple Podcasts  | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:* (00:00) Intro* (05:20) Professor Harnad's background: interests in cognitive psychobiology, editing Behavioral and Brain Sciences* (07:40) John Searle submits the Chinese Room article* (09:20) Early reactions to Searle and Prof. Harnad's role* (13:38) The core of Searle's argument and the generator of the Symbol Grounding Problem, “strong AI”* (19:00) Ways to ground symbols* (20:26) The acquisition of categories* (25:00) Pantomiming, non-linguistic category formation* (27:45) Mathematics, abstraction, and grounding* (36:20) Symbol manipulation and interpretation language* (40:40) On the Whorf Hypothesis* (48:39) Defining “grounding” and introducing the “T3” Turing Test* (53:22) Turing's concerns, AI and reverse-engineering cognition* (59:25) Other Minds, T4 and zombies* (1:05:48) Degrees of freedom in solutions to the Turing Test, the easy and hard problems of cognition* (1:14:33) Over-interepretation of AI systems' behavior, sentience concerns, T3 and evidence sentience* (1:24:35) Prof. Harnad's commentary on claims in The Vector Grounding Problem* (1:28:05) RLHF and grounding, LLMs' (ungrounded) capabilities, syntactic structure and propositions* (1:35:30) Multimodal AI systems (image-text and robotic) and grounding, compositionality* (1:42:50) Chomsky's Universal Grammar, LLMs and T2* (1:50:55) T3 and cognitive simulation* (1:57:34) OutroLinks:* Professor Harnad's webpage and skywritings* Papers:* Category Induction and Representation* Categorical Perception* From Sensorimotor Categories to Grounded Symbols* Minds, machines and Searle 2* The Latent Structure of Dictionaries Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/john_searle_our_shared_condition_consciousness ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/153-academic-words-reference-from-john-searle-our-shared-condition-consciousness-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/2ZpE4FmxONg (All Words) https://youtu.be/4NvhkVlPmcw (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/ImFHwz9f5Dc (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Welcome to the fourth episode of Fickle Philosophies! Today we're looking at a dilemma that's coming more-and-more to the forefront of discussions around technology: will the machines we make one day be able to think?In today's episode, we'll be looking at simulations of understanding, John Searle's Chinese-Room Thought-Experiment, and awareness of an internal self.This season, I'm going to be relying heavily on Stephen Law's The Philosophy Gym for great, easy-to-digest examples and arguments--I strongly recommend you check out his book for more information and philosophical viewpoints-----If you love this podcast, show your support by rating, subscribing, and downloading!  The best way to support me is by sharing this podcast with others—the more people can learn, the better we can understand the crazy world we live in :D

Today we discuss ideas from John Searle and Noam Chomsky and consider several questions surrounding machine intelligence.  Get more: Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis Philosophize This! Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@philosophizethisclips   Be social: Twitter: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philosophizethispodcast  

Un employé de Google se fait virer car il prétend que son modèle de langage a une conscience. ChatGPT débarque et chamboule notre manière de penser, d'écrire, de travailler. Les grandes œuvres de science-fiction nous confrontent à notre peur que la machine dépasse son créateur et s'en débarrasse. Avec l'intelligence artificielle, la question de la vérité est plus que jamais cruciale. A l'heure où les machines sont tellement développées qu'elles se font facilement passer pour des êtres humains, la frontière est fine entre le réel et le virtuel, le vrai et le faux. Références de l'épisode : – https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/technologie/article/un-ingenieur-de-google-avertit-qu-une-intelligence-artificielle-est-consciente_197549.html – Her, film de Spike Jonze, 2013. – Short Circuit (ou Cœur circuit au Québec, ou Court-circuit en Belgique), film de John Badham, 1986. – Astro, le petit robot, série télévisée d'animation de science-fiction japonaise, produite par les studios Tezuka Productions, diffusée dans les années 1980. – Alan Turing, test de Turing. – Imitation Game, film de Morten Tyldum, 2014. – R. U. R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), pièce de théâtre (science-fiction) de Karel Čapek, 1920. – Chambre chinoise (Chinese room), expérience de pensée imaginée par John Searle vers 1980. – La Bible, livre de la Genèse, chapitre 2, verset 18 : “Il n'est pas bon que l'homme soit seul” C'est grâce à votre générosité que le podcast Sagesse et Mojito existe ! Pour nous soutenir : – Tipeee : https://fr.tipeee.com/sagesse-et-mojito – Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/sa gesseetmojito – imagoDei : https://www.imagodei.fr/dons/ Suivez nos actualités, participez à nos échanges, rendez-vous sur imagoDei.fr !

In episode 236 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined once again by philosophy professor, Dr. Mike Huemer. This time we discuss an invited paper he wrote on the problem of other minds--which he originally wrote as an undergrad senior thesis under John Searle (which is pretty cool). Huemer argues against analogy and perceptional solutions to the problem of justifying our knowledge of other minds and puts forth an inference to the best explanation instead. We also get into whether or not ants, dogs, and robots have minds and how we might go about deciding. Check the time stamps for the full list of topics we discussed. If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/0:00 - what is the problem of other minds? (and the arg from analogy) 10:59 - Perceptual Theory of other minds 26:46 - Inference to the Best Explanation as justification for believing in other minds 33:20 - Why Can't we use IBE to justify belief in Robot Minds? 36:12 - Is mental sharing possible? 37:24 - Epiphenomenalism 41:50 - Mind-Brain Identity theory 46:50 - Contra Functionalism(s) 56:35 - Philosophical Zombies 1:00:27 - Qualia and Functionalism 1:02:55 - Do Dogs Have Minds and Know Things? 1:17:58 - Can We Prove that Robots Have Minds? 1:27:47 - Eternal Immaterial Souls and Super Intelligence

Please check out Numerai - our sponsor using our link @ http://numer.ai/mlst Numerai is a groundbreaking platform which is taking the data science world by storm. Tim has been using Numerai to build state-of-the-art models which predict the stock market, all while being a part of an inspiring community of data scientists from around the globe. They host the Numerai Data Science Tournament, where data scientists like us use their financial dataset to predict future stock market performance. Support us! https://www.patreon.com/mlst MLST Discord: https://discord.gg/aNPkGUQtc5 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MLStreetTalk YT version: https://youtu.be/axJtywd9Tbo In this fascinating interview, Dr. Tim Scarfe speaks with renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett about the potential dangers of AI and the concept of "Counterfeit People." Dennett raises concerns about AI being used to create artificial colleagues, and argues that preventing counterfeit AI individuals is crucial for societal trust and security. They delve into Dennett's "Two Black Boxes" thought experiment, the Chinese Room Argument by John Searle, and discuss the implications of AI in terms of reversibility, reontologisation, and realism. Dr. Scarfe and Dennett also examine adversarial LLMs, mental trajectories, and the emergence of consciousness and semanticity in AI systems. Throughout the conversation, they touch upon various philosophical perspectives, including Gilbert Ryle's Ghost in the Machine, Chomsky's work, and the importance of competition in academia. Dennett concludes by highlighting the need for legal and technological barriers to protect against the dangers of counterfeit AI creations. Join Dr. Tim Scarfe and Daniel Dennett in this thought-provoking discussion about the future of AI and the potential challenges we face in preserving our civilization. Don't miss this insightful conversation! TOC: 00:00:00 Intro 00:09:56 Main show kick off 00:12:04 Counterfeit People 00:16:03 Reversibility 00:20:55 Reontologisation 00:24:43 Realism 00:27:48 Adversarial LLMs are out to get us 00:32:34 Exploring mental trajectories and Chomsky 00:38:53 Gilbert Ryle and Ghost in machine and competition in academia 00:44:32 2 Black boxes thought experiment / intentional stance 01:00:11 Chinese room 01:04:49 Singularitarianism 01:07:22 Emergence of consciousness and semanticity References: Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601 The Problem With Counterfeit People (Daniel Dennett) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/problem-counterfeit-people/674075/ The knowledge argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument The Intentional Stance https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271180035_The_Intentional_Stance Two Black Boxes: a Fable (Daniel Dennett) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28762339_Two_Black_Boxes_a_Fable The Chinese Room Argument (John Searle) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (Daniel Dennett) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bacteria-Bach-Back-Evolution-Minds/dp/014197804X Consciousness Explained (Daniel Dennett) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousness-Explained-Penguin-Science-Dennett/dp/0140128670/ The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul (Hofstadter, Douglas R; Dennett, Daniel C.) https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31494476184 #DanielDennett #ArtificialIntelligence #CounterfeitPeople

  (Durée 02 : 09 : 14) Télécharger le podcast  Le Modèle Analytique de la Narration Naturelle, ou MANN est une nouvelle théorie développée par kF. Au moyen de la notion d'acte de langage, développée par Austin et Searle, Valentin prétend du MANN qu'il pourrait analyser la partie de jeu de rôle bien mieux que le Maelstrom... John Searle, à l'origine des réflexions de Valentin et de kF Cette semaine, en compagnie de Céline, Maxime, Flavie et Romuald, Valentin nous présente le Modèle Analytique de la Narration Naturelle. En quel sens ce modèle est-il analytique d'une partie de jeu de rôle ? En quoi répond-il à mon analyse Wittgensteinienne du Maelstrom ? Existe-t-il un modèle permettant de décrire les plus petits éléments d'une partie de jeu de rôle ? Qu'est-ce qu'un espace imaginaire partagé ? Quelles sont les grandes frontières instituées lors d'une partie de jeu de rôle ? En quoi l'institution de ces nouvelles frontières permet-elle la génération de nouveaux actes de langage et de nouveaux systèmes de cohérence ?  ***  Notez que Valentin T a mis en pratique la théorie qu'il expose aujourd'hui en publiant récemment "Lou et Morgan" et sept autres jeux de rôles et sur Lulu. Ces jeux développés en collaboration avec Fabien Hildwein tendent à montrer, entre autres, l'immense potentiel du MANN en jeu de rôle. Affaire à suivre...On se retrouve après les vacances de Février, pour de nouvelles aventures analytiques de la narration naturelle. D'ici là, portez-vous bien et, surtout, jouez bien !

En este episodio comienzo hablando sobre dos clásicos experimentos mentales: el Test de Turing (de Alan Turing) y la Habitación China (de John Searle), para luego tratar lo relativo a ChatGPT.Support the show

We discuss ChatGPT, professional subreddits, natural history in Singapore, and more ChatGPT. ChatGPT is MBB or bust (https://www.reddit.com/r/consulting/comments/104ryr5/chatgpt_is_mbb_or_bust/) r/KitchenConfidential (https://www.reddit.com/r/KitchenConfidential/) John Searle - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle) r/AskHistorians - Comment by u/jbdyer on "What was Soviet pet culture like? Were dogs and cats considered capitalist fripperaries, or were they comrades? Did the planned economy make any attempt at meeting this market?" (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zxs4d1/comment/j22xvfo/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Let's have a natural history museum for Singapore (https://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/06/lets-have-natural-history-museum-for.html) Titan of Singapore science education retires after 50 years (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/titan-of-singapore-science-education-retires-after-50-years) Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum seeking funds for sperm whale exhibit (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/lee-kong-chian-natural-history-museum-seeking-funds-for-sperm-whale-exhibit) Marcus Hutchins :verified: (@malwaretech@infosec.exchange) (https://infosec.exchange/@malwaretech/109650622540622626)

In this episode of AUHSD Future Talks, Superintendent Matsuda interviews Professor Avram Noam Chomsky. Mr. Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 and he is one of the most cited public intellectuals of the 21st century: a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. He is a Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona starting in 2017 and was an Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from 2001 to 2017. He has authored more than 150 books on topics on linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Considered to be "the father of modern linguistics", for such reasons as working on the concept of "Universal Grammar" he continues to investigate language with the concept and theory of Transformational-Generative Grammar.He not only has written numerous books but he has engaged in philosophical debates with intellectuals and modern philosophers. Some noteworthy intellectuals and philosophers he debated were Michel Foucault, Tyler Burge, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, Saul Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Willard Van Orman Quine, and John Searle. During the talk with Superintendent Matsuda, Professor Chomsky discusses his educational experience, mass public education, "banking" form of education, three existential threats that face humanity, the connection between his linguistic work and education, the way forward for young people, democracy and education, and his message to young people.

Jim talks with Brendan Graham Dempsey about his book Emergentism: A Religion of Complexity for the Metamodern World. They discuss the meaning crisis & its symptoms, reciprocal narrowing, the pre-modern & the modern, the emergence of reductionism, the meaning of complexity & emergence, sacralizing the scientific creation narrative, Prigogine's theory of dissipative systems, the universe as a process of endless complexification, marrying Bobby Azarian's Unifying Theory of Reality & Gregg Henriques's Unified Theory of Knowledge, consciousness vs sentience, Integrated Information Theory vs John Searle's biological functionalism, the odds that intelligent life evolved only once in our galaxy, tying complexification to the God concept, making the "religion that is not a religion" accessible through mythopoeia & storytelling, the Omega Point, whether approaching the Omega Point implies pushing for a techno-Singularity, Emergentist ethics & practices, and much more. Episode Transcript Emergentism: A Religion of Complexity for the Modern World, by Brendan Graham Dempsey "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis," by John Vervaeke - YouTube series JRS EP143 - John Vervaeke Part 1: Awakening from the Meaning Crisis The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, by Harold Morowitz The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity, by Bobby Azarian JRS EP 159 - Bobby Azarian on the Romance of Reality JRS EP105 - Christof Koch on Consciousness JRS EP 167 - Bruce Damer on the Origins of Life JRS EP 171 - Bruce Damer Part 2: The Origins of Life – Implications JRS EP40 - Eric Smith on the Physics of Living Systems Brendan Graham Dempsey is a writer whose work focuses on the meaning crisis and the nature of spirituality in metamodernity. He is the host of the Metamodern Spirituality podcast and the writer behind the six-volume (and counting) Metamodern Spirituality Series. He earned his BA in Religious Studies from the University of Vermont and his MA in Religion and the Arts from Yale University. He lives in Greensboro Bend, Vermont, where he runs the holistic retreat center Sky Meadow.

Hoje junta-se a nos um fantástico convidado para debatermos o tópico de hoje, é licenciado em Antropologia pela Universidade Nova de Lisboa, e doutorado em Filosofia de Pensamento Contemporâneo pela Universidade Lusófona,. Com uma tese em Filosofia da IA sobre a possibilidade de simulação artificial do pensamento humano, um tópico muito em linha com a nossa discussão de hoje. Presentemente é investigador no Centro de Filosofia das Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa onde trabalha sobre filosofia da Física Quântica não linear e sobre Filosofia da IA. Tivemos o prazer de estar juntos no primeiro Simpósio Português sobre Filosofia e Inteligência Artificial que o nosso convidado coorganizou. Estou claro a falar do Paulo Castro, Paulo muito obrigado por teres aceite o nosso convite para estares connosco neste nosso humilde cantinho de debate e pensamento sobre IA. Ora o nosso tópico de hoje não será surpresa para ninguém dado o background do nosso convidado e até com base em algumas das ultimas discussões que temos tido em episódios anteriores. Vamos hoje dedicar o episodio de hoje a falar sobre Filosofia da Mente e Consciência. Existe imenso debate e até relativamente pouco consenso sobre a definição formal de consciência no que toca a IA, foram desenhados vários testes formais, muitos deles já provados ultrapassados e outros completamente inatingíveis. As máquinas ditas inteligentes de hoje estão cada vez mais proficientes em imitar os humanos e em enganar estes testes e não tanto em realmente ter esta dita consciência de uma forma mais completa. A verdade é que existem muitas perguntas que estão a ser estudadas na área da filosofia sobre se as maquinas conseguem ter uma mente própria, com a sua própria consciência muito ligada a definição de Strong IA do John Searle, enquanto que por outro lado as neurociências estão a definir a consciência de forma mais mecânica como algo emergente das ligações que conseguimos ter ao interligar diferentes componentes do cérebro humano como se um sistema complexo se tratasse, caso em que os engenheiros de IA teorizam que assim sendo então será possível de construir um sistema suficientemente complexo para atingir o mesmo fim e por isso chegar a essa dita consciência. Temos imensos ângulos para falar sem duvida e claro muito para explorar no episodio de hoje por isso fiquem desse lado que vai ser mais uma excelente conversa que não vão querer perder AI News: Will Robots Take My Job? https://WillRobotsTakeMyJob.com OpenAI Releases Point-E, A 3D DALL.E (analyticsindiamag.com) https://analyticsindiamag.com/openai-releases-point-e-a-3d-dall-e/ openai/point-e: Point cloud diffusion for 3D model synthesis (github.com) https://github.com/openai/point-e Email us at podcast@buildingthefuture.pt Guest: Paulo Castro: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulo-castro-1488875a/ Hosts: Marco António Silva: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marconsilva/ José António Silva: https://www.linkedin.com/in/canoas/ Vitor Santos: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vitor-santos-ab87662/ Produção: Beatriz Herrera González - https://www.linkedin.com/in/beahgonzalez/

Parentesen är ända sedan den först uppstod en oroande partisan. Den träder in i texten som en eftertanke, med ett tillägg som komplicerar och bjuder motstånd, säger litteraturvetaren Jesper Olsson. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Ursprungligen publicerad den 27 november 2018.Parentes livet slut parentes. Så slutar dikten First Person Shooter i Malte Perssons bok Till dikten. Bokstavligen. Raden rymmer inte några krökta tecken av välbekant slag, bara ord. Läsaren bjuds in att yttra något som egentligen hör till det skrivnas och outsagdas domän. Och vems röst är det som hörs inom parentesen: min egen, poetens, eller någon tredje? Frågan motiveras av diktens tema om poesins promiskuösa natur. Det vill säga, poetiska texters förmåga att framträda på och upplevas på en mängd olika sätt av en mängd olika läsare.Parenteser, precis som andra skiljetecken, hör till språkets stumma register. De fyller en funktion i texter de organiserar och rytmiserar vår läsning. Men de pockar inte på uppmärksamhet, och vill definitivt inte höras. Undantagen bekräftar som alltid regeln. Som i Carl Fredrik Reuterswärds konceptuella arbete Prix Nobel från 1966. I denna poesibok får vi ta del av de grafiska resterna av ett föregivet Nobelpristal. Orden har plockats bort, och allt som återstår är en armatur av skiljetecken som Reuterswärd själv, med sedvanlig ironi, läste in på grammofonskiva.I sin studie Digital Shift skriver litteraturvetaren Jeff Scheible att parenteser i en text alltid väcker tankar på dynamiken mellan skrivande och läsande och tystnad och tal. Vilket också begreppets långa historia vittnar om. Själva termen härrör från grekiskans parentesis, som betyder att foga in bredvid. Under antiken bildades ordet för att beskriva en retorisk operation ett inskott eller sidoreplik i ett anförande som gav extra energi och perspektiv på det som talaren hävdade. Intressant nog har begreppet alltså sina rötter i ett muntligt sammanhang.Det var först under medeltiden år 1399 hävdar en handbok som termen började hänvisa till ett skrivet tecken. Det var då som de klassiska bågarna (lunula, liten måne på latin) kom till bruk. Precis som andra skiljetecken bidrog parentesen till uppdelningen av en tidigare sömlös skrift. Vilket också indikerar en förskjutning i litteratur- och mediehistorien: en övergång från högläsning till tyst läsning från ett klingande ord som delas kollektivt till ljudlösa meningar, som möblerar en individs inre rum.parentesens stumhet är alltså, precis som fiskars, skenbar och bedräglig. Skiljetecken var på det sättet kopplade till det tysta läsandets utbredning en process som mediehistoriker förbinder med uppkomsten av ett modernt jag. Det subjekt som den franske filosofen Descartes skulle fira med sitt jag tänker alltså är jag. Men parentesen var ändå, från början, en oroande partisan. Den träder in i texten som en eftertanke, med ett tillägg som komplicerar och bjuder motstånd (också när den vill förklara och förtydliga). Som om ytterligare en stämma än den som tidigare talat ville göra sig hörd. Parentesen öppnar för både brus och polyfoni.Det är inte någon tillfällighet att estetiskt brokiga perioder i litteraturhistorien, som barock och romantik, uppvisar en ökning i bruket av parenteser medan frekvensen sjunker under 1700-talets upplysning och 1800-talets realism. Med det tidiga 1900-talets avantgarde blev tecknet delaktigt i den mediepoetik som då bedrevs där skrivandets mediala och materiella villkor gjordes till föremål för experiment av dadaister och andra. Talande är den tyske expressionisten Christian Morgensterns dikt Fisches Nachtgesang (Fiskens nattliga sång) från 1905, bestående av enbart stumma streck och omkullvälta parenteser.Men parentesens stumhet är alltså, precis som fiskars, skenbar och bedräglig. Dess rötter i retorik och vältalighet skulle även bekräftas av flera 1900-talsförfattare, som aktivt utforskade tecknet. En av dem var den rysk-amerikanske språkekvilibristen Vladimir Nabokov, vars roman Lolita (1955) rymmer hela 450 parenteser, vilket är en signal om verkets komplexitet, och som givetvis påverkar läsningarna av det.Nabokovs förtjusning i tecknet var inte något isolerat exempel under efterkrigstiden. Tvärtom blev perioden en framgång för det parentetiska. Särskilt inom filosofin och kulturteorin. Genom att skapa ett avbrott och en fördröjning i textens flöde blev parentesen en perfekt symbol för sextiotalets poststrukturalism. Tecknet förkroppsligade vad den franske filosofen Jacques Derrida kallade différance. Det var inte någon tillfällighet att Derridas egen tongivande essä och vidräkning med den amerikanske språkfilosofen John Searle, Signature événement contexte (1971), lyckades packa in hela 190 parenteser i en text på 21 sidor, enligt Jeff Scheible, som uppenbarligen känt sig kallad att räkna dem Siffrorna påminner också om att parentesens viktigaste operativa område vid sidan av det skrivna ordet är matematiken. Och under det senaste halvseklet har dess matematiska tillämpning framför andra varit i algoritmer och programspråk. Att hävda att parenteser haft en betydelse för hur samtida verkligheter utformas är, med andra ord, en underdrift. Det mest parentestäta av programspråk är sannolikt LISP, där staplandet av logiska nivåer kan bli svindlande. Något av detta illustreras hos en samtida svensk författare, som gärnautforskar skärningspunkter mellan poetiskt och digitalt. Så här låter det när rymdspelet ZAXXOR ska beskrivas i Pär Thörns roman Din vän datamaskinen (2008) med parentestecknen högt uttalade: För att rädda världen (det vill säga jorden med tillhörande kolonier (exempelvis Venus (vilket är en djungelplanet, liknande en blandning av det inre av Afrika och Amazonas Och så fortsätter texten att vecklas in till dess att fem slutparenteser i rad leder tillbaka till den nivå som beskrivningen startade på På så vis kan parentesen presenteras som det ekologiska och relationella tänkandets figur framför andra.Om algoritmer aktualiserar parentesen, gäller det också för samtidens brännande frågor kring klimat och miljö. En av 2000-talets mest inflytelserika tänkare, Bruno Latour, har diskuterat hela vår modernitet som en parentes ett perspektiv på historien som kommer ur den kolonialisering och exploatering av jorden som åtföljt modern vetenskap, kapitalism och industrialism och som placerat oss i en växande klimatkatastrof. Vad som krävs idag, bortom modernitetens parentes, är ett annat och ekologiskt tänkande.Och kanske skulle denna ambition hos Latour kunna förstärkas genom ett mer raffinerat skriftbruk av parenteser? Parentesen är ju en figur som i stället för att nagla fast något likt ett objekt att hantera och exploatera i stället lägger till ännu ett perspektiv. Parentesen i en text bygger en ny platå eller värld, varifrån saker kan upplevas annorlunda. Och nästa parentes gör detsamma. I princip finns inte någon gräns för detta alstrande av nya kopplingar, relationer och miljöer. På så vis kan parentesen presenteras som det ekologiska och relationella tänkandets figur framför andra.Detta gör i högsta grad parentesen till ett skiljetecken för samtiden för poeter, filosofer och miljöforskare och alla vi andra textbrukare. Och då har jag inte ens nämnt, att den är bärande byggsten i en alldeles vanlig smiley.Jesper Olsson, litteraturvetare och kritiker LitteraturCuddon, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms (Wiley-Blackwell 2013)Derrida, Jacques, Marges de la philosophie (Les Éditions minuit 1972)Hörl, Erich (red.), General Ecology (Bloomsbury 2017)Nabokov, Vladimir, Lolita (Penguin 2011)Persson, Malte, Till dikten (Bonniers 2018)Reuterswärd, Carl Fredrik, Prix Nobel (Bonniers 1966)Scheible, Jeff, Digital Shift (University of Minnesota Press 2015)Thörn, Pär, Din vän datamaskinen (Modernista 2008)

Jim continues his conversation with Serge Faguet, this time focusing on the nature of consciousness and its implications for the wise and ethical use of AI systems. They discuss a technological Singularity, the evolution & significance of consciousness, integrated information theory (IIT) vs. John Searle's arguments, whether current AIs exhibit consciousness, applying the golden rule to AIs, AI alignment, consciousness as solution to the combinatoric explosion of inference, the importance of systems thinking, an upcoming workshop on free will, virtue ethics without religion, building a decentralized nondogmatic religion, gender parity in GameB, Serge's move from entrepreneurship to full-time community-building, and much more. Serge looks forward to receiving any feedback or expressions of interest at first.last@gmail or (better) first_last on Telegram. Episode Transcript Serge Faguet (website) Serge Faguet on Twitter Serge Faguet on Medium JRS Currents 074: Serge Faguet on Building Metacommunity "In Search of the 5th Attractor," by Jim Rutt (Medium) Integrated information theory (Wikipedia) Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, by Max Tegmark JRS EP 157 - Terrence Deacon on Mind's Emergence From Matter Wider Than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness, by Gerald M. Edelman "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by Thomas Nagel JRS EP 170 - John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall on The Religion That Is Not a Religion

In this episode, the dogs catch up (0:30) and discuss a recent movie Rob and Connor watched together (1:20). Connor asks the guys if they've ever unknowingly read a robot generated article (7:20). They continue to talk about the intersection of semiotics and AI (8:40), emphasizing its limitations (13:50). Rob compares emails and letter writing (18:46) and Mike brings up the coolest scene from a movie, ever (26:50). (This summary was written by GPT-3, OpenAI's language generator.) Quotes: “Is our brain just the hardware that the software of the consciousness is uploaded to?” (Connor, 11:20) “I think computers are always going to be trying to express what humans would say.” (Mike, 17:27) Media Mentions: Return to Me (2000)Three Dogs North's S11 E22- Window into Heaven (spoileralertshedies)NPR's This American Life- The Ghost in the Machine (757)John Searle's Minds, Brains, & ScienceJohn Chapter 1C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: PerelandraMen in Black (1997)The Office: Cafe DiscoTerminator Salvation (2009)Christian Bale RantDiscerning Hearts PodcastPier Giorgio Frassati's Letter to His Friends and FamilyFury (2014)Three Dogs North S11 E49Isaiah 6:8 References: MichelangeloChips AhoyPepperidge Farm Double Dark Chocolate Milano CookiesDavid DuchovnyMinnie DriverJim BelushiBonnie HuntTop 100 Pro- Catholic MoviesThe RosaryJoe PugUnity Temple (Oak Park, Illinois)Frank Lloyd WrightThe Turing TestThe Chinese RoomWalker PercyTriadic creatureElwin RansomSkynetChristian BaleArnold SchwarzeneggerSt. Therese of LisieuxSt. Zelie MartinSt. John Henry NewmanMarie Pauline MartinPier Giorgio FrassatiShia LaBeoufHowitzerGermanyWorld War II3rd Infantry Division (based at Fort Stewart, GA) Shout- Outs: The Enthusiast Digest (Joe Pug Newsletter)Fr. Scott HarterNew Work Wednesday (Megan Ulrich Newsletter)Fr. Paul PorterFr. Timothy Gallagher Follow us on instagram @threedogsnorth Contact us at threedogsnorth@gmail.com

This video is demonetised on music copyright so we would appreciate support on our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/mlst We would also appreciate it if you rated us on your podcast platform. YT: https://youtu.be/_KVAzAzO5HU Panel: Dr. Tim Scarfe, Dr. Keith Duggar Guests: Prof. J. Mark Bishop, Francois Chollet, Prof. David Chalmers, Dr. Joscha Bach, Prof. Karl Friston, Alexander Mattick, Sam Roffey The Chinese Room Argument was first proposed by philosopher John Searle in 1980. It is an argument against the possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) – that is, the idea that a machine could ever be truly intelligent, as opposed to just imitating intelligence. The argument goes like this: Imagine a room in which a person sits at a desk, with a book of rules in front of them. This person does not understand Chinese. Someone outside the room passes a piece of paper through a slot in the door. On this paper is a Chinese character. The person in the room consults the book of rules and, following these rules, writes down another Chinese character and passes it back out through the slot. To someone outside the room, it appears that the person in the room is engaging in a conversation in Chinese. In reality, they have no idea what they are doing – they are just following the rules in the book. The Chinese Room Argument is an argument against the idea that a machine could ever be truly intelligent. It is based on the idea that intelligence requires understanding, and that following rules is not the same as understanding. in this detailed investigation into the Chinese Room, Consciousness and Syntax vs Semantics, we interview luminaries J.Mark Bishop and Francois Chollet and use unreleased footage from our interviews with David Chalmers, Joscha Bach and Karl Friston. We also cover material from Walid Saba and interview Alex Mattick from Yannic's Discord. This is probably my favourite ever episode of MLST. I hope you enjoy it! With Keith Duggar. Note that we are using clips from our unreleased interviews from David Chalmers and Joscha Bach -- we will release those shows properly in the coming weeks. We apologise for delay releasing our backlog, we have been busy building a startup company in the background. TOC: [00:00:00] Kick off [00:00:46] Searle [00:05:09] Bishop introduces CRA [00:00:00] Stevan Hardad take on CRA [00:14:03] Francois Chollet dissects CRA [00:34:16] Chalmers on consciousness [00:36:27] Joscha Bach on consciousness [00:42:01] Bishop introduction [00:51:51] Karl Friston on consciousness [00:55:19] Bishop on consciousness and comments on Chalmers [01:21:37] Private language games (including clip with Sam Roffey) [01:27:27] Dr. Walid Saba on the chinese room (gofai/systematicity take) [00:34:36] Bishop: on agency / teleology [01:36:38] Bishop: back to CRA [01:40:53] Noam Chomsky on mysteries [01:45:56] Eric Curiel on math does not represent [01:48:14] Alexander Mattick on syntax vs semantics Thanks to: Mark MC on Discord for stimulating conversation, Alexander Mattick, Dr. Keith Duggar, Sam Roffey. Sam's YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjRNMsglFYFwNsnOWIOgt1Q

Philosophy professor John Searle visits Google to discuss the philosophy of mind and the potential for consciousness in artificial intelligence. John is widely noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and social philosophy. Among his notable concepts is the "Chinese room" argument, which challenges the supposed language comprehension ability of artificial intelligence. Searle conceived of the “Chinese room” thought experiment in 1980. Imagine a native English speaker who cannot read or speak Chinese, locked in a room with boxes of Chinese symbols together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols. Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese. And imagine that by following the book of instructions, the man in the room can pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions. Thus the person in the room is able to convince the people outside the room that he understands Chinese, but in fact he does not understand a word of Chinese. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a computer may make it appear to understand language, but cannot produce true comprehension. Searle argues the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no true grasp of meaning or semantics. Thus, the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is inadequate. Instead, the human mind must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. His argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. Originally published in December of 2015. Visit http://g.co/TalksAtGoogle/AIConsciousness to watch the video.

Will machines someday replace attorneys, physicians, computer programmers, and world leaders? What about composers, painters, and novelists? Will tomorrow's supercomputers duplicate and exceed humans? Are we just wetware, natural computers doomed to obsolescence by tomorrow's ultra-powerful artificial intelligence? Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will by Mind Matters podcast host Robert J. Marks is now available in… Source

Nici nu trebuie să ascultați acest episod dacă știți cum se face că lumea mentală (non-materială) interacționează cu lumea materială (non-mentală) și invers. Dar dacă vreți să vedeți cum intră Elisabeta de Boemia prin alunecare la Descartes, sau dacă vreți să aflați mai multe despre rolul lui Nuțu Cămătaru în declanșarea Războiul de treizeci de ani, sau dacă vă interesează de ce spune John Searle că niciun computer nu e deloc inteligent nici măcar un pic, atunci acest episod este pentru voi. Invitați speciali: Ilie Moromete și... niște greieri la un moment dat.___________________o Dacă vreți să susțineți acest podcast, puteți dona pe episod aici: https://www.patreon.com/octavpopao Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/podcastuldefilosofie/ o Instagram: @podcatuldefilosofieSupport the show

¿Las capacidades cognitivas de nuestro cerebro son computación? Hoy hablaré sobre la teoría computacional de la mente.Enlaces relevantes:- Habitación china (John Searle): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitaci%C3%B3n_china-  Objections to Computationalism: A Survey.  Marcin Miłkowski. Enlace:  https://philarchive.org/archive/MIKOTC-2  Información del podcast:- Sitio web: https://algoritmo.buzzsprout.comContacto:- Sitio web: https://camilochs.github.io/web/Redes sociales:- Twitter: https://twitter.com/camilo_chacon_s- Quora: https://es.quora.com/profile/Camilo-Chac%C3%B3n-Sartori- Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/camilo-chacon-sartori/- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/camilo.chacon.s/- GitHub: https://github.com/camilochs- Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Camilo-Chacon-Sartori 

Today's ID the Future features a recent Michael Medved Show with artificial intelligent expert Robert J. Marks, author of the new book Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will. The occasion for the conversation is an article by Marks about the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun: Maverick. In the article, Marks argues that, strictly in terms of optimal military tactics, the job of the human fighter pilots in the movie would have been better filled by drones. But as sanguine as Marks is about the possibilities for AI in military and other applications, he is among the loudest voices insisting that the AI community tends to overhype AI capabilities. In his conversation with Michael Medved, and in Read More › Source

Ci sono vari motivi per cui un filosofo sceglie di usare un linguaggio incomprensibile alla maggioranza delle persone. Tra questi motivi alcuni sono "in buona fede", altri "in cattiva fede". In questa puntata cercheremo di affrontarli brevemente uno ad uno, usando come spunto un episodio realmente accaduto tra i filosofi John Searle e Michel Foucault.- FAQ: Che cos'è la filosofia?

Philosophers and scientists speak of the "hard problem of consciousness." But what exactly is the problem?  The issue seems to be more with the narrow view of naturalistic materialism, that excludes "everything mental - consciousness, meaning, intent or purpose" (Nagel). At the center of the disagreement is what is now termed "qualia" (a variation of this term was first used by Charles Peirce). This is the experience of seeing the color red, hearing a robin sing, or tasting a glass of wine. This actual quality is difficult for the pure physicalist to explain, when they have removed "mind" from their paradigm.But some contemporary philosophers beg to differ with the materialistic conception, including Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and John Searle. And of course, before them there was Hegel, who puts subjectivity right at the core of being, with his famous expression, "substance is subject." This episode explores.  

CONSCIOUSNESS - What is free will? Do we have free will? The ‘Big Questions in Free Will' project tackles these issues in a multi-year study. In Part I, scientists and philosophers research, test, and advance thinking on free will. Featuring Alfred Mele, Galen Strawson, John Searle, Peter van Inwagen, Christof Koch, Uri Maoz, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Thalia Wheatley, and Peter Tse.

CONSCIOUSNESS - What is it about the brain that enables some scientists to claim they can explain mind? And what is it about scientific explanations that some philosophers reject? Featuring Christof Koch, Rodolfo Llinas, Raymond Kurzweil, John Searle, and David Chalmers.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by a special guest Eric Monteiro Professor at NTNU and Senior Editor of MISQ in this 2-part podcast episode. They discuss the past, present, and future of information systems as well as their thoughts on the boundaries of the discipline and what makes and shapes us. You will probably be interested in this podcast if you are an interdisciplinary academic, researcher, or expert part of or overlapping with the Information Systems discipline. Although this is the expected audience, listeners with varying degrees of experience will also be able to follow along and ‘digest' the more manageable pieces of an episode's focus. Welcome!References:1) Philosophy of Definitions from John Searle - https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/john-searle-s-philosophy-of-language-force-meaning-and-mind/2) Lee, A. (1999). Inaugural editor's comments. Mis Quarterly, v-xi.3) Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. Journal of the association for information systems, 13(4), 5.

CONSCIOUSNESS - How can the mindless microscopic particles that compose our brains "experience" the setting sun, the Mozart Requiem, and romantic love? Featuring Venerable Dr. Yifa, Susan Blackmore, Keith Ward, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, John Searle, and Colin McGinn.

COSMOS - When you ask "what things really exist", and you think deeply about this universal probe, you see the whole world anew. It's such a simple question; how does it inspire such profound insight? Featuring Roger Penrose, Peter van Inwagen, John Searle, William Lane Craig, and John Leslie.

We live in a world of what Atheistic philosopher John Searle called anti-realism. Men are losing the skill of identifying reality and facts. Call to Action  Truth Bomb Resources on Facebook: Truth Bombs Apologetics For more news and information, go to: Truth Bombs Apologetics Join our Facebook closed group of Christian Men encouraging each other at: The King's Men --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kingsmen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kingsmen/support

This time the Dawdlers are attempting to make sense of being in a room where they have to understand Chinese. John Searle sure can't help! To remedy this, Harland and Ryan take a deep dive in a shallow pool, with a close consideration of John Searle's Chinese Room Argument in the Philosophy of Mind from his 1980 paper “Minds, Brains, and Programs”. Can computers “understand”? What is the function of intuition in philosophy? What good are “intuition pumps”? What can the Turing Test establish? And more…

One of America's most prominent philosophers says his field has been tilting at windmills for nearly 400 years. Representationalism – the idea that we don't directly perceive objects in the world, only our mental images of them – has bedeviled philosophy ever since Descartes, and now it's mucking up neuroscience as well, John Searle alleges. He has long defended the “naïve” alternative – that our senses do give us direct access to reality – and he fires his latest salvo in his new book “Seeing Things as They Are.” John is well-known for his no-nonsense approach to philosophical problems and there was plenty of straight talk as we discussed his theory of perception, the subjective-objective divide, the scientific study of consciousness and his dog Tarski.