dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You're selling yourself short.
Ascend???
Selling yourself short???
Recognizing an unintentional pun, +2.5%. PrettyPlease.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You're selling yourself short.
For the same reason I cannot be my car. While I may drive it and be in control of it, it is not me in my true nature. It wears out, and I dispose of it and get a new one (or I learn to fly ).
That also holds true for my mind and body. They are illusory. They are temporary vehicles that will eventually expire. I am not them.
Same holds true for my CNS. I am aware of it, therefore, it is not me.
I have gained this understanding through neti neti (not this, not this), which is the Vedic process of negation.
Neti neti - Wikipedia
92% You're getting into diminishing returns.Ascend???
Selling yourself short???
Recognizing an unintentional pun, +2.5%. PrettyPlease.
While I agree with most of your statements, I am an adherent to "Only the self is knowable".I am aware of it, therefore, it is not me.
We're engaged in an anti-Turing thought experiment. Don't knock it, it's how Einstein laid the groundwork for quantum entanglement. I bet he's rolling over in his grave.Uh oh. A Turing test experiment...
Ciao
- viole
92% You're getting into diminishing returns.
Earthling wanted to prove the existence of the soul. Let's start with something much simpler.
Prove to me that you are not a bot.
I will quote those responses I find interesting.
Actually, it would be easy to get a bot to respond with a nonsensical word like 'wertney-spot'.
Harder to make another bot identify the nonsense name, and then write a post like this one referring to wertney-spot in context, but still possible.
To pass this Turing test is increasingly difficult in any simple manner, but if you asked me a very specific and quirky question I could then respond to effectively that might do it.
But then, the issues are;
1) you might be the bot, not me!
2) I might not know the reference or answer. Saying 'What?' would sound suspicious. So maybe a series of quirky questions??
Earthling wanted to prove the existence of the soul. Let's start with something much simpler.
Prove to me that you are not a bot.
I will quote those responses I find interesting.
The proof would be multiple coincidences, multiple serendipities.
The more coincidences or serendipities, the more likely that I am not a bot.
Basically, we would need to get to know each other. Trade stories, tell each other jokes, share weird ideas we've had. And eventually, if we are lucky ( assuming you believe in luck ), it won't take too long for the likelihood that I am a bot would diminish under layer after layer of improbable coincidences.
Here's an example: You and I actually had the same idea about how to prove bot-status. But we approached it from different perspectives.
Take a look at this thread: Does A.I. have limits?
It was created before you joined.
And I was honestly thinking at the time about the Terminator movies, where the dogs were used to distinguish between the bots and the humans.
When I created the thread above, I was thinking: In the context of AI, how will be be able to tell the difference if they were biologically identical and dogs wouldn't work. Or if the AI had no biological form and only existed within the digital framework. If I can find the limits of AI, that would be a way to test for AI-ish-ness. Does that make sense?
Anyways... regarding testing for Bot-i-tude; Here's the list i've come up with.
How to tell AI from Human?
Humans suspend disbelief
Humans have fun
Humans forget, remember, and are surprised
I am not sure how AI can replicate these things effectively.
But I am not sure how humans could test for these with 100% certainty either.
Am I close?
After reading this, what's your confidence I am not a Bot?
The end result of this "game" is to prove the existence of something for which we cannot obtain direct evidence, think: electrons, radio waves, weak force, etc.
80% The problem is that those two would need detailed knowledge in a common area.Humans do metaphors better than bots...my idea is an exchange of creatively contrived metaphors that remain on topic.
OK, time to define terms.Yes, but why would being a bot entail non-existence? What do you mean by "existence?" Do you assume that for something to exist, there must be direct evidence of it? What exactly is direct evidence?
Personally, I never even ask the question "does X exist." The answer is always yes if I am able to ask the question. The real question to ask is "in what manner do I experience X?" or "in what manner does X exist?"
I am a bot.Prove to me that you are not a bot.
I am a bot.
?Sorry, I can't prove you are more intelligent then you are willing to show.
I can do the biological things ─A bot could range from a small program designed to throw "canned" responses to inquiries (think Eliza) to (what was it) Deep Blue on Jeopardy!. What can you do that they cannot?
Since your the one who posted it, I can't trust it.
Next time how about the I75 exit for Troy, MI? The street is Big Beaver Road and the mile marker is 69.