Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought the song Memories of Green from the original soundtrack referred to Rachel's eyes....

Memories of Green wasn't even originally made specifically for Blade Runner, so any reference would be coincidental....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even consider them actually being the wrong colour you bloody sperges.

It was obviously Deckard rejecting the offer, to me at least.

 

agree. he had to say something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't even consider them actually being the wrong colour you bloody sperges.

It was obviously Deckard rejecting the offer, to me at least.

 

 

agree. he had to say something

Yea, deckard rejecting there. With something which should have been an obvious falsehood in the narrative context

 

Meaning, they had the color of her eyes right

9e6f0ce9f8325c44a30bdacba7c2e959--sean-y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damnit guys...

 

Wallace got her eye color right, but this was not some narrative mistake.  Deckard lied and said they were wrong as a way to underhandedly attack Wallace and reject his implicit claims to superiority.  Also interestingly, notice how Wallace looks actually surprised when Deckard says this and almost has a face showing that he's thinking "oh, damn" then he nods to Luv to kill her and immediately moves on to telling Deckard about how he can torture him to get what he wants, when his plan to flatter him fails

 

Anyway, autism time:

 

-This movie is great, it combines so many important philosophical themes that are, to me, the most important ones we have to answer.  What does it mean to be a human? 

-Does it even mean anything special, or are self awareness, intelligence, and the other "higher concepts" like honor and sacrifice the only qualities which determine the value of an object? 

 

-Are artificially intelligent objects sentient?

-If you feel and experience something, but it ends up being "fake" according to sterile human categorizations because the fundamentals upon which the abstractions are based can be explained away in some way (is human and replicant love just neurochemical reactions?  Is AI love just NAND gates switching on and off?), is it still a real experience that the individual should value and cherish?

 

-Regarding the last point, I haven't read this book yet but I bought it and will once my reading backlog is cleared but Nabokov's "Pale Fire" which is where the baseline phrases come from and which K keeps on his desk that Joi picked up and asked him if he wants to read, is supposedly about a guy who reads some story written by a neighbor which resonates with him on a spiritual level and he thinks they have some sort of connection, but it ends up being that the neighbor did not intend that all and it's just a big coincidence.  Was his experience "real" and what does real even mean?

 

 

-K is a supposedly soulless replicant who in the end lives an authentic life in the real world, acting just like an ideally heroic human would

-Stelline (memory girl) was a supposedly soul-endowed born-replicant who lived a completely synthetic life, isolated from the outside world and interacting only with holograms except when visitors occasionally come to visit, who from what we see only use her to ask questions instead of actually be her friend

 

-Deckard sees a "synthetic" (replicant) copy of Rachel and rejects her as "fake"

-In the very next scene, K sees a "synthetic" copy of Joi and we don't get to see inside his mind.  

 

This symmetry between "copies" of organic beings and AI beings being shown to try and attack the value of the originals with which personal experiences were formed, and the applicability of the metaphor in both cases, I think destroys any lines which can be drawn between organic and AI.  It's the same exact situation just on different levels of familiarity to us.

 

 

 

My personal interpretations and conclusions on these topics themselves are as follows:

 

I think sufficiently advanced AI is sentient, but we will have a difficult time as a society coming to grips with this or even accepting it as the reality.  This entire area of epistemology is a really tough one since technically none of us, including myself, can actually even prove that other humans are sentient, or that anyone else exists, or that even if other people do exist, they aren't just p-zombies i.e. blobs of matter walking around with nobody inside observing the signals coming into their eyeballs.  

 

Consciousness is romanticized and "spiritualized" by people as a sort of new-age buzzword, but it's very clearly an inherent aspect of the universe itself - consciousness is real.  I'm sentient, you're most likely probably sentient unless the aforementioned philosophical problems have very counterintuitive answers - and we're just created through sexual reproduction so there's nothing super weird happening here, it's clearly an emergent property of certain arrangements of matter. 

 

I would go further and say that consciousness is an emergent physical property of certain types of self-referential computational systems such as ourselves and animals, and of course, if this is the case, sufficiently advanced AI as well.

 

We're learning more and more as a species that our language based categorizations are not binding upon nature itself but instead tracings we draw on top of it, trying to make sense of it.  There is no inherent reason why AI cannot be sentient.  There is no inherent reason why "synthetic" experiences of said AI are not just as significant as any other experience, unless we want to denegrate experience as a whole

 

Anyway I will stop here

Edited by Zeffolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I didn't even consider them actually being the wrong colour you bloody sperges.

It was obviously Deckard rejecting the offer, to me at least.

 

agree. he had to say something

Yea, deckard rejecting there. With something which should have been an obvious falsehood in the narrative context

 

Meaning, they had the color of her eyes right

9e6f0ce9f8325c44a30bdacba7c2e959--sean-y

 

 

First thing I checked on the blu ray when getting back from the theater, having in mind that her eyes colour was brown. But on some other scenes with more light I had a doubt if they were brown or bold green.

 

Anyway I was wondering why I seemed to have noticed this but any of my very observatory friend did, thinking it was my imagination

 

Great theories going on here since the movie is released.

 

When chatting with someone after seeing the movie, he had another one: Ana Stelline putting memories or pictures/situations "further" than in the mind. This comes from that final scene when K. is dying on the scales while the snow falls, and when Deckard is entering to meet her she is on that beautiful moment watching up the snow falling into her space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in the first film it seemed like the replicants had some sort of tapetum lucidum which was a cool visualization of their non-humanness. in this new one jared leto has fucked up milky eyes but he's a human he's just blind. from the trailers i thought he would be a replicant. a little confusing esp when eyes are clearly very important narratively. w/e

Edited by dr lopez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ wallace could also be a replicant. I see proof for that in the way he talks while sitting, moving like a metromone... my guess i that he's been constantly sitting on origami unicorns, being blind he cant see them but those chairs are for some reason very uncomfortable for him. I mean, gaff and his sense of humor lol

Poor wallace...not knowing what he is ; _ ;

Edited by xox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think sufficiently advanced AI is sentient, but we will have a difficult time as a society coming to grips with this or even accepting it as the reality.  This entire area of epistemology is a really tough one since technically none of us, including myself, can actually even prove that other humans are sentient, or that anyone else exists, or that even if other people do exist, they aren't just p-zombies i.e. blobs of matter walking around with nobody inside observing the signals coming into their eyeballs.  

 

Consciousness is romanticized and "spiritualized" by people as a sort of new-age buzzword, but it's very clearly an inherent aspect of the universe itself - consciousness is real.  I'm sentient, you're most likely probably sentient unless the aforementioned philosophical problems have very counterintuitive answers - and we're just created through sexual reproduction so there's nothing super weird happening here, it's clearly an emergent property of certain arrangements of matter. 

 

I would go further and say that consciousness is an emergent physical property of certain types of self-referential computational systems such as ourselves and animals, and of course, if this is the case, sufficiently advanced AI as well.

 

We're learning more and more as a species that our language based categorizations are not binding upon nature itself but instead tracings we draw on top of it, trying to make sense of it.  There is no inherent reason why AI cannot be sentient.  There is no inherent reason why "synthetic" experiences of said AI are not just as significant as any other experience, unless we want to denegrate experience as a whole

 

Be aware that there is much drummed-up fodder about the AI, with a goal to create steady and positive acceptance of the AI research. There is this unilateral force of opinion that the AI is a logical continuation of our development as a species, with all sorts of utopian idealism about how the AI would make our lives easier and streamlined. Everything can be replaced with an algorithm. Nothing is mystical, wondered at, and sacred anymore; everything can be calculated and replicated, over and over again; improved, personalized, accessible anytime you desire. No more longing, working to achieve, failing to achieve. I say force of opinion, as the recent scientific and rational radicalism is presenting itself as the only solution - a perfection, without the burdens of spiritual ways. A ghost in the machine as the allegory... the idea that sufficiently powerful computational machine is spontaneously capable of emerging as a sentient being. However, there is really no proof. It is an idea perpetuated to the level of a dogma. No one really knows. The singularity is a theoretical construct. In the most positive light I can see this as not understanding what a spirit is, what is it that makes us human. It has achieved a level of political propaganda. It needs to in order not to delay and revise the aspirations that lead to the want of creating the AI in the first place. The true "why" lies somewhere else. If it's going to make our lives easier and better and whatnot will be a mere byproduct. The primary "why" is to have power and supremacy.

 

I say propaganda, because it's really just a play of words. Your feelings are "mere" electrical signals interpreted by your brains? Well of course, there must be some medium, but that doesn't mean that we are just a bunch of biological wires. Love is "just" high brain activity? Of course it is, if you look at it from only a point of being able to measure things with lab oscillators. But measuring is not understanding. Defining reality with such an approach is seeing with tinted glasses. What else is there? Well, because I don't understand, I can only say what I know. Brains are computers, so strong that they are now sentient. Just like that. Well, that's quite an unilateral idea, devoid of any other possibilities.

 

Let me take one strong example from 2049 to prove one of my points: A scene where K meets the huge holographic ad for Joi. It is one of the definite examples of the practical use of the AI (among strong, subdued and efficient killing machines). It's basically a billboard, sensing your presence, evaluating your emotions and aspirations in order to access your very personal space. "She" is nude, beautifully rendered, speaks to you in a soothing voice, saying things in a manner your closest friend or lover might, with a tagline "I can be whoever you want". It's an advertiser's wet dream. This is the reality.

 

2049 was a horror film for me, as I said before. It depicts that world where everything is replaced with algorithms and computers. You can fall in love with a hologram and don't need genuine biological partner, because you are nothing more than a set of wires. To fall in love you only need a beautiful face, puppy eyes and attention (audition) of your particular way of life. Horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Let me take one strong example from 2049 to prove one of my points: A scene where K meets the huge holographic ad for Joi. It is one of the definite examples of the practical use of the AI (among strong, subdued and efficient killing machines). It's basically a billboard, sensing your presence, evaluating your emotions and aspirations in order to access your very personal space. "She" is nude, beautifully rendered, speaks to you in a soothing voice, saying things in a manner your closest friend or lover might, with a tagline "I can be whoever you want". It's an advertiser's wet dream. This is the reality.

 

2049 was a horror film for me, as I said before. It depicts that world where everything is replaced with algorithms and computers. You can fall in love with a hologram and don't need genuine biological partner, because you are nothing more than a set of wires. To fall in love you only need a beautiful face, puppy eyes and attention (audition) of your particular way of life. Horrible.

 

 

 

I totally agree. While I loved the film immensely, the world it depicted was absolutely horrifying beyond comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave the film 8/10  BUT

 

 its loses points for

 -  dumbass "bad guy" Wallace

  - meh fight-scene at the end

 -  a fight scene at the end

 - the sudden appearance of replicant revolutionaries -  where did they come from?

- silly orphange/deathcamp

-  K/Joe just turning up at the right spot a lot

- too much WAAAAH music/

 

btw the usual bounty of boobs is easily explained by this: in the future men will still like boobs - stone, holographic, whatever. 

 

boobs

 

Other than that i  like it loads and they got the look/pace/story/characters basically right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think sufficiently advanced AI is sentient, but we will have a difficult time as a society coming to grips with this or even accepting it as the reality.  This entire area of epistemology is a really tough one since technically none of us, including myself, can actually even prove that other humans are sentient, or that anyone else exists, or that even if other people do exist, they aren't just p-zombies i.e. blobs of matter walking around with nobody inside observing the signals coming into their eyeballs.  

 

Consciousness is romanticized and "spiritualized" by people as a sort of new-age buzzword, but it's very clearly an inherent aspect of the universe itself - consciousness is real.  I'm sentient, you're most likely probably sentient unless the aforementioned philosophical problems have very counterintuitive answers - and we're just created through sexual reproduction so there's nothing super weird happening here, it's clearly an emergent property of certain arrangements of matter. 

 

I would go further and say that consciousness is an emergent physical property of certain types of self-referential computational systems such as ourselves and animals, and of course, if this is the case, sufficiently advanced AI as well.

 

We're learning more and more as a species that our language based categorizations are not binding upon nature itself but instead tracings we draw on top of it, trying to make sense of it.  There is no inherent reason why AI cannot be sentient.  There is no inherent reason why "synthetic" experiences of said AI are not just as significant as any other experience, unless we want to denegrate experience as a whole

 

Be aware that there is much drummed-up fodder about the AI, with a goal to create steady and positive acceptance of the AI research. There is this unilateral force of opinion that the AI is a logical continuation of our development as a species, with all sorts of utopian idealism about how the AI would make our lives easier and streamlined. Everything can be replaced with an algorithm. Nothing is mystical, wondered at, and sacred anymore; everything can be calculated and replicated, over and over again; improved, personalized, accessible anytime you desire. No more longing, working to achieve, failing to achieve. I say force of opinion, as the recent scientific and rational radicalism is presenting itself as the only solution - a perfection, without the burdens of spiritual ways. A ghost in the machine as the allegory... the idea that sufficiently powerful computational machine is spontaneously capable of emerging as a sentient being. However, there is really no proof. It is an idea perpetuated to the level of a dogma. No one really knows. The singularity is a theoretical construct. In the most positive light I can see this as not understanding what a spirit is, what is it that makes us human. It has achieved a level of political propaganda. It needs to in order not to delay and revise the aspirations that lead to the want of creating the AI in the first place. The true "why" lies somewhere else. If it's going to make our lives easier and better and whatnot will be a mere byproduct. The primary "why" is to have power and supremacy.

 

I say propaganda, because it's really just a play of words. Your feelings are "mere" electrical signals interpreted by your brains? Well of course, there must be some medium, but that doesn't mean that we are just a bunch of biological wires. Love is "just" high brain activity? Of course it is, if you look at it from only a point of being able to measure things with lab oscillators. But measuring is not understanding. Defining reality with such an approach is seeing with tinted glasses. What else is there? Well, because I don't understand, I can only say what I know. Brains are computers, so strong that they are now sentient. Just like that. Well, that's quite an unilateral idea, devoid of any other possibilities.

 

Let me take one strong example from 2049 to prove one of my points: A scene where K meets the huge holographic ad for Joi. It is one of the definite examples of the practical use of the AI (among strong, subdued and efficient killing machines). It's basically a billboard, sensing your presence, evaluating your emotions and aspirations in order to access your very personal space. "She" is nude, beautifully rendered, speaks to you in a soothing voice, saying things in a manner your closest friend or lover might, with a tagline "I can be whoever you want". It's an advertiser's wet dream. This is the reality.

 

2049 was a horror film for me, as I said before. It depicts that world where everything is replaced with algorithms and computers. You can fall in love with a hologram and don't need genuine biological partner, because you are nothing more than a set of wires. To fall in love you only need a beautiful face, puppy eyes and attention (audition) of your particular way of life. Horrible.

 

Curious, are you really big on Jean Baudrillard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think sufficiently advanced AI is sentient, but we will have a difficult time as a society coming to grips with this or even accepting it as the reality.  This entire area of epistemology is a really tough one since technically none of us, including myself, can actually even prove that other humans are sentient, or that anyone else exists, or that even if other people do exist, they aren't just p-zombies i.e. blobs of matter walking around with nobody inside observing the signals coming into their eyeballs.  

 

Consciousness is romanticized and "spiritualized" by people as a sort of new-age buzzword, but it's very clearly an inherent aspect of the universe itself - consciousness is real.  I'm sentient, you're most likely probably sentient unless the aforementioned philosophical problems have very counterintuitive answers - and we're just created through sexual reproduction so there's nothing super weird happening here, it's clearly an emergent property of certain arrangements of matter. 

 

I would go further and say that consciousness is an emergent physical property of certain types of self-referential computational systems such as ourselves and animals, and of course, if this is the case, sufficiently advanced AI as well.

 

We're learning more and more as a species that our language based categorizations are not binding upon nature itself but instead tracings we draw on top of it, trying to make sense of it.  There is no inherent reason why AI cannot be sentient.  There is no inherent reason why "synthetic" experiences of said AI are not just as significant as any other experience, unless we want to denegrate experience as a whole

 

Be aware that there is much drummed-up fodder about the AI, with a goal to create steady and positive acceptance of the AI research. There is this unilateral force of opinion that the AI is a logical continuation of our development as a species, with all sorts of utopian idealism about how the AI would make our lives easier and streamlined. Everything can be replaced with an algorithm. Nothing is mystical, wondered at, and sacred anymore; everything can be calculated and replicated, over and over again; improved, personalized, accessible anytime you desire. No more longing, working to achieve, failing to achieve. I say force of opinion, as the recent scientific and rational radicalism is presenting itself as the only solution - a perfection, without the burdens of spiritual ways. A ghost in the machine as the allegory... the idea that sufficiently powerful computational machine is spontaneously capable of emerging as a sentient being. However, there is really no proof. It is an idea perpetuated to the level of a dogma. No one really knows. The singularity is a theoretical construct. In the most positive light I can see this as not understanding what a spirit is, what is it that makes us human. It has achieved a level of political propaganda. It needs to in order not to delay and revise the aspirations that lead to the want of creating the AI in the first place. The true "why" lies somewhere else. If it's going to make our lives easier and better and whatnot will be a mere byproduct. The primary "why" is to have power and supremacy.

 

I say propaganda, because it's really just a play of words. Your feelings are "mere" electrical signals interpreted by your brains? Well of course, there must be some medium, but that doesn't mean that we are just a bunch of biological wires. Love is "just" high brain activity? Of course it is, if you look at it from only a point of being able to measure things with lab oscillators. But measuring is not understanding. Defining reality with such an approach is seeing with tinted glasses. What else is there? Well, because I don't understand, I can only say what I know. Brains are computers, so strong that they are now sentient. Just like that. Well, that's quite an unilateral idea, devoid of any other possibilities.

 

Let me take one strong example from 2049 to prove one of my points: A scene where K meets the huge holographic ad for Joi. It is one of the definite examples of the practical use of the AI (among strong, subdued and efficient killing machines). It's basically a billboard, sensing your presence, evaluating your emotions and aspirations in order to access your very personal space. "She" is nude, beautifully rendered, speaks to you in a soothing voice, saying things in a manner your closest friend or lover might, with a tagline "I can be whoever you want". It's an advertiser's wet dream. This is the reality.

 

2049 was a horror film for me, as I said before. It depicts that world where everything is replaced with algorithms and computers. You can fall in love with a hologram and don't need genuine biological partner, because you are nothing more than a set of wires. To fall in love you only need a beautiful face, puppy eyes and attention (audition) of your particular way of life. Horrible.

 

 

My read of your post though is "if you're right that would be sad and take away our value and our special place in the universe where our mutual biological emotions are valuable and spiritual" which is just the old "but if evolution is true then we aren't special anymore" argument for another topic.  

 

Take a look at dysfunctional relationships and mental illness and you can see that often even human relationships can be like two mutually "attracted" AIs each trying to maximize their value function in a way that doesn't manifest itself very wholesomely.  

 

I agree that this is a horror story, but horrible in a different way.  I'd say the AIs created by Wallace corp are legitimately sentient but the ultimate slaves and proof of determinism.  It's more obvious because their programming guides them towards certain actions, whereas our programming is more abstracted away from ourselves so we can't observe it easily, but it's there just as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious, are you really big on Jean Baudrillard?

 

No. I am only vaguely familiar with his stuff. Postmodernism is to be taken with grains of salt anyway.

 

My read of your post though is "if you're right that would be sad and take away our value and our special place in the universe where our mutual biological emotions are valuable and spiritual" which is just the old "but if evolution is true then we aren't special anymore" argument for another topic. 

 

I guess it would seem that way, but that's not what I believe. I don't see us anymore relevant or unique than animals or plants apart from being able to think abstract. They do have inferior brain capacity and cannot build pyramids on their own (however, termites...), but they do communicate. They are able to feel emotion, learn and distinguish. What drives them is a point of many debates across theoretical fields, but saying human brains are solely capable of huge feats, it seems more a consensus, rather than a fact. Why? Because there are animals who make exceptional feats to survive, which we all like to compare with human feats and marvel at, even across the scale. And they don't have big brains. Do you think momma-termite teaches every single worker drone how to integrate into their society and take up its role and be able to organize to build a self-sufficient, air conditioned vertical colony? Where did this knowledge come from? After all, human brains came out of billions of years of evolution, from a database, common to all living things on this planet. But who or what is the 'mastermind'? Is it the gene? Are genes 'alive'? We don't even understand what started all this. We can't even control our own society and rampant human lifestyle. And suddenly we feel we're ready to stem off and do better, create another chaotic equation with no clear purpose other than our own indulgence. I think such behavior is rather immature, and could cause our own demise. Maybe the rational elite who propagate AI as our next logical step in evolution are the ones who think we are special, and have some special and unique purpose. I'm only saying we're too quick to build our own Tower of Babel again.

 

 

Take a look at dysfunctional relationships and mental illness and you can see that often even human relationships can be like two mutually "attracted" AIs each trying to maximize their value function in a way that doesn't manifest itself very wholesomely.  

 

I agree that this is a horror story, but horrible in a different way.  I'd say the AIs created by Wallace corp are legitimately sentient but the ultimate slaves and proof of determinism.  It's more obvious because their programming guides them towards certain actions, whereas our programming is more abstracted away from ourselves so we can't observe it easily, but it's there just as much.

 

There are errors in development, and errors of recognition. The latter would more likely arrive from one's inability to see the bigger picture and is (arguably) reversible. Effort to reverse it depends solely on the person in question, and to some extent to the society.

 

Well that's the thing. Determinism is inherent to programming. But how would you describe abstraction in programming? Movie plots are full of holes. Wallace wanted to achieve what was introduced in GitS; the notion of reproduction that would eliminate the vulnerable copies of the same program. But it doesn't hold water in 2049. It is too watered-down to offer a solid example. Officer K had plenty of free will to go against the 'program', but he was still just a replicant, So what gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

huh!? determinism inherent to programming?

 

naaaah

 

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

 

also, if you consider intelligence (or awareness if you will) as an emergent property. emerging from some non-deterministic system. is it really that farfetched to be able to build (program) that underlying non-deterministic system? 

 

in the end though, what's often the problem in discussions like these, is the notion of intelligence. there's always someone pushing towards some impossible definition, while in reality, intelligence is very much in the eye of the beholder and might very well be something rather unlike people imagine it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some occasionally interesting bits of concept art: https://kotaku.com/the-art-of-blade-runner-2049-1819757867 I like the drawings of the cool cars because I'm 10 years old.

 

 

Neat. I really like the city scape and architecture pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

huh!? determinism inherent to programming?

 

naaaah

 

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_algorithm

 

also, if you consider intelligence (or awareness if you will) as an emergent property. emerging from some non-deterministic system. is it really that farfetched to be able to build (program) that underlying non-deterministic system? 

 

in the end though, what's often the problem in discussions like these, is the notion of intelligence. there's always someone pushing towards some impossible definition, while in reality, intelligence is very much in the eye of the beholder and might very well be something rather unlike people imagine it to be.

 

Your link is unrelated to philosophical determinism and is really a misuse of the term and an abstract theoretical conception of computation that is dissimilar to practical applications.  In reality these algorithms have to be implemented making use of either

-pseudo-RNGs

-heavily obfuscated and chaotic state such as that of disk activity and OS scheduling like the article references (and in general a lack of synchronization across individual parts, whether they be on one system or on a distributed system) with regards to the apparent non-determinism of concurrent computational systems. 

 

None of these are true non-determinism unless you want to talk about "approximate and apparent" non-determinism instead of hardline non-determinism. 

 

You may have a point though about introducing outside sources of randomness but even in that case I'm extremely skeptical about whether apparent external randomness inherently kills determinism.  These random parameters are still sculpted and interpreted by the software itself and do not "break out" of the software in any way

 

I think probably determinism vs. non-determinism is just a confusion of language a la Wittgenstein, causing people to mistake the map for the territory.

 

As for the rest of your post, agreed that intelligence is ill defined

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, name a practical application of non-determinism. Or "true" non-determinism. Please make it something that's observable and part of the physical realm (= physics).

 

Guessing the problem with a definition of intelligence also holds for determinism.

 

In the end I guess this is about where you stand on the chaos vs non-determinism debate. As you talk about philosophical determinism and true non-determinism, I'm afraid the discussion will be similar to that of the chinese room experiment. (Love to be proven wrong) Which I'm sure you're familiar with. A person without an understanding of chinese language sitting in a room pulling levers based on some algorithm. So the entire system is just a box which approximates an understanding of chinese, but without a "true" understanding, depending on your views of course. To me, this argument is similar to that of chaos vs non-determinism.

 

Personally I'm not too fond of discussions like these. Mostly because of my cynicism wrt philosophical notions of reality. I tend to believe that philosophical notions of reality are often confused with reality itself. As if the philosophical notion of non-determinism is an actual thing which exists in reality. Imo, it's just a theoretical concept which is used as a tool to sharpen thinking about real world phenomena. And real world phenomena will probably be more like chaotic systems which might appear non-deterministic. (Again, love to be proven wrong)

 

Which is especially problematic in the context of intelligence and awareness. Because, besides the confusion, that also immediately introduces deeply personal experiences and beliefs about those notions. (Our personal experience feels like true non-determinism, but is it?) And cognitive bias suddenly inflames the reasoning machine, if you know what i mean. We all do it.

 

But thats probably just my misunderstanding, which I'm sure you will correct. :)

 

To everyone: sorry for this post. You can ignore me for a page or two. This discussion shouldnt take longer than that. And besides, whats there to talk about at this point? New insights after the Nth viewing? Suuuuure....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Jafs
      So this is going into production, despite relatively poor results of Blade Runner 2049 at the Box Office, which was critical for Villeneuve's version of Dune to happen.
       
      The casting so far is insane: Rebecca Ferguson, Dave Bautista, Javier Bardem, Thimothée Chalamet, Josh Brolin, Oscar Isaac, Charlotte Rampling, Jason Momoa...
       
      Unfortunately, Roger Deakins is not part of the projet this time, but the cinematography will be handled by Greg Fraser (Rogue One).
       
      Not sure Jodorowsky will have anything to do for the movie, but news are falling nearly every day since a few weeks.
       
      Scheduled for november 20th, 2020
    • By mngosx
      https://crackdenrecords323.bandcamp.com/album/dreamscape
      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLULvKnH27nvbQBBkSgAE1MrchpZWnOnT0  
    • By Joyrex
      reverb.com's Justin Delay breaks down how Vangelis created the iconic synth sounds in 1982's Blade Runner:
       

    • By Rubin Farr
      They reissue this every few years, but if you don't have the greatest soundtrack ever on vinyl, and are going to RSD anyway, maybe pick it up.
       
      http://recordstoreday.co.uk/exclusive-releases/rsd-2017/vangelis/
×
×
  • Create New...