ChatGTP Biased towards science

[Rafael Thundercat]

I had a chat with ChatGTP about reality being a dream and this was the result. 

Funny, but predicable.

 

Is Life A Dream?

What if my life is just a dream?

The idea that life is a dream is a common philosophical concept, but there is no scientific evidence to support it. The reality we experience through our senses is generally accepted as real by most people and the scientific community. However, it's important to remember that our perception of reality is limited by our ability to understand and measure it, and there may be aspects of reality that we are not yet aware of or able to comprehend. It's also worth considering how our beliefs and perspectives can shape our understanding of reality.

So can be possible that reality is a dream mispercived as real?

The idea that reality is a dream misperceived as real is a concept found in some philosophical and spiritual beliefs. It suggests that the reality we experience is not actually real, but rather an illusion or a projection of our minds. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this idea, and it remains a matter of philosophical debate.

It's worth noting that our perception of reality is limited by the way our brains process information, and that our understanding of the world is constantly evolving as new information and scientific discoveries are made. Therefore, it's possible that there may be aspects of reality that we are not yet aware of or able to comprehend. However, this doesn't mean that the reality we experience is a dream, but rather that our understanding of it is incomplete.

What if science is wrong about the nature of reality being a dream?

Science is a method of understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning. It is based on the assumption that the natural world is real and follows consistent laws and patterns. Therefore, if science were to conclude that reality is a dream, it would be a significant departure from this assumption and would require a significant amount of evidence and a new scientific framework to explain the nature of reality.

It's important to note that scientific understanding is always open to revision and new discoveries. If new evidence were to emerge that challenged current scientific understanding of the nature of reality, the scientific community would evaluate and consider this new evidence, and potentially revise its understanding of reality. However, as of now there is no evidence to suggest that reality is a dream, and this idea remains in the realm of philosophy and spirituality.

ChatGPT Jan 9 Version. Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will help us improve.

[Leo Gura]

Yeah, it's gonna reflect the biases of the culture and data it is fed.

Wikipedia has this bias too.

I would never expect this AI to have a deep metaphysical understanding of science's limits. No scientist understands that.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, it's gonna reflect the biases of the culture and data it is fed.

Wikipedia has this bias too.

I would never expect this AI to have a deep metaphysical understanding of science's limits. No scientist understands that.

This was the conclusion I got. If a biased human creates a golen the golen will carry by definition all the biases the creator have. Thus, we will have an AI as a digital parrot regurgitating all that is feed to it via language back to humans A=A

[something_else]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, it's gonna reflect the biases of the culture and data it is fed.

Wikipedia has this bias too.

I would never expect this AI to have a deep metaphysical understanding of science's limits. No scientist understands that.

It actually has a pretty good understanding of this. I had a chat with it the other day that was very very impressive, but it’s quite long. I think it would interest you though, it's related to content from a lot of your videos.

It is biased towards science, but it can discuss other perspectives with some prodding. I'm particularly impressed with how it related Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to the discussion. It is a long chat but here it is anyway:

--------------

What does the term 'God Realization' mean to you?

"God realization" is a term that can have different meanings depending on the context and belief system it is used in. In general, it refers to the attainment of a state of understanding or awareness of God, or a higher spiritual power. In some belief systems, it is seen as the ultimate spiritual goal, and is often associated with enlightenment, self-realization, and union with the divine. Some people believe that God realization can be achieved through meditation, prayer, or other spiritual practices, while others may believe that it is an innate state of being that can be uncovered through self-discovery and personal growth. Some also believe that it is a state of consciousness that can be achieved through spiritual practices and that it allows one to experience the ultimate reality or the true nature of existence. It's important to note that the concept and meaning of God can vary greatly among different cultures, religions, and belief systems, therefore, the concept of God realization also can vary.

What would a hardcore materialist think of that?

A hardcore materialist would likely reject the idea of God realization, as they believe that the material world is all that exists and that there is no spiritual or supernatural realm. Materialists believe that the universe and everything in it can be explained by natural laws and physical processes, and that consciousness and mind are the result of physical brain activity. They would likely see the concept of God realization as a religious or spiritual belief that has no basis in reality. They would argue that the idea of God is a human invention and that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a higher spiritual power or ultimate reality. They would also say that the idea of God realization is unscientific and unprovable, and that it is not a concept that can be studied or understood through scientific methods. They would instead propose that the concept of God realization is an illusion, and that the ultimate goal of humans should be to understand the natural world and the laws that govern it.

That's fair. What I don't understand is how something like consciousness could arise from atoms bouncing about. It seems impossible that something as unique and immaterial as consciousness could arise through the material world.

The relationship between consciousness and the material world is a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy and science. Some scientists and philosophers argue that consciousness can be explained by physical processes in the brain, while others argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that cannot be reduced to physical processes.

Materialists, often called physicalists, propose that consciousness is a product of the brain's activity and can be explained by physical processes. They argue that the brain is a complex biological system that can generate experiences and thoughts, and that the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain. They also propose that the mind and brain are one and the same and that consciousness arises from the activity of neurons in the brain.

On the other hand, there are theories that propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and cannot be reduced to physical processes. They propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that it cannot be reduced to physical processes, that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality and that it cannot be explained by the material world alone.

It's important to note that the question of how consciousness arises from the material world is still a topic of ongoing research and debate, and there is currently no consensus among scientists and philosophers.

It's also important to note that many theories propose that consciousness is not just a byproduct of the brain, but it's an emergent property of the universe, that emerges from the complexity of the system, and the complexity of the brain is certainly a big part of it, but the question of how that complexity generates consciousness is still not fully understood.

What would you say about the idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature. As it is infinite in nature, it would contain all material reality including ourselves and our experiences.

The idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature, is a perspective known as idealism. Idealism is a philosophical perspective that suggests that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature, and that the material world is an illusion or a projection of consciousness. According to this perspective, consciousness is infinite in nature and contains all material reality, including ourselves and our experiences.

This view holds that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe and that everything in the material world, including our bodies and physical objects, are simply manifestations or expressions of consciousness. This theory suggests that the material world is not independent of consciousness, but rather a product of it, and that everything that exists, exists only in the mind.

It's important to note that idealism is a minority viewpoint in contemporary philosophy, and is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers. The idea that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe, and that everything in the material world is simply a projection of consciousness is not a scientifically testable theory and it is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers.

It's also important to note that idealism, as any other theory, has its own set of criticisms and counter-arguments, and it's important to consider them before accepting any perspective.

I would argue that philosophers and scientists may be biased by the material world and logic. Scientists and philosophers rely only on logical arguments, however the nature of reality may be beyond logic and require a more holistic or spiritual approach to understand fully

It's true that scientists and philosophers rely on logical arguments and empirical evidence to understand the nature of reality. However, it's also true that some philosophers and scientists have proposed that the material world and logic alone may not be able to fully explain the nature of reality. They suggest that there may be other ways of understanding reality, such as through spiritual or holistic approaches.

There are philosophers and scientists who propose that the limitations of logic and the material world should be acknowledged and that other ways of understanding reality should be considered. They propose that the universe might be more complex and mysterious than can be explained by our current scientific and philosophical understanding and that there are limits to what can be known through logic and empirical evidence alone.

It's important to note that while some scientists and philosophers may be open to considering other ways of understanding reality, they still rely on rigorous testing and evidence to support their claims. They may be open to different perspectives, but still maintain that the ultimate goal is to understand the nature of reality as accurately and objectively as possible.

It's also important to note that, as with any claim, it's important to consider the evidence and arguments supporting it, and to critically evaluate the assumptions and limitations of any perspective.

What if the only evidence can be obtained through one's own direct experience?

It is true that some philosophical and spiritual traditions propose that direct personal experience is the ultimate source of knowledge and understanding. They argue that knowledge obtained through logical argument, observation or scientific study is limited, and that direct personal experience is necessary to truly understand the nature of reality. This perspective is often associated with the field of phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of direct personal experience in understanding the nature of reality and consciousness.

However, it's important to note that direct personal experience can also be subject to bias and interpretation, and it can be difficult to verify or replicate. Personal experiences are also unique and individual, and not all personal experiences can be generalized to others.

Additionally, scientific and philosophical inquiry rely on methods of observation, testing, and replication to establish evidence and knowledge. While direct personal experience can provide insight and understanding, it alone may not be sufficient to establish objective, verifiable knowledge.

Therefore, it is important to consider both personal experience and logical argument, observation, and scientific study, to have a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of reality. Different perspectives and methods can offer different insights and understanding, and it is important to consider them all when trying to understand the nature of reality.

What are the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem on this topic of discussion?

Gödel's incompleteness theorem, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, states that any formal system that is powerful enough to express the basic concepts of number theory, such as addition and multiplication, cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, any such formal system will contain statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.

The incompleteness theorem has implications for many areas of study, including mathematics, logic, and computer science. In the context of our discussion about the nature of reality and the limitations of logical argument and empirical evidence, it highlights the fact that any formal system, including formal systems used in science and philosophy, has limitations and cannot encompass all knowledge and understanding.

It suggests that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks of science and philosophy, and that there may be limitations to what can be known through logical argument and empirical evidence alone. The theorem does not disprove the materialism or idealism but it shows that there might be limits to the ability of our formal systems to encompass all the truth and knowledge about the reality.

It's important to note that Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't imply that the reality is inherently mysterious or that there's no way of understanding it, but it points out that any system of understanding has limitations and that there might be truths that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks.

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by something_else

[Leo Gura]

57 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Thus, we will have an AI as a digital parrot regurgitating all that is feed to it via language back to humans A=A

Soon enough I predict these AI will learn to think for themselves. But even so, I don't know how good it will be at thinking about the kind of stuff I teach.

[Leo Gura]

@something_else Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

But all that info can basically be found on Wikipedia. Still impressive how it assembles it with such fluency.

20 minutes ago, something_else said:

It's important to note that Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't imply that the reality is inherently mysterious

Actually I would say this is false.

Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery.

Incompleteness = infinity = mystery

But you will not find this insight on Wikipedia. You gotta think it thru for yourself.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

I think this thing here worries me more than ChatGPT. 

 

[something_else]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@something_else Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

But all that info can basically be found on Wikipedia. Still impressive how it assembles it with such fluency.

Actually I would say this is false.

Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery.

Incompleteness = infinity = mystery

But you will not find this insight on Wikipedia.

Yea it’s not perfect, but it is impressive.

I thought I’d continue that chat with your response to see what I thinks of it 

It feels like it gets very close to agreeing but can’t quite make the final leap. I guess it’s a good thing. It tries to cover every perspective without agreeing too strongly with one or the other.

———-

I would say that incompleteness does imply that reality is mysterious. Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery. Incompleteness = infinity = mystery

It is a perspective that incompleteness implies that reality is mysterious. From this perspective, the incompleteness of any formal system, including those used in science and philosophy, highlights the fact that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks. The limitations of our understanding, the incompleteness of the formal systems, might imply that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension and that's why it is mysterious.

It's also true that incompleteness is closely related to infinity, and infinity is often associated with mystery and the unknown. From this perspective, the incompleteness of a formal system implies that there is an infinite number of truths and possibilities that cannot be fully comprehended or explained within the current framework.

It's important to note that this perspective doesn't imply that reality is unknowable or that we should give up trying to understand it, but rather that it highlights the limitations of our current understanding and the potential for further discovery. It also doesn't imply that reality is inherently mysterious, but that our understanding of it might be incomplete, and that there might be aspects of reality that are beyond our current comprehension

[Phil King]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But even so, I don't know how good it will be at thinking about the kind of stuff I teach.

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I would never expect this AI to have a deep metaphysical understanding of science's limits. No scientist understands tha

How would you know that an AI does or doesnt have a deep understanding of sciences limits? Could an AI be trained on a dataset of actualized.org vids and then eventually be able to regurgitate the right answers to make it seem like they have a deep understanding? 

^^ This video classified that the current level of AI as self determining/orange/ achiever stage of development

[something_else]

Just now, Phil King said:

Could an AI be trained on a dataset of actualized.org vids

It probably had content from this forum included in its training dataset. And possibly even YT transcripts. The dataset was largely scraped from billions of websites on the internet if I remember correctly lol

 

[Phil King]

@something_else Yeah I guess this type of content just gets outweighed by the mass of Tier 1 content on the internet. One day we will reach a critical mass of outweighing it

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Phil King said:

How would you know that an AI does or doesnt have a deep understanding of sciences limits?

Well, that's easy. You can just ask it.

But in order to ask, you yourself would have to understand science, which almost no human does.

I could easily ask it and see how good it comprehends the limits of science, if I wanted to. Because I spent my whole life contemplating this topic and I know all the traps.

Quote

Could an AI be trained on a dataset of actualized.org vids and then eventually be able to regurgitate the right answers to make it seem like they have a deep understanding?

Of course it could. But will the AI be wise enough to appreciate my videos? How will the AI know to weigh my statements higher in truth value than all the other crap found on YT?

The real magic would be if the AI could arrive at all my answers just by contemplating what it reads on Wikipedia about science, without ever reading my work. Then it is truly thinking. If you just give it all the answers that's not meaningful.

- - - - -

Basically you can ask the AI to this:

Read through all the information about how science works on Wikipedia, then contemplate the nature of science for yourself and generate some unique insights about the limits of science which you did not gather from any online source but came up with independently by looking at the first principles of science and their inherent limitations.

That's basically what I did.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[bensenbiz]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's easy. You can just ask it.

But in order to ask, you yourself would have to understand science, which almost no human does.

I could easily ask it and see how good it comprehends the limits of science, if I wanted to. Because I spent my whole life contemplating this topic and I know all the traps.

Of course it could. But will the AI be wise enough to appreciate my videos? How will the AI know to weigh my statements higher in truth value than all the other crap found on YT?

The real magic would be if the AI could arrive at all my answers just by contemplating what it reads on Wikipedia about science, without ever reading my work. Then it is truly thinking. If you just give it all the answers that's not meaningful.

- - - - -

Basically you can ask the AI to this:

Read through all the information about how science works on Wikipedia, then contemplate the nature of science for yourself and generate some unique insights about the limits of science which you did not gather from any online source but came up with independently by looking at the first principles of science and their inherent limitations.

That's basically what I did.

I am an IT Guy, and It‘s possible to fine tune chatGPT, I could grab all your videos, all your forum posts and feed him with it. So his responses were pretty similiar to yours. Would be interesting to see how accurate it would be.  Should we try to build it?

Edited January 22, 2023 by bensenbiz

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, bensenbiz said:

I am an IT Guy, and It‘s possible to fine tune chatGPT, I could grab all your videos, all your forum posts and feed him with it. So it responses were pretty similiar to yours. Would be interesting to see how accurate it is tho.  Should we try to build it?

But what is meaningful about that?

Of course you can buy a parrot and teach him to talk like me. You can even teach him to say, "But Leo!"

Edited January 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Aiwass]

6 minutes ago, bensenbiz said:

I am an IT Guy, and It‘s possible to fine tune chatGPT, I could grab all your videos, all your forum posts and feed him with it. So his responses were pretty similiar to yours. Would be interesting to see how accurate it would be.  Should we try to build it?

Build it to incorporate an explicit section that allows legal explicit answers. I find the chat to be tailored to the 6 year old mind. 

[Rafael Thundercat]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But what is meaningful about that?

Of course you can buy a parrot and teach him to talk like me. You can even teach him to say, "But Leo!"

True, as long as a machine is feed with human semantics the machine will be limited by what is feed, you cant give 5Meo to a Bot, it is simply a advanced model of a Vacumcleaner, to see what is inside of a vacumm cleaner one just need to check what is inside:Dust. The vacumm cleaner can learn to organize the dust inside into coherent clusters of dust but in the end of the day is just very organized dust, a dust that humans can understand the meaning. 

[Leo Gura]

I think AI can become original, but to test that you want to not give it all the answers.

If you want to test your class, don't give them all the answers for homework.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

What if one feeds Praire dogs language into ChatGPT. it would help to understand Praire Dog better then the actual observation of them? 

 

"Then there are words where there are no corresponding objects, as for instance, the hare's horns, a barren woman's child, etc.--there are no such things but we have the words, just the same. Words are an artificial creation; there are Buddha-lands where there are no words. In some Buddha-lands ideas are indicated by looking steadily,in others by gestures, in still others by a frown, by a movement of the eyes, by laughing, by yawning, by the clearing of the throat, or by trembling....

... in this world such specialised beings as ants and bees carry on their activities very well without recourse to words. No, Mahamati, the validity of things is independent of the validity of words."

Source Lankavatara Sutra chapter II
Link:
http://fowap.goodweb.net.cn/news/news_view.asp?newsid=55236

An then we have the mimetic ones. 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Rafael Thundercat

[Rafael Thundercat]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think AI can become original, but to test that you want to not give it all the answers.

If you want to test your class, don't give them all the answers for homework.

I would in this case put myself in the shoes of the AI, because in my deepest trips inside I notice that all the jargon imbued in my mind by myself by readings, videos,talks and words,words,words act as a blockage when I find myself in a state where what I want actually is that something from the unknow pop up into my mind, is like all the knowings even the high quality knowings end up cranking up the system. Is like, if I fill up mind with pre-concived notions then when time comes this notions became the limits of the mind, a conceptual castle harder to dismantle so one can rest into pure beingness. Leo even said in one video " I Give you way to many answers" 

And in the end all this answers are not to be taken for granted but being contemplated by oneself and realized by oneself. Otherwise what would be of me? Just a Parrot.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Aiwass said:

Build it to incorporate an explicit section that allows legal explicit answers. I find the chat to be tailored to the 6 year old mind. 

Bro, just don't ask it degenerate questions ?