This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |
| collected_works:cw9ii [2017/02/14 05:08] – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation janus | collected_works:cw9ii [2017/09/03 20:43] (current) – janus |
|---|
| §60 "Unity and totality stand at the highest point on the scale of objective values because their symbols can no longer be distinguished from the //imago Dei//.''' \\ If this insight were purely intellectual it could be achieved without much difficulty, for the world-wide pronouncements about the God within us and above us, about Christ and the //corpus mysticum//, the personal and suprapersonal atman, etc., are all formulations that can easily be mastered by the philosophic intellect. This is the common source of the illusion that one is then in possession of the thing itself. But actually one has acquired nothing more than its name, despite the age-old prejudice that the name mag- ically represents the thing, and that it is sufficient to pronounce the name in order to posit the thing's existence." | §60 "Unity and totality stand at the highest point on the scale of objective values because their symbols can no longer be distinguished from the //imago Dei//.''' \\ If this insight were purely intellectual it could be achieved without much difficulty, for the world-wide pronouncements about the God within us and above us, about Christ and the //corpus mysticum//, the personal and suprapersonal atman, etc., are all formulations that can easily be mastered by the philosophic intellect. This is the common source of the illusion that one is then in possession of the thing itself. But actually one has acquired nothing more than its name, despite the age-old prejudice that the name mag- ically represents the thing, and that it is sufficient to pronounce the name in order to posit the thing's existence." |
| |
| [[:space_and_time|τ]] Here is an argument against the case of AGI ever existing:</fc> \\ §61 "It would seem that one can pursue any science with the intellect alone except psychology, whose subject - the psyche - has **more than** the two aspects mediated by sense-perception and thinking. The function of value - feeling - is an integral part of our conscious orientation and ought not to be missing in a psychological judgment of any scope, otherwise the model we are trying to build of the real process will be incomplete. Every psychic process has a **value quality** attached to it, namely its **feeling-tone**. This indicates the degree to which the subject is //affected// by the process or how much it means to him (in so far as the process reaches consciousness at all). It is through the "affect" that the subject becomes involved and so comes to feel the whole weight of reality. The difference amounts roughly to that between a severe illness which one reads about in a textbook and the real illness which one has. **In psychology one possesses nothing unless one has experienced it in reality**. <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> \\ Hence a purely intellectual insight is not enough, because one knows only the words and not the substance of the thing from inside." <fc green>In relation to AI - AGI - This last statement makes me think of the [[wp>Chinese Room]] experiment proposed by John Searle. Intellectually computers could achieve and perform but AI will never have understanding. </fc> | [[:space_and_time|τ]] <fc green>Here is an argument against the case of AGI ever existing:</fc> \\ §61 "It would seem that one can pursue any science with the intellect alone except psychology, whose subject - the psyche - has **more than** the two aspects mediated by sense-perception and thinking. The function of value - feeling - is an integral part of our conscious orientation and ought not to be missing in a psychological judgment of any scope, otherwise the model we are trying to build of the real process will be incomplete. Every psychic process has a **value quality** attached to it, namely its **feeling-tone**. This indicates the degree to which the subject is //affected// by the process or how much it means to him (in so far as the process reaches consciousness at all). It is through the "affect" that the subject becomes involved and so comes to feel the whole weight of reality. The difference amounts roughly to that between a severe illness which one reads about in a textbook and the real illness which one has. **In psychology one possesses nothing unless one has experienced it in reality**. <fc green>Emphasis mine</fc> \\ Hence a purely intellectual insight is not enough, because one knows only the words and not the substance of the thing from inside." <fc green>In relation to AI - AGI - This last statement makes me think of the [[wp>Chinese Room]] experiment proposed by John Searle. Intellectually computers could achieve and perform but AI will never have understanding. </fc> |
| |
| §63 "The shadow, the syzygy, and the self are psychic factors of which an adequate picture can be formed only on the basis of a fairly thorough experience of them." | §63 "The shadow, the syzygy, and the self are psychic factors of which an adequate picture can be formed only on the basis of a fairly thorough experience of them." |