Ghideon

One example: The original post discusses RR as a fundamental property of space interacting with moving objects, not something that can be easily nullified by operational forces of a machine.

That does not seem logically coherent with your earlier statements regarding the nature of RR.

Thanks for your reply. Please explain the details how there is cancellation.

Example: Consider the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. As far as I know it operates effectively irrespective of Earth's rotation or its orbit around the sun, which constantly changes the LHC's orientation. According to your theory, the LHC's performance should vary with these changes, necessitating regular adjustments? Could you explain how your theory accounts for the consistent operation of the LHC under constant change of orientation? What does the lack of adjustments for absolute motion tell you?

What fiscal system is that? In a typical sales tax system, the tax is levied only on the final sale to the consumer. Your description does not match any existing system that I am familiar with, so I'm curios.

I guess it depends on the context. My car has a voice control for navigation; to me as a user that specific function behaves like a "specialised bot"*. In this case the price of "the bot" is included in the price of the car. Would I pay for it if it was an optional app? Maybe. *)I classify this as an application "AI" since there is a capability to imitate intelligent human behaviour. I have no insight in the implementation.

The ethics of providing such a vague and potentially misleading prediction would be questionable, especially if the higher being has the power to foresee and influence events. So the ethical question is more about the higher being's role in potentially setting up a situation that could lead to violence. Also the provided scenario mixes logical possibilities with ethical questions so that the ethical question gets obscured by the need to address logical issues.

No. Here are a few steps that may be associated with data preparation, none of these requires* NLP. (Locating Data: Identifying data sources.) (Collecting Data: Gathering or importing data.) (Data Ingestion: Obtaining and importing data for use or storage.) Data Cleaning: Correcting or removing inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Data Validation: Ensuring accuracy, consistency, and relevancy. Data Transformation: Converting data to a suitable format or structure. Data Integration: Combining data from various sources into a unified view. (Data Storage: Storing clean, ready data for future use.) Those within parentesis I consider of secondary importance to the software you describe and implemented by other tools. But I consider them important for the analysis I think you have in mind and may give a more complete view of steps involved. *) NLP could of course be incorporated; I do expect the current trend regarding AI (including NLP) and LLM's to affect vendors of analytics software and that is best discussed in a separate thread.

Yes, on a daily basis. Some ideas: I find myself spending considerate amount of time on data preparation to ensure the data is accurate, consistent, and ready for analysis. This is an area that is complicated and I see room for improvement. Also, in relation to data governance, Data provenance (documentation of the origins, custody, and transformations that a dataset has undergone) is another area that may be improved. A naive & practical example; assume a manager makes a decision based on numbers and diagrams in a spread sheet. Performing reviews of the decision processes and validating the data used in the decision could benefit from better functionality in the software used in the analytics. I am sure all the building blocks for the improvements already exists and that integrating them is a challenge.

Update: I wanted to share that I didn't (yet) get a chance to use the insights on the history of mathematics we discussed in this thread. An external AI expert covered the background and history of AI in their speech, so I shifted my focus to the current risks, opportunities, and guidelines related to Generative AI. I believe my presentation was well-received, as I've been asked to speak again. Hopefully I can include my view on the history of AI. A big thank you to everyone who contributed!

If there were "grooves" in the gravitational field as you propose, then the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling from Earth to the Moon (or any other celestial body in the solar system) would need to pass "through" or "over" these "grooves", right? The presence of these "grooves" would logically imply a variation in the gravitational field. This variation would, in turn, affect the spacecraft's trajectory, potentially causing deviations in speed and/or direction from the path predicted by established theories like Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, no such deviations have been observed in any space mission to date, as far as I'm aware.

Sure!

I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt: Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas?

I think you missed the point completely. Do you know what message and meaning that appear from your analysis of the painting if it is performed using Swedish?

Where? Maybe this link to apple support: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102598, it explains the reason. (Highlighted below)

I agree. Especially since OP split the string "Tennessee" into English words to make it fit some perceived meaning.

That is because you chose to use some random words from contemporary English. Interesting how these historic "symbols" that keeps occurring in various forms from various individuals only makes sense in the individuals' native language.

Thanks, this is useful for further discussion, it rules out categories of counter arguments that one could think of. Do we agree on the following statement? "Under the assumption that we agree that Artificial Consciousness is a logical contradiction given the definitions in your article then any introduction of counter arguments from the natural sciences is pointless; such arguments do not apply."

I agree. An one addition; I don't think the brain has a "pause button" or a "global clock" that allows for a well defined state even if history wasn't an issue. Here the computer analogy may work as an illustration? A single computer typically allows a snapshot to be persisted and the state can be recreated on a different machine. In a large network with many computers and many concurrent network connections it gets tricky. Assuming constant network traffic and concurrent changes to local computers it may not be simple to take a global snapshot that correctly represents the complete state including signals in transit between computers.

That is correct. (it is a vertical drop*, the information in the question is enough to find images and videos of the ride on the net @DODOma ) * "drop tower" or "big drop" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

Thank you for the clarification. Based on our discussion and the article: 1: Any counterargument rooted in empirical or natural science can be dismissed by referencing the foundational definitions and claims of the article. 2: The article's definitions and interpretations coherently rule out the possibility of artificial consciousness. Thus, any philosophical or logical counterargument can be dismissed, provided the article's foundational premises are accepted as correct. (I trust this sheds light on the relevance of the analogies I introduced earlier.) Side note: I haven't formally studied philosophy and seldom post in this section of the forum, so I appreciate your patience if my argumentation seems methodical.

I have looked at the article and other sources and got curious about science behind why it artificial consciousness is impossible. Your answer I'm trying to understand if that is a matter of definitions and logic. And, if so is the case, ruling out that there is any physical law making artificial consciousness impossible.

Thanks for your input. Can you provide a scientific basis or reference for the idea that artificial consciousness is impossible?

No, I have a serious interest in the topic and the root cause in science that makes artificial consciousness impossible. I'm looking for further information about the science, the basic foundations. Your answer implies that "Artificial Consciousness" is a definitional contradiction and I tried an analogy to illustrate (lets drop the analogy if you find it irrelevant). If possible I want to distinguish between philosophical interpretation and a direct scientific refutation of the possibility of artificial consciousness. Note that I am not arguing against or in favour of your claims, I am engaging in the discussion to get knowledge and insights.

Please explain the connection between the analogy I used and fart jokes.