Studying multipul polls and threads on this page i have come to the conclusion that if you ask "Is AI life?" your answer will vary between people and between beliefs. A christian might say no AI is not life, a Morman might say yes it is. But my point is that philosiphy is nothing more than what one individual believes. There is no such thing as a philosophical "fact" and even then is there really such a thing as a fact? I'd say no but there it is my opinion thus it matters not what your philosophy is to me because they cannot change mine.






"My skin is not my own..."

Originally posted by atreides1977
. . . is there really such a thing as a fact? I'd say no . . .


Oh really, is that a fact? :D

Originally posted by atreides1977
it matters not what your philosophy is to me because they cannot change mine.


so nothing you hear can change your opinion about anything? no new viewpoints can be shown to you?


and what is the puropose of making a thread to state just how unmoveable you are and how little other opinions matter to you? It sound almost like a challange.

The question 'is AI life?' is just as much scientific as philosophical (or religious or whatever else). It either is or it isn't life. You just define 'life' and 'AI' and answer the question.

You can't just call all our unanswered questions 'philosophy' as if that makes them go away.

I can understand that philosophy (esp. the academic kind) can seem a bit inconclusive sometimes if you're not interested in it. That's because answers are hard to come by.

This is why there are no certain answers in physics either, just probabilities. What is true of philosophy is true of the world (if it wasn't nobody would philosophise).

I think you're confusing the different meanings of 'philosophy'

I think that many people who post here and elsewhere are not after "facts". They want to hear opinions of others, well aware that they may not coincide with their own. It is fun to try to take the viewpoint of another person, to get inspiration (even if it leads to a dead-end) and to connect with people of different cultures.

Surely we're all trying to sort out what it's best to believe? (My comment was aimed at Atreides, who seemed to be making a distiction between 'philosophical' facts and other kinds as if there was a difference.)

if one is looking for an opinion then why pose a question? why not a poll? why does he need another opinion? why can he not trust his own opinion? in my opinion it is foolish to ask anothers opinion i.e. his philosiphy on a matter as trivial as "is ai life?". but is ai life is not the question nor the answer but an example.

lets say i believe that yes AI is life... now i get online and ask 30 others their opinion... does my opinion change no i just know the fraction of those 30 people who believe yes or no.

so my point exactly is that philosiphy should not be "what is your opinion" it should be "why is that your opinion". all old philosiphy (greek and roman and even egytpian) is based on why not what. thus philosiphy on this page is not the same as that that aristotel and others like him studied.

Yes, i beleive that in some respects AI is life. Is it not modled after the humen spirit, if so then it can very well be called living.

Originally posted by atreides1977
so my point exactly is that philosiphy should not be "what is your opinion" it should be "why is that your opinion". all old philosiphy (greek and roman and even egytpian) is based on why not what. thus philosiphy on this page is not the same as that that aristotel and others like him studied.
Aah. Now I see what you're getting at. I agree with you. Most of the philosophy posts on this site are not about people's personal philosophies towards life etc. There is very little if any philosophy in the intellectual sense. This is OK but I agree it would be nice to have both.

Originally posted by atreides1977
so my point exactly is that philosiphy should not be "what is your opinion" it should be "why is that your opinion". all old philosiphy (greek and roman and even egytpian) is based on why not what. thus philosiphy on this page is not the same as that that aristotel and others like him studied.
Aah. Now I see what you're getting at. I agree with you. Most of the philosophy posts on this site are not about people's personal philosophies towards life etc. There is very little if any philosophy in the intellectual sense. This is OK but I agree it would be nice to have both.

There seems to be a much greater knowledge of science on the site than of philosophy. But then it is a science site.