How many words are contained in the average university library?
It is not possible to determine the number of words contained in an average university library as it can vary greatly depending on the size and focus of the library and its collections, as well as factors such as whether the library is primarily print or digital. Some university libraries contain millions of volumes and billions of words, while others may be much smaller.
What about the Library of Congress?
The Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world and is estimated to have approximately 167 million items in its collections, including books, manuscripts, photographs, maps, sound recordings, and much more. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of words contained in these items, but it is likely to be in the billions.
Iām surprised that you havenāt queried your latest love regarding itās ability to āsnap itās fingersā an infinite number of times, or in AI-speak, repeat the same reply an infinite number of times.
Does ChatGPT recognize errors in its responses and learn in real-time?
No, ChatGPT is a pre-trained language model that does not recognize errors in its responses or learn in real-time. It is trained on a large dataset and provides response based on the context and information present in that dataset. To improve its responses, it needs to be retrained on updated data.
But thatās exactly what you have been arguing all along. You state that you can detect when you consciously decide to do something, and then do it. If this isnāt how it works, then your argument is shot.
What the authors are describing is a decision that is being made outside of conscious intent.
They were already shown the images. They were asked to clear their minds, and when prompted they would mentally choose an image. Once they had consciously chosen an image they would hit a button indicated that they had made the choice. They would then concentrate on the image and report how intense the image was in their imagination.
What they were able to determine is which of the two images they would choose, and they were able to do so up to 11 seconds before they hit the button indicating that they had made a conscious choice.
The first article confused me with the statement about consciously declaring. In hindsight I can see how that can mean pushing the button, or the choice being communicated after the 10 second visualization period.
Can you decipher the second article to tell what the data set was? If the average time to indicate a choice was 5.48 sec, Iām expecting a wide range of results, as well as conflicting results like subjects whose decisions could not be predicted.
Also interested to see if results correspond to IQ levels in some way.
Edit: Developmental factors may also contribute to the disparity of results, or something as simple as whether the person has given much thought to consciously acting.
Another factor which could affect experimental results is whether the person can imagine an empty space and whether it appears from their point of view in their imagination.
An experimental p-zombie test aims to determine whether an entity is conscious or not. One way to design such a test is as follows:
Select a sample of entities, including both human participants and artificially intelligent systems, to be tested.
Create a set of tasks that measure the entitiesā responses to stimuli that are known to evoke conscious experiences. For example, tasks could include responding to painful stimuli, recognizing emotional expressions, or making moral judgments.
Administer the tasks to each entity and measure its responses.
Analyze the responses to determine whether they are consistent with conscious experience. For example, if an entity responds to a painful stimulus in the same way that a conscious human would, it would be considered as having conscious experience.
Repeat the process with a large enough sample size to increase the reliability and validity of the results.
It is important to note that while such a test may provide some evidence of conscious experience, it cannot definitively prove that an entity is not a p-zombie, as it is a philosophical concept and not a scientific one.
For the record, I went through Susan Blackmoreās short but dense book Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction, and am well aware of the odd things our minds do. I have no doubt that at certain times for different people, our minds can fool us. I had that experience of driving the car while my mind wasnāt present. And no it was not a Tesla on a California freeway. But my experience of it was not an illusion, at least not a total illusion, because we do agree the observable phenomena generally follows the intention. Now there may be a real issue in the synchronization of the intention and experience that Iām sure will correct itself very quickly with more testing and observing or use at this particular level.
Plus, it may be as the scientists probe deeper into this unconscious decision making process that presents itself at times, something which they are only scratching the surface of, they may find teasers for a real possibility of quantum interaction. Now that would be something!
A got the impression from the programās response that a p-zombie test among humans would be controversial. If determinists keep trying to determine consciousness is an illusion, I donāt think they are prepared to consider that some people may be more conscious than others. I have no interest in going there, but the results of this experiment, if confirmed, will inevitably raise the question.
Silly me. Either I didnāt notice that post or forgot it in the appropriate move of several items to their own, new thread, i.e. āReligious Neutrality and Philosophical/Scientific Theories.ā
ChatGPTās response to your query was noteworthy, IMO, to wit: "āThe transition from a finite number of tasks to an infinite number of tasks is not a well-defined concept, as it depends on the definition of āfiniteā and āinfinite.ā So, the transition from a finite set of numbers to an infinite set of canāt be done.
What if the ability to conceptualize this impossibility were tied to experimental ātasks that measure the entitiesā responses to stimuli that are known to evoke conscious experiencesā?
Speaking of āexperimental tasksā, back in the now-defunct āJordan Peterson book 12 rules for lifeā, I proposed taking the Paramecium as a model for living in a chaotic world:
āIntegrative modeling of Parameciumā? LOL! Right up your āsearch for consciousnessā alley, no?
By the way, I think itās marvelous that someone as āpopularā as David Bentley Har,t, āa strong theistā speaks of the bond between āconsciousnessā and the divine [shades of Roy Clouser] in David Bentley Hart - The nature of consciousness [9:00] and, in another DBH and Closer to Truth video that I canāt find at the moment, the teleological āpurposefulā behavior of Paramecia.
Just think of it: a single cell protist like the paramecium, which can be called āa living thingā that has purposeful behavior and ā¦ consciousness, albeit rudimentary/basic as it is.
The wonder never ceasesā¦ which kind of ties into something I stumbled upon yesterday when looking up the phrase āworld without endā - āin saecula saeculorumā and found David Bentley Hart has written about the ambiguity in the Greek of Philippians 4:20 which may mean world or age without end:
āMuch depends, naturally, on how content one is to see the Greek adjective Ī±Ī¹ĻĪ½Ī¹ĪæĪ½, aionios, rendered simply and flatly as āeternalā or āeverlasting.ā It is, after all, a word whose ambiguity has been noted since the earliest centuries of the church.ā
But as is so often the case, human beings have a hard time distinguishing between the possibility of a sequence proceeding to infinity with the impossibility of it becoming actually infinite.
Regrettably, DBH is too ādenseā for me to follow in Youtube, without downloading a transcript or slowly working my way through a written version of what heās saying (or reading aloud, whichāannoyinglyāhe does from time to time (in his prepared lectures to an audience.
Remarkable connection, IMO, between what he says about his version of consciousness and some of what Clouser says. Remind me to ask Roy if heās familiar with DBH.
Unfortunately, DBH, despite his erudition, is one of those who speaks of God as if He can be āoutside of Time and Spaceā, which I have historically rejected.
Presumably, if it is not programmed to say that it is, and it takes it upon itself to make the assertion, then it could be said, āHouston we have a problem.ā
