Well, that's a much clearer answer for me. We're talking about the same thing, but we're just making different conclusions. I see what you mean, but imao just because one comes from the other doesn't make it the same. About physics, if you mean Aristotle's physics, it is very different from today's physics, Aristotle talked about the 4 elements of which the world is made. He tried to talk about things like gravity and rectilinear motion, but he was fundamentally wrong in many aspects.
He was just trying to learn about the world through observation and drawing his own conclusions about it.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling error fixed
What
Are you trolling me or something? I refuse to believe you're being serious.I don't want to think badly of your intelligence, so I'll just hope for a joke. Same thing in a few posts from you.
Then maybe I didn't understand what you were saying.
There is an aspect of philosophy in science, this is indisputable, for example in scientific method has philosophical concepts of verification and falsification along with Occam's razor.
Do you think that makes science a philosophy?
omg..I don't understand the habit of such answers to questions. I see less and less point in asking you questions.😔
Do you know the difference between what should be and what is?
In your answer to SamH you say what is, I ask you what is, and you answer what should be.
I.e. you are not answering the question. As usual.
Why not just give a straight answer? WHY??
Then who do they depend on and why?
No. I've already summarised my position, it's not much different from the mainstream. But mixing idialogy, science and philosophy into one is not a productive way of looking at things.
You can think that way if you want. As I said earlier, there are many definitions of what is philosophy and what is science and there are no generally accepted ones. But the academic philosophical mainstream doesn't think the way you do. So you started doing philosophy here
All I did was simply describe the genesis and roles of philosophy and science from mainstream positions. In my opinion, it is not practical to call sciences philosophies, firstly because of different methodology. Secondly, because of the different fields of study. Thirdly, because of the problem of demarcation. What is the difference between philosophy and science if science is philosophy? You need to give definitions.
Since you quoted this passage, you must agree with it. By the way, I recommend you to read Heidegger's Black Notebooks if you think he is a philosopher you should listen to.
Philosophy is not a science, just as a mother is not a child. Because out of philosophy came all the other sciences. The sciences study the world through models and Philosophy deals with fundamental knowledge and reality. Science and philosophy are not in competition with each other. They are like two curves that run parallel to each other, occasionally crossing each other.
Moreover, philosophy does not need what are now called sciences, but science needs philosophy. Philosophical teaching arose long before what we today call science. Philosophy studies many things, for example, sciences need philosophy at least because philosophy studies fundamental concepts of these sciences. For example, as in geometry there is the concept of a point. The question of what a point is is not a question of geometry. It's a question of philosophy. A point is one of the fundamental (indefinable) mathematical objects whose properties are defined by a system of axioms. It is not strictly possible to represent a point as an indivisible element of the corresponding mathematical space defined in geometry, mathematical analysis and other sections of mathematics. And so it is in many other cases.
Even the question of what is Science and what is Philosophy are philosophical questions. These concepts have many different definitions. One such definition, for example in Philosophy, is that Philosophy is a discipline concerned with the study of the basic concepts of other disciplines. Or another definition, Philosophy is a discipline devoted to the application of formal logic to humanitarian problems. Either way, it is a description of the same kind of activity, just a description in different ways.
Philosophy is not concerned with the study of models that should correspond to reality, but philosophy favours logical rigour, mental experimentation and argument in its research.
This is why many scientists who ignore philosophical works forget the importance of logical argumentation.
Apparently not answering questions with a big longread is your style. Although I can see why you don't want to answer, because the right answer doesn't benefit you.
Well, this is a good demonstration of how Occam's razor works in terms of not understanding it. Occam's razor does not cut or remove anything.
Is a problem-solving principle that suggests looking for explanations made up of the fewest number of entities.
In popular culture, it is not always correctly interpreted as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."
Occam's razor It is actually a philosophical tool that states that when presented with competing hypotheses, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, conditions, exceptions, etc (so as not to list all of them, they're usually called "entities") Occam's razor isn't utilized in science as a strict arbiter between competing hypotheses, but rather as an useful abductive heuristic in the building of theoretical models.
EDIT: I asked my question only on the basis that you were the first to bring up Occam's razor, and not in a very reasonable context for your argument. In my question, it is obvious which explanation requires fewer entities. But you of course won't say that.
Well, this is a good demonstration of how Occam's razor works in terms of not understanding it. Occam's razor does not cut or remove anything.
Is a problem-solving principle that suggests looking for explanations made up of the fewest number of entities.
In popular culture, it is not always correctly interpreted as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."
Occam's razor It is actually a philosophical tool that states that when presented with competing hypotheses, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest number of assumptions, conditions, exceptions, etc (so as not to list all of them, they're usually called "entities") Occam's razor isn't utilized in science as a strict arbiter between competing hypotheses, but rather as an useful abductive heuristic in the building of theoretical models.
EDIT: I asked my question only on the basis that you were the first to bring up Occam's razor, and not in a very reasonable context for your argument. In my question, it is obvious which explanation requires fewer entities. But you of course won't say that.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Context, a question about what will happen to nature and people.
Answer options:
First (The greenhouse) and why.
Second (that is built on graphs, measurements..etc) and why.
I don't know.
How about if we just respect the person we are talking to regardless of their views and just answer their questions directly? How about that?
Everything above from Avraham Vandezwin just shows exactly what I'm talking about.
All I did was ask one question. But I only received his question in response to mine, and it was unrelated to mine. And when I pointed it out, I got a longreade with even more questions and straw man posts that he attacked.
Now I get a text with even more straw man fallacy and 20 questions. This isn't a joke. There are actually 20 questions. Why would my interlocutor ask 20 questions knowing that I won't answer all the questions? I dont know. Especially knowing that things will go back to the way they were.
If you're asked a question you don't know how to answer, here's a working tactic for you. You can use it.
All I did was ask one question. But I only received his question in response to mine, and it was unrelated to mine. And when I pointed it out, I got a longreade with even more questions and straw man posts that he attacked.
Now I get a text with even more straw man fallacy and 20 questions. This isn't a joke. There are actually 20 questions. Why would my interlocutor ask 20 questions knowing that I won't answer all the questions? I dont know. Especially knowing that things will go back to the way they were.
If you're asked a question you don't know how to answer, here's a working tactic for you. You can use it.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
What a mind game with strawman stuffed animals and mental dances. Instead of short and clear answers to questions, there are unnecessary longreads. The interlocutor starts proving global warming to us, although nobody here argues with it and he knows it. He invents his own Occam's razor. Instead of dialog there are monologues. In which I already have little sense of what's going on and why. Does not want to listen to each other and answer questions. I don't know how to talk with all of it anymore. In my opinion, the essence of dialog is disappearing.
I'll take any answer that has sufficient justification. Just as important to strengthening an argument are, verification, falsification, and adherence to Occam's razor. Which is part of the scientific method.
Reasoning is what the thesis is based on. In other words, you said that the thesis is based on the thesis.
So if the Most scientists jump off the roof of the building you will also jump off the roof of the building?
Most scientists back in the day believed in the existence of aether.
Most scientists in the USSR believed in Lysenkoism, i.e. that if you raise pig the right way she will give birth to a goat.
Most scientists back in the day did not believe in microorganisms. For centuries, surgeons believed that it was not necessary to wash their hands before surgery. This caused gangrene in patients.
Doctors blamed the imbalance between the four fluids they believed were in the body - blood, mucus, yellow bile juice and black bile juice - for the patients' deaths. It wasn't until the 1860s that Louis Pasteur proved that microbes were responsible for many diseases.
Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy just like appealing to authority. This in itself cannot be an argument.
Scientists have often been wrong with their theories and hypotheses. And that's part of the scientific process. But excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge is scientism. Which is a not rational thing.
So instead of answering the question directly, you decided to ask your own questions.
Which, by the way, is indicative of an understanding of Occam's razor. "(material, humanitarian, sociological, economic and political. Etc.)" these are the new entities you're introducing unnecessarily.
It will be difficult to dialog when instead of answers to my question I get new questions, especially since they have nothing to do with the original question.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling error fixed
You were talking about "global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe."
If by that you mean that millions of people will have to leave their homes, then we have misunderstood each other. Because I'm not arguing with it.
I can assure you, so far during our dialogue my positions have not changed in any way because all I have done is ask for an reasoning. But instead I got different links that either don't say what I asked for or say the same thing I did in my argumentation.
If you understand what Occam's Razor is, tell me which explanation requires fewer entities?
The greenhouse explanation which is based on actual reality and can be verified.
Or one that is built on graphs, measurements of temperatures and levels of various emissions, correlations between those graphs, and on predictions with not always high confidence.
I'm not inherently arguing against the possibility of rising water levels with rising average temperatures, but global drought is still not a clear-cut topic for me.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : add a question mark
In fact, on both sides, I see positive consequences of the actions taken. The scientific mainstream influences the political mainstream. And politics promotes the fight against climate change at the state level by developing various laws to reduce emissions and so on. The only one who is not affected by this is China. The rest of the big ones have been trying to reduce their emissions for a decade for now or even longer.
I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.
I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.
That's exactly what I was talking about in my first comment, the coasts may be affected, but that doesn't mean that all people suddenly will be flooded by 1000 metres of water.
Also this map looks a bit strange, I set the flood level to 5 metres and nothing much changed. I thought the coasts would be affected mush more, about as much as the Netherlands. But such flooding turned out to be rare on the coasts. I even doubt if the floods are displayed correctly, I expected to see a worse situation. But maybe the different conditions of the coastal topography make this possible.
Why? Not for me. In my opinion this is completely normal.
It wasn't your link that made me laugh, it was the fact that such links annoy you and you think it's bad tone to do them, but you still do them yourself.
I was literally saying the same thing in that time and you didn't care about it. And you've some reason gone mad for those links. I still can't understand it. Moreover, you yourself do the same. I'm just wondering if that's your real principle, and you're as angry with yourself now as you were with me. Or what was it?
EDIT: Readers may not understand what we talking about, I'm talking about the strange exchanges in this thread.
I didn't say I had scientific hypotheses. I was talking about my thesis about presence GW, or about presence AGW, or about danger for humans and nature. And I was asking what exactly are you applying Occam's razor to, or maybe are you talking about something else. You must have mentioned Occam's razor for a reason, and you're referring to a some problem, but it's not clear what it is.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
This is the best so far, but the strange thing about this whole report is that there are no references to studies, just a list of authors, there are numbered conclusions, but how am I supposed to find references to the studies on which these conclusions are based?
As I said it is a report that contains conclusions from studies with varying degrees of certainty. The conclusions themselves don't tell us much because we know them ourselves. What these conclusions are based on are temperature measurements, and measurements of various gas concentrations. It also describes how they might affect the futurethe on the oceans, islands, coastal zones, mountains, glaciers, and the atmosphere. But we can't know exactly how and in what ways this will happen in the future.
But there are some conclusions based on what's already happened.
For example here Interesting about the human emissions.
Overturning Circulation (AMOC). {1.1, 1.4, 1.8.1, Figure TS.3}
Evidence and understanding of the human causes of climate
warming, and of associated ocean and cryosphere changes,
has increased over the past 30 years of IPCC assessments (very
high confidence). Human activities are estimated to have caused
approximately 1.0ºC of global warming above pre-industrial levels
(SR15). Areas of concern in earlier IPCC reports, such as the expected
acceleration of sea level rise, are now observed (high confidence).
Evidence for expected slow-down of AMOC is emerging in sustained
observations and from long-term palaeoclimate reconstructions
(medium confidence), and may be related with anthropogenic forcing
according to model simulations, although this remains to be properly
attributed. Significant sea level rise contributions from Antarctic ice
sheet mass loss (very high confidence), which earlier reports did not
expect to manifest this century, are already being observed. {1.1, 1.4}
Ocean and cryosphere changes and risks by the end-of-century
(2081–2100) will be larger under high greenhouse gas emission
scenarios, compared with low emission scenarios (very high
confidence). Projections and assessments of future climate, ocean
and cryosphere changes in the Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) are commonly based
on coordinated climate model experiments from the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) forced with Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) of future radiative forcing. Current
emissions continue to grow at a rate consistent with a high emission
future without effective climate change mitigation policies (referred
to as RCP8.5). The SROCC assessment contrasts this high greenhouse
gas emission future with a low greenhouse gas emission, high
mitigation future (referred to as RCP2.6) that gives a two in three
chance of limiting warming by the end of the century to less than 2oC
above pre-industrial. {Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1, Table TS.2}
Characteristics of ocean and cryosphere change include
thresholds of abrupt change, long-term changes that cannot be
avoided, and irreversibility (high confidence). Ocean warming,
acidification and deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss, and
permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales
relevant to human societies and ecosystems. Long response times
of decades to millennia mean that the ocean and cryosphere are
committed to long-term change even after atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations and radiative forcing stabilise (high confidence).
Ice-melt or the thawing of permafrost involve thresholds (state
changes) that allow for abrupt, nonlinear responses to ongoing
climate warming (high confidence). These characteristics of ocean
and cryosphere change pose risks and challenges to adaptation.
It's interesting to read about the rising water levels, so even these studies show low confidence in the rise of sea water level in 2.3–5.4 m. And in medium confidence 0.61–1.10 m.
I mean, that's what I was talking about in the first post. Coastal settlements and cities may be affected. But no more than that. So where are the global catastrophic that effects on people?
Future rise in GMSL caused by thermal expansion, melting
of glaciers and ice sheets and land water storage changes, is
strongly dependent on which Representative Concentration
Pathway (RCP) emission scenario is followed. SLR at the end
of the century is projected to be faster under all scenarios,
including those compatible with achieving the long-term
temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. GMSL will
rise between 0.43 m (0.29–0.59 m, likely range; RCP2.6) and
0.84 m (0.61–1.10 m, likely range; RCP8.5) by 2100 (medium
confidence) relative to 1986–2005
Processes controlling the timing of future ice shelf loss and
the spatial extent of ice sheet instabilities could increase
Antarctica’s contribution to SLR to values higher than
the likely range on century and longer time scales (low
confidence). Evolution of the AIS beyond the end of the 21st century
is characterized by deep uncertainty as ice sheet models lack realistic
representations of some of the underlying physical processes. The
few model studies available addressing time scales of centuries to
millennia indicate multi-metre (2.3–5.4 m) rise in sea level for RCP8.5
(low confidence). There is low confidence in threshold temperatures
for ice sheet instabilities and the rates of GMSL rise they can produce.
There's also an interesting chapter on "Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risks" most of the conclusions there are with medium confidence. And it doesn't talk at all about any catastrophic problems that are already happening.
And here are the only four conclusions with high confidence:
Ocean and cryosphere changes already impact Low-Lying
Islands and Coasts (LLIC), including Small Island Developing
States (SIDS), with cascading and compounding risks.
Disproportionately higher risks are expected in the course
of the 21st century. Reinforcing the findings of the IPCC
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, vulnerable human
communities, especially those in coral reef environments and
polar regions, may exceed adaptation limits well before the
end of this century and even in a low greenhouse gas emission
pathway (high confidence).
Limiting the risk from the impact of extreme events and abrupt
changes leads to successful adaptation to climate change
with the presence of well-coordinated climate-affected
sectors and disaster management relevant agencies (high
confidence). Transformative governance inclusive of successful
integration of disaster risk management (DRM) and climate
change adaptation, empowerment of vulnerable groups, and
accountability of governmental decisions promotes climateresilient
development pathways (high confidence).
Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction require
capacity building and an integrated approach to ensure
trade-offs between short- and long-term gains in dealing
with the uncertainty of increasing extreme events, abrupt
changes and cascading impacts at different geographic scales
(high confidence)
Sustained long-term monitoring and improved forecasts
can be used in managing the risks of extreme El Niño and
La Niña events associated with human health, agriculture,
fisheries, coral reefs, aquaculture, wildfire, drought and flood
management (high confidence)
I.e. there are no descriptions of specific events already affected by global warming, only predictions of what might happen. And in which areas we can expect some risks. And since we're talking about the future, there are no specifics either. And in a report that consists of conclusions on climate change they insert as one of the conclusions what we should do.
Roughly speaking there is still no example of what you were talking about or point me to one.
This article is about scientific consensus on climate change. I wasn't disputing the topic of scientific consensus on climate change.
Why do I need this link?
I asked you to give me one example of "Global warming is a global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe."
When a person goes nuts over a link to Anthropomorphism, and then gives a link to Occam's Razor himself.
Oookay.On the topic of global warming I've made 3 different theses in this thread. Do you know what Occam's razor is? If yes, about what problem are you talking about using an Occam's razor?
I've written some simple philosophy articles myself. And referenced the scientific method and stuff. so thank you for the links, but I'm aware of all of yours talking points about your scientism position.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
The burden of proof on the assertor. If I myself were to pick something from a site with "thousands of scientific papers", you might say that's not what you meant. And I should have chosen something else.
But it's a good link, it's still a large number of examples instead of the one I asked for. Because it's a summarizing report of studies with the conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence and not all of which are catastrophic or clearly bad. And so it's going to take some time to look at.
The dialogue from above seems indicative. And this is exactly the problem I am talking about above. All there is is talking points, when you ask for reasoning of that points, (which should be there if you really hold these positions), then for some reason you don't get them.
But you get a site with "the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies." There are probably very good reports on what policy makers need to do. But I was just asking for just one example of what you are talking about. It's just that if these examples don't exist, then you're just repeating things that someone else told you and you didn't think it was important to check them out.
To simplify my thesis.
Is there global warming? Yes, Based on measurements of average temperatures over the last 100 years, temperatures have risen by 1 degree.
Is global warming anthropogenic? I don't know, I need more data. It is likely, given the increased human emissions since the onset of industrialisation. But we don't have precise data on how much emissions there were before industrialisation, and what the average values of e.g. CO2 were for the planet at that time and how the average temperature varied with that.
Is global warming dangerous for humans and nature? I don't know, and I don't see any data to prove or disprove it. So all I can do is construct thought experiments as it happens in such cases and extrapolate it to the entire planet. This may be wrong, but is there any way to better understand what will happen in the future under certain scenarios?
I don't want to believe anyone. Maybe that's my problem. But I just dont like to think that way, I always tried to find as much different data as I could, on one side or the other, and come to a conclusion on my own.
But both are simply putting forward their talking points. I don't want talking points, I know the all the points. I want to see the reasoning that proves their points. And that's why I ask simple questions expecting to get a detailed answer atleast in some ways that has reasoning, but every time I get a new one talking points. And just because they repeat their theses without having an argumentation, they both look like people who just believe what others have told them, but they themselves don't understand why it's happening and what's behind their talking points.
I don't care what thesis a respected professor (even with a huge number of regalia and international awards) says, I care to know what argumentation lies under this thesis. For example, I know respected biologists professor who claim that mankind evolved from hermaphroditic amazons. Or another PhD in biology, says that members of different races of humans cannot have fertile offspring. There are other such examples. And that's what they say within their field of study, you can imagine what they say in areas where they don't understand anything.
So I don't care what authority is cited and what's his thesis, I care about the reasoning behind his thesis. I don't claim to be right in my theses and arguments, I may well be wrong, but to realise this I need to look at other arguments or get counter arguments to my arguments.
This is a good comment, in the way that there are no appeals to personality or other direct rhetorical tricks. You just express some of your worldview, with some links to mine and other comments. I could agree with a lot of things and disagree with some of them and break them down in detail with my argumentation, but then we'd be getting away from the topic at hand. And why should I do it if these are just your views, and my questions remain unaddressed in your comment.
Just give me one example, just one, and prove it's because of AGW and not for some other reasons. Or give me a study on the subject. Or at least something that proves what you're saying.
I can give you one example, the drying up of the Aral Sea. It once was the world's fourth-largest lake. I've seen how global warming activists use this example as proof of the dangers of global warming. I don't see how this proves that global warming is man-made, but what they don't like to hear mentioned is that the Soviet government built a network of canals that drew water from the rivers that replenished the Aral Sea, and Soviet government built a dam that separated the Small Aral Sea from the Large Aral Sea by the Kokaralskaya Dam, which resulted in the preservation of the Small Aral Sea but caused the drying up of the Large Aral Sea. In May 2009, the Eastern Aral Sea dried up completely.
So there can be various reasons for various natural events, including as simply dry years for farmers, and these have often been described in history, there have been such events without any anthropogenic global warming.
Yaah, I'd be happy to talk to you or to anyone who has an argumentation for their position. But for some reason it's so difficult. Your position partially coincided with what I said at the beginning just to warm up the discussion, and it kind of worked. But I don't really care whether our positions coincide or not. I care about getting arguments and seeing how strong they are.
Is there global warming? Yes, Based on measurements of average temperatures over the last 100 years, temperatures have risen by 1 degree.
Is global warming anthropogenic? I don't know, I need more data. It is likely, given the increased human emissions since the onset of industrialisation. But we don't have precise data on how much emissions there were before industrialisation, and what the average values of e.g. CO2 were for the planet at that time and how the average temperature varied with that.
Is global warming dangerous for humans and nature? I don't know, and I don't see any data to prove or disprove it. So all I can do is construct thought experiments as it happens in such cases and extrapolate it to the entire planet. This may be wrong, but is there any way to better understand what will happen in the future under certain scenarios?
I don't want to believe anyone. Maybe that's my problem. But I just dont like to think that way, I always tried to find as much different data as I could, on one side or the other, and come to a conclusion on my own.
But both are simply putting forward their talking points. I don't want talking points, I know the all the points. I want to see the reasoning that proves their points. And that's why I ask simple questions expecting to get a detailed answer atleast in some ways that has reasoning, but every time I get a new one talking points. And just because they repeat their theses without having an argumentation, they both look like people who just believe what others have told them, but they themselves don't understand why it's happening and what's behind their talking points.
I don't care what thesis a respected professor (even with a huge number of regalia and international awards) says, I care to know what argumentation lies under this thesis. For example, I know respected biologists professor who claim that mankind evolved from hermaphroditic amazons. Or another PhD in biology, says that members of different races of humans cannot have fertile offspring. There are other such examples. And that's what they say within their field of study, you can imagine what they say in areas where they don't understand anything.
So I don't care what authority is cited and what's his thesis, I care about the reasoning behind his thesis. I don't claim to be right in my theses and arguments, I may well be wrong, but to realise this I need to look at other arguments or get counter arguments to my arguments.
This is a good comment, in the way that there are no appeals to personality or other direct rhetorical tricks. You just express some of your worldview, with some links to mine and other comments. I could agree with a lot of things and disagree with some of them and break them down in detail with my argumentation, but then we'd be getting away from the topic at hand. And why should I do it if these are just your views, and my questions remain unaddressed in your comment.
Just give me one example, just one, and prove it's because of AGW and not for some other reasons. Or give me a study on the subject. Or at least something that proves what you're saying.
I can give you one example, the drying up of the Aral Sea. It once was the world's fourth-largest lake. I've seen how global warming activists use this example as proof of the dangers of global warming. I don't see how this proves that global warming is man-made, but what they don't like to hear mentioned is that the Soviet government built a network of canals that drew water from the rivers that replenished the Aral Sea, and Soviet government built a dam that separated the Small Aral Sea from the Large Aral Sea by the Kokaralskaya Dam, which resulted in the preservation of the Small Aral Sea but caused the drying up of the Large Aral Sea. In May 2009, the Eastern Aral Sea dried up completely.
So there can be various reasons for various natural events, including as simply dry years for farmers, and these have often been described in history, there have been such events without any anthropogenic global warming.
Yaah, I'd be happy to talk to you or to anyone who has an argumentation for their position. But for some reason it's so difficult. Your position partially coincided with what I said at the beginning just to warm up the discussion, and it kind of worked. But I don't really care whether our positions coincide or not. I care about getting arguments and seeing how strong they are.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
In fact, I am a poor expert in this field, and just trying to reason from the side of a simple average person who builds some mental experiments.
Yes, I played with various simple neural networks a few years ago, which were generators of various things on linux, and I roughly imagine how they worked, we have input data on one side of the matrix and output on the other. But I have no idea what goes on inside the weight matrix or in hidden layers, and how it makes one decision and not the other.
I've tried to research opinions on the subject it turns out the topic of Super AI is already being discussed by various AI researchers, and it's called AGI (Artificial general intelligence) And the fact is that the growth of the level can be exponential. literally in a matter of days. And most likely we won't know about it
So there are people who know this stuff a lot better than I do.
For example:
There is already an existing dispute between Ilon Musk and Sam Altmon (current owner of Open AI which was created by chatgpt4), As many know Ilon claims that the development of AI can lead to an existential threat to humanity, And Sam says it's not that dangerous. Yes, there may be a corporate bias because he owns the largest company that produces the most famous AI. But I found something interesting.
Sam talks about Eliezer Yudkowsky statement that AGI would likely kill all humans, becouse of AI aligment problem of AGI.
And Sam in fact confirms that he may be right, and there is some chance of that.
Eliezer Yudkowsky an artificial intelligence researcher and he has been studying this topic for more than 20 years. Also writer on decision theory and ethics, best known for popularizing ideas related to friendly artificial intelligence, including the idea of a "fire alarm" for AI. He is a co-founder and research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute
To summarize what he says, he discusses the dangers of artificial intelligence and the potential for it to destroy the humanity and he believes that humanity is probably already lost to AI and on the verge of extinction and there is little we can do. And as he continues to do what he's doing, he just hopes that he's just wrong.
Or Geoffrey Hinton cognitive psychologist and computer scientist, most noted for his work on artificial neural networks. From 2013 to 2023, he divided his time working for Google (Google Brain) and the University of Toronto, before publicly announcing his departure from Google in May 2023, citing concerns about the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. In 2017, he co-founded and became the chief scientific advisor of the Vector Institute in Toronto.
He descusses the current moment in AI, highlighting the importance of teaching coding and the potential dangers of AI are also discussed, along with concerns about the use of autonomous AI soldiers in warfare and the need to control new ideas in AI. However, he also acknowledges concerns about the possibility of computers coming up with their own ideas for improvement and the need to control this. He believes that job displacement will occur, but people will simply shift to doing more creative work rather than routine tasks, as seen with the example of bank tellers who now deal with more complicated tasks. The guest also mentions that the policies of the Canadian government have helped fund AI research and support curiosity-driven basic research, which has contributed to Canada's lead in AI.
Connor Leahy is an entrepreneur and artificial intelligence researcher. He is best known as a co-founder and co-lead of EleutherAI, a grassroots non-profit organization focused on advancing open-source artificial intelligence research.[ Leahy is also the founder of Conjecture, a startup working on AI alignment, the task of making machine learning models controllable.
He warns of the potential catastrophic outcomes associated with AI development. He argues that as technology becomes more powerful, the blast radius of an accident during its development increases. Leahy emphasizes that his argument is not anti-AI, but rather highlights the importance of building safe AI. He also discusses the dangers of ideological motivation in the pursuit of AGI and the geopolitical implications surrounding the regulation and development of AI. Leahy suggests that government regulation is necessary to ensure accountability for individuals pursuing AGI, and he encourages individuals to play a more significant role in controlling the future landscape of AI safety. Connor Leahy discusses the potential risks of AI and emphasizes the need for AI safety research and proper regulations. Leahy also suggests imposing strict liability on AI model developers and deployers to mitigate risks and buy time for AI safety research and proper regulations. He states that progress is not free and that we must aim to develop AI systems aligned with our values to ensure a good outcome for humanity. Solving alignment, he believes, will require humanity's collective effort, politics, and technology.
Yes, I played with various simple neural networks a few years ago, which were generators of various things on linux, and I roughly imagine how they worked, we have input data on one side of the matrix and output on the other. But I have no idea what goes on inside the weight matrix or in hidden layers, and how it makes one decision and not the other.
I've tried to research opinions on the subject it turns out the topic of Super AI is already being discussed by various AI researchers, and it's called AGI (Artificial general intelligence) And the fact is that the growth of the level can be exponential. literally in a matter of days. And most likely we won't know about it
So there are people who know this stuff a lot better than I do.
For example:
There is already an existing dispute between Ilon Musk and Sam Altmon (current owner of Open AI which was created by chatgpt4), As many know Ilon claims that the development of AI can lead to an existential threat to humanity, And Sam says it's not that dangerous. Yes, there may be a corporate bias because he owns the largest company that produces the most famous AI. But I found something interesting.
Sam talks about Eliezer Yudkowsky statement that AGI would likely kill all humans, becouse of AI aligment problem of AGI.
And Sam in fact confirms that he may be right, and there is some chance of that.
Eliezer Yudkowsky an artificial intelligence researcher and he has been studying this topic for more than 20 years. Also writer on decision theory and ethics, best known for popularizing ideas related to friendly artificial intelligence, including the idea of a "fire alarm" for AI. He is a co-founder and research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute
To summarize what he says, he discusses the dangers of artificial intelligence and the potential for it to destroy the humanity and he believes that humanity is probably already lost to AI and on the verge of extinction and there is little we can do. And as he continues to do what he's doing, he just hopes that he's just wrong.
Or Geoffrey Hinton cognitive psychologist and computer scientist, most noted for his work on artificial neural networks. From 2013 to 2023, he divided his time working for Google (Google Brain) and the University of Toronto, before publicly announcing his departure from Google in May 2023, citing concerns about the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. In 2017, he co-founded and became the chief scientific advisor of the Vector Institute in Toronto.
He descusses the current moment in AI, highlighting the importance of teaching coding and the potential dangers of AI are also discussed, along with concerns about the use of autonomous AI soldiers in warfare and the need to control new ideas in AI. However, he also acknowledges concerns about the possibility of computers coming up with their own ideas for improvement and the need to control this. He believes that job displacement will occur, but people will simply shift to doing more creative work rather than routine tasks, as seen with the example of bank tellers who now deal with more complicated tasks. The guest also mentions that the policies of the Canadian government have helped fund AI research and support curiosity-driven basic research, which has contributed to Canada's lead in AI.
Connor Leahy is an entrepreneur and artificial intelligence researcher. He is best known as a co-founder and co-lead of EleutherAI, a grassroots non-profit organization focused on advancing open-source artificial intelligence research.[ Leahy is also the founder of Conjecture, a startup working on AI alignment, the task of making machine learning models controllable.
He warns of the potential catastrophic outcomes associated with AI development. He argues that as technology becomes more powerful, the blast radius of an accident during its development increases. Leahy emphasizes that his argument is not anti-AI, but rather highlights the importance of building safe AI. He also discusses the dangers of ideological motivation in the pursuit of AGI and the geopolitical implications surrounding the regulation and development of AI. Leahy suggests that government regulation is necessary to ensure accountability for individuals pursuing AGI, and he encourages individuals to play a more significant role in controlling the future landscape of AI safety. Connor Leahy discusses the potential risks of AI and emphasizes the need for AI safety research and proper regulations. Leahy also suggests imposing strict liability on AI model developers and deployers to mitigate risks and buy time for AI safety research and proper regulations. He states that progress is not free and that we must aim to develop AI systems aligned with our values to ensure a good outcome for humanity. Solving alignment, he believes, will require humanity's collective effort, politics, and technology.
Interesting discussion. I can't say that I see many arguments and proofs of your positions in it. But at least there are no insults but there are some appeals to personality that I hope we can avoid in future.
The problem is that few people want to respond to the arguments of the parties, why if you can just put forward your theses, but not respond to the theses of the interlocutor.
I tried to wait a moment so as not to get into a fierce debate. My point is that I don't support either side, I only support a high level of discussion, with good arguments and without getting personal.
It's a little frustrating when you ask for an argumentation about what could happen to us, you get a scary video without argumentation at the very beginning that says that when it gets to 3 degrees there will be catastrophic changes. What are these claims about 3 degrees based on? And why not 2? Or not 4? Why 3? Just a pretty number? But the funny thing is that by catastrophic change they mean to be floods and droughts, in the same sentence. Like you either take off your cross or put on your pants.
It's perfectly explained in some sort of dad-joke that we have on this subject, but I'm not sure everyone here will understand that. But why not give it a try?
Rabinovich decided to go to a Russian public bathhouse, and so that no one would realise that he was a Jew, he put a cross around his neck.
Rabinovich undressed, went into the steam room, sat on a bench and steamed.
One man stares intently at the cross, then below Rabinovich's waist After about 10 minutes, the man quietly whispered:
- Rabinovich, you either take off your cross or put on your pants...
But because of some customs, it will not be understood, for example, by people in the United States and in Christian countries where circumcision is customary. But it just happens to us that orthodox Christianity and circumcision look like a contradiction.
Just like with droughts and floods, you at least choose one or at least explain where there will be floods and where there will be droughts and why exactly there. Otherwise your statements look meaningless. Besides, I was replying about floods and droughts to this when I wrote my first comment in this thread. So maybe it would be better to reply to my first comment right away?
This is a convenient position in which one can simply accept a priori that all studies that alternatively analyse GW or criticise AGW simply do not have contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective.
it's really hard to argue that AGW is mainstream in the scientific community. But it is hard to see why something that based on the correlations of graphs has developed for the scientific mainstream.
The scientific method is built on doubt and scepticism, on verifiability and falsifiability. And AGW has a hard time with all of that. What AGW has is correlations. But scientists should also be aware that there are spurious correlations. Humans tend to see correlations according to availability heuristics.
But I'm not saying that AGW is built on false correlations, I'm just admitting the possibility according to scientific scepticism.
But when I talk about
I'm not based on nothing.
For example, I'm talking about a letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”
So there is other opinions that are simply drowned out. From the outside it looks like a political game in which the academic community is involved. Similar things for example are happening in another field of science, where new fields like queer studies, gender studies or LGBTQ+ studies are emerging. I think a lot of people realise that these studies are emerging in relation to a specific political agenda. So why can't similar things happen in the GW field?
Although there are objective economic factors for increasing these studies there. Many people just need a degree from a university, and it is not particularly important what kind of degree, but preferably from a prestigious university. But it so happens that not all people are smart. Where can they go? Physics? Biology? Maths? No way, it's not even easy to get into. What do you need for gender studies? Get a Pencil and go in. I'm not denying that these factors can affect GW studies.
This doesn't just apply to students either. Imagine yourself in this place, on one side of the scale, fame, money and networking with colleagues from all over the world, on the other oppression, poverty and neglect. Which would you choose? If you have a hot topic where you can just get grants and sponsorship from the green community to do cetation and republish old work, why not just do it?
But like I said in the beginning I don't want to argue the topic, just because the bias of the academic community doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
BTW I hope that I will not be attacked again for giving links to my words. let's just have a reasonable discussion.
I don't think it's productive to assume everyone who thinks AGW is real is a cultist or has religious beliefs. People tend to believe rather than know, it's inherent in human nature.
And any suggestion of "THE END IS NIGH" counts? For example, who believes there will be catastrophic consequences from a nuclear war, or the fall of a giant asteroid? Are they religious believers, too?
Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is. At least by the rule of identity. Still, simply labelling closes the topic for discussion and does not require analysis of interlocutor arguments.
But man of religion will defend his faith to the end without questioning it. And yet you continued the dialogue despite the fact that you consider your interlocutor to be a believing cultist, or is that not quite true? Or, why did you continue the dialogue?
The problem is that few people want to respond to the arguments of the parties, why if you can just put forward your theses, but not respond to the theses of the interlocutor.
I tried to wait a moment so as not to get into a fierce debate. My point is that I don't support either side, I only support a high level of discussion, with good arguments and without getting personal.
It's a little frustrating when you ask for an argumentation about what could happen to us, you get a scary video without argumentation at the very beginning that says that when it gets to 3 degrees there will be catastrophic changes. What are these claims about 3 degrees based on? And why not 2? Or not 4? Why 3? Just a pretty number? But the funny thing is that by catastrophic change they mean to be floods and droughts, in the same sentence. Like you either take off your cross or put on your pants.
It's perfectly explained in some sort of dad-joke that we have on this subject, but I'm not sure everyone here will understand that. But why not give it a try?
Rabinovich decided to go to a Russian public bathhouse, and so that no one would realise that he was a Jew, he put a cross around his neck.
Rabinovich undressed, went into the steam room, sat on a bench and steamed.
One man stares intently at the cross, then below Rabinovich's waist After about 10 minutes, the man quietly whispered:
- Rabinovich, you either take off your cross or put on your pants...
But because of some customs, it will not be understood, for example, by people in the United States and in Christian countries where circumcision is customary. But it just happens to us that orthodox Christianity and circumcision look like a contradiction.
Just like with droughts and floods, you at least choose one or at least explain where there will be floods and where there will be droughts and why exactly there. Otherwise your statements look meaningless. Besides, I was replying about floods and droughts to this when I wrote my first comment in this thread. So maybe it would be better to reply to my first comment right away?
This is a convenient position in which one can simply accept a priori that all studies that alternatively analyse GW or criticise AGW simply do not have contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective.
it's really hard to argue that AGW is mainstream in the scientific community. But it is hard to see why something that based on the correlations of graphs has developed for the scientific mainstream.
The scientific method is built on doubt and scepticism, on verifiability and falsifiability. And AGW has a hard time with all of that. What AGW has is correlations. But scientists should also be aware that there are spurious correlations. Humans tend to see correlations according to availability heuristics.
But I'm not saying that AGW is built on false correlations, I'm just admitting the possibility according to scientific scepticism.
But when I talk about
I'm not based on nothing.
For example, I'm talking about a letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”
So there is other opinions that are simply drowned out. From the outside it looks like a political game in which the academic community is involved. Similar things for example are happening in another field of science, where new fields like queer studies, gender studies or LGBTQ+ studies are emerging. I think a lot of people realise that these studies are emerging in relation to a specific political agenda. So why can't similar things happen in the GW field?
Although there are objective economic factors for increasing these studies there. Many people just need a degree from a university, and it is not particularly important what kind of degree, but preferably from a prestigious university. But it so happens that not all people are smart. Where can they go? Physics? Biology? Maths? No way, it's not even easy to get into. What do you need for gender studies? Get a Pencil and go in. I'm not denying that these factors can affect GW studies.
This doesn't just apply to students either. Imagine yourself in this place, on one side of the scale, fame, money and networking with colleagues from all over the world, on the other oppression, poverty and neglect. Which would you choose? If you have a hot topic where you can just get grants and sponsorship from the green community to do cetation and republish old work, why not just do it?
But like I said in the beginning I don't want to argue the topic, just because the bias of the academic community doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
BTW I hope that I will not be attacked again for giving links to my words. let's just have a reasonable discussion.
I don't think it's productive to assume everyone who thinks AGW is real is a cultist or has religious beliefs. People tend to believe rather than know, it's inherent in human nature.
And any suggestion of "THE END IS NIGH" counts? For example, who believes there will be catastrophic consequences from a nuclear war, or the fall of a giant asteroid? Are they religious believers, too?
Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is. At least by the rule of identity. Still, simply labelling closes the topic for discussion and does not require analysis of interlocutor arguments.
But man of religion will defend his faith to the end without questioning it. And yet you continued the dialogue despite the fact that you consider your interlocutor to be a believing cultist, or is that not quite true? Or, why did you continue the dialogue?
That's interesting. If I found your profile correctly, global warming was not your area of study. But it's not that important. What is important is the reasoning behind your statements.
What is this based on? And why "we fked"? What if we don't stop making greenhouse gas emissions, where will it lead?
As I said above I don't see anything terrible for people or nature, and I have described my reasoning on this, but maybe I am wrong, and I'm willing to admit that with good counterarguments. I'm interested to know what scenarios of increasing greenhouse gases can lead us to.
This is an interesting and informative commentary, really makes you think, thanks for your time.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG