JORDAN PETERSON UTTERLY BTFO'D IN AI DEBATE

oh no no petersonbros, did we get too cocky?

  1. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I also defeated an imaginary Albert Einstein on a debate while drinking coffee this morning.

  2. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >As a neurobiologist/biopsychologist, Jordan Peterson statement around nine minutes about what consciousness neurophysiological he is and doesn't brain is one of the most profound things I've ever heard in my life
    a youtube neurobiologist/biopsychologist. What language is he speaking here ?

  3. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not giving you free views. What were his points?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      peterson claimed consciousness is computable

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        What does that mean, exactly?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          No idea what JP's position is and I'm not wasting my time watching Kermit babble.

          In the most general sense, physicalism. Consciousness is not magic or separate from the rest of reality. It seems like that from the inside, but that's observer bias. I will for the life of me, never understand why this isn't obvious and can only guess that people don't like that they don't have a soul and disbelieve it.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It seems like that from the inside, but that's observer bias.
            "What I observe and measure cannot be true because Materialism Man told me so."

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              Is your claim that the models we form from measuring reality are necessarily true?
              You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You deterministically attempted to convince me of determinism, hoping against foregone conclusions that I would change my deterministic mind to believe you instead of the views I'm programmed to hold.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes?
                You're the one introducing non-evidentiary additional bits of complexity to the model by pretending there's something magic going on.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Non locality implies some sort of magic, or metaphysical, whatever word you prefer.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        What does that mean, exactly?

        it means that you can simulate consciousness, a thing that would make the simulation hypothesis of the universe more plausible if proven.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          How can that even be proved? How can you prove consciousness? Ye I know it's real, but you can't prove it.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a thing that would make the simulation hypothesis of the universe more plausible if proven
          no, the whole bullshit of consciousness being tightly related to the universe comes from misinterpretation of quantum mechanics after years of telling people that "observing a particle forces its wave function to collapse" or whatever terribly vulgarization pop-sci youtubers have been spreading around.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you can simulate consciousness
          Sounds right

          >that would make the simulation hypothesis of the universe more plausible
          Sounds wrong

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        so? whether that's true or not is still not decided and likely won't be for a very long time
        there's no right or wrong here (yet), just because some garden gnometuber thinks that one is true is meaningless

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >so? whether that's true or not is still not decided and likely won't be for a very long time
          It could never be decided in his favor even if it was true. Computation schizos are legit retarded.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >even if he was right he'd be wrong
            good argument

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's not what I said. Is your dogma so fragile you have to resort to this kind of garden gnomery?

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what I said. Is your dogma so fragile you have to resort to this kind of garden gnomery?

            idk man just seems like you are allergic to the idea of entertaining a thought, its not provable, doesn't mean its not plausible or improbable
            so yeah cringe

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >peterson claimed consciousness is computable
        Holy fuck, this makes me lose all respect for Peterson. He's literally a midwit and intellectually on par with the very people he claims to be fighting. There is really no hope for modern acadummia anymore.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        probably is with some extremely advanced, out of reach technology, but how would could one ever prove it's real consciousness?

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          You walking in a desert and you come accros a tortoise laying on it's back its belly baking in the hot sun

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          is self organization consciousness?

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Peterson isn't a computer scientist so this doesn't surprise me
        I haven't watched this vid but I've heard Penrose argue that if consciousness were computable then sufficiently large integers would be conscious which is hard to argue against

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why is it not?

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        if it's quantifiable it's computable

  4. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Peterson is incapable of not getting btfo when speaking to anyone who isn't retarded

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Example and link?

  5. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    this old hag has been saying this for years with zero proof. just notice how dodgy he gets when he gets questioned about his views. he is constantly trying to suggest panpsychism without explicitly saying it
    All fundamental parts of the brain are computable, the only way consciousnesses isn't computable is if it's outside the human body.

  6. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Penrose
    I'm glad Einstein died so we don't have to listen to his uninformed garbage takes on "quantum consciousness"

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *