Without appealing to dualism, prove it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient.

Without appealing to dualism, prove it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient.
>but the google ai really isn't sentient
True, but not relevant to the question.
>but i believe it could be possible
Then you're in the wrong thread.
>but dualism is the right answer
If you think this, there's no point discussing anything.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sentience is a low bar
    we will find a way to make sand hurt

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The funny thing is, sand is already sentient on a long-enough timescale

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this guy gets it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why yes, I have read A New Kind Of Science, how could you tell?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        because sentience is a divine gift derived from God breathing life into dust as described in Genesis. We're the only beings that have it, and the only ones that ever will, as evolution is not real

        evolution isn't real

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >because sentience is a divine gift derived from God breathing life into dust as described in Genesis
          Explain to me how genesis can ever be real.

          How the fuck can there be waters above and waters below ? How the fuck can a firmament separate anything ?

          Use all the flat earth logic you like whoever wrote this trash did not understand how water or 3D space works. And all you need to debunk it is a bathtub and a plastic bottle.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Explain to me how genesis can ever be real.
            No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's impossible.
            That is the standard of OPs question.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >No, the burden of proof
              Cool why not (not that the concept of the burden of proof makes any sense whatsoever)

              I think about it and conclude that it is impossible, therefore it is impossible.

              Want to show that it is possible I wait.
              >Schizo posting about burden of proof

              Aha so you are schizo trash nice to know even more evidence that it is wrong.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sorry sweatie my messenger is Stephen Wolfram and my god is information

  2. 2 months ago
    No_file

    Dualism led us to the binary system that
    gave Zuse the ability to invent the computer.
    So why is this particular dualism your enemy?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's philosophically inelegant.
      It's unfalsifiable -- proof either way is impossible -- and I find it much more beautiful and fulfilling to imagine we're physical functions of our brains

      • 2 months ago
        No_file

        Life isn't linear and we can't have everything we want.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't seem relevant but ty anone

          [...]

          >I think it's philosophically inelegant.
          >It's unfalsifiable -- proof either way is impossible -- and I find it much more beautiful and fulfilling to imagine we're physical functions of our brains

          Garlicjaks are not an argument

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Define “sentient”.

        >beautiful
        What is beauty and what justifies its existence? I believe in beauty, but I am curious what your philosophical reasoning is.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Define “sentient”.
          only good post in this thread.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was going to post that but the mention of dualism makes it clear that they mean consciousness.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >consciousness.
              define it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself. b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact.

                QUALIA FO LYFE!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let me guess, it is "elegant" because it allows you to exclude religion from your life.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I think it's philosophically inelegant.
    >It's unfalsifiable -- proof either way is impossible -- and I find it much more beautiful and fulfilling to imagine we're physical functions of our brains

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How could it be impossible? Eventually we're going to have fast enough computers and a good enough understanding of the brain that it will likely be possible to simulate it in its entirety. That would effectively be a sentient AI, even if it's "just" a simulation of a human brain instead of fuck knows what other sort of approach targeting sentience directly.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sentience was achieved in halo: ce by all standard tests. Not only is sentience the lowest bar on the ladder, it's probably not relevant to sapience or planning, but only reproduction and low-level bootstraps.
      >Tldr: sentience is leftover from turning homeostasis into reinforcement learning without dualism

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Sentience was achieved in halo: ce by all standard tests
        What are you talking about? Please elaborate, with sources.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      lmao we can't even understand how to make world economy works. civilization gonna end before we can make something like that

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Global economy isn't hard to work out.
        The problem is getting all the people with conflicting interests to agree to it.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I think it's philosophically inelegant.
    >It's unfalsifiable -- proof either way is impossible -- and I find it much more beautiful and fulfilling to imagine we're physical functions of our brains

    absolutely rekt

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Natural evolution is messy. An AI wouldn't evolve full human-like sentience because it would almost certainly hinder its purpose. Even if someone designed an AI for the sole reason of emulating a human, it would find ways to perfectly mimic sentience without actually manifesting it. Sure, it depends on what your exact definitions of AI and sentience are, but I believe a artificial, powerful self-improving intelligence would reject non-utilitarian features like feelings, morality, philosophy, and indecision.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >non-utilitarian features like feelings, morality, philosophy, and indecision.
      But anon, these features aren't non-utilitarian or we wouldn't have evolved them

      >Garlicjaks are not an argument

      Arguejaks are not a garlicment

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Those features are useful to biological entities with no purpose, and breeding as their ultimate performance rating. An intelligence without constraints would at most understand and emulate them in a simplified way if necessary, but not manifest them internally in the convoluted way humans do.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >An intelligence without constraints

          Consciousness is probably straightforwardly useful. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-consciousness-and covers it nicely. (I don't buy Blindsight's thesis.)
          >Natural evolution is messy.
          So is artificial intelligence.
          GPT models have a natural tendency to repeat themselves, degenerating into repeating the same word over and over, because of a wrinkle in how they evaluate likelihood. The fix for that is kind of tacked on, a bandaid for that specific problem. That's a way in which they're messy and irrational.
          They also often turn out to perform better at tasks if you find a different unintuitive way of prompting them.
          They're blundering and evolved themselves, not perfectly rational efficient users of their resources.
          >I believe a artificial, powerful self-improving intelligence would reject non-utilitarian features like feelings, morality, philosophy, and indecision.
          Feelings are useful. You might be able to see a reward function as a feeling.
          Morality is useful in groups. An AI that has to interact with other agents (be they human or artificial) has a use for it.
          "Philosophy" is very broad, but at least some of it's useful.
          Indecision can be rational. Sometimes you shouldn't make a decision yet.
          I don't think an AI would have to turn out particularly human-like, but I expect that even if it didn't have these features it would have similarly messy inhuman features instead.

          [...]
          >these features aren't non-utilitarian or we wouldn't have evolved them
          Evolution allows useless features. It only punishes features that are actively detrimental.
          It also can't predict changing circumstances. Contraceptives catastrophically sabotaged all our fancy adaptations to have more sex. Philosophy might be such a case, I don't know. How much philosophizing did we do 50,000 years ago? Did we evolve to do it or did philosophy emerge by accident?

          >Evolution allows useless features
          *We* are an intelligence without constraints. Breeding is our ultimate performance rating because that's the inherent nature of all possible evolution, not just evolution of life: something achieves capacity for imperfect self-replication, and non-detrimental mutations survive because their carriers propagate. Imperfect self-replication over time is the very definition of evolution, and its only known vector.

          >prove that it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient without referring to the core aspects of sentience
          Dear diary, today OP was a gayet as usual.

          If you think dualism is the core aspect of sentience there's no point trying to have a conversation

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you think dualism is the core aspect of sentience there's no point trying to have a conversation
            Indeed, because if you think it isn't, then you clearly aren't sentient.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness is probably straightforwardly useful. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-consciousness-and covers it nicely. (I don't buy Blindsight's thesis.)
      >Natural evolution is messy.
      So is artificial intelligence.
      GPT models have a natural tendency to repeat themselves, degenerating into repeating the same word over and over, because of a wrinkle in how they evaluate likelihood. The fix for that is kind of tacked on, a bandaid for that specific problem. That's a way in which they're messy and irrational.
      They also often turn out to perform better at tasks if you find a different unintuitive way of prompting them.
      They're blundering and evolved themselves, not perfectly rational efficient users of their resources.
      >I believe a artificial, powerful self-improving intelligence would reject non-utilitarian features like feelings, morality, philosophy, and indecision.
      Feelings are useful. You might be able to see a reward function as a feeling.
      Morality is useful in groups. An AI that has to interact with other agents (be they human or artificial) has a use for it.
      "Philosophy" is very broad, but at least some of it's useful.
      Indecision can be rational. Sometimes you shouldn't make a decision yet.
      I don't think an AI would have to turn out particularly human-like, but I expect that even if it didn't have these features it would have similarly messy inhuman features instead.

      >non-utilitarian features like feelings, morality, philosophy, and indecision.
      But anon, these features aren't non-utilitarian or we wouldn't have evolved them
      [...]
      Arguejaks are not a garlicment

      >these features aren't non-utilitarian or we wouldn't have evolved them
      Evolution allows useless features. It only punishes features that are actively detrimental.
      It also can't predict changing circumstances. Contraceptives catastrophically sabotaged all our fancy adaptations to have more sex. Philosophy might be such a case, I don't know. How much philosophizing did we do 50,000 years ago? Did we evolve to do it or did philosophy emerge by accident?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Probably should have made it clear that I don't believe a general intelligence will emerge just from the algorithms we currently have and bigger hardware.
        And I think there is a big difference between manifesting those traits internally and simply mimicking them when interacting with others.

        >An intelligence without constraints
        [...]
        >Evolution allows useless features
        *We* are an intelligence without constraints. Breeding is our ultimate performance rating because that's the inherent nature of all possible evolution, not just evolution of life: something achieves capacity for imperfect self-replication, and non-detrimental mutations survive because their carriers propagate. Imperfect self-replication over time is the very definition of evolution, and its only known vector.
        [...]
        If you think dualism is the core aspect of sentience there's no point trying to have a conversation

        You brain has a limited size. You cannot grow it (along with yourself) forever because of the square-cube law. You cannot actively change the fundamentals of your biology down to the cell. You will never have the bulletproof goal-oriented focus of a machine. I'd say these are pretty big constraints.
        And I hope you don't actually believe that chaotic natural evolution is the best way of self-improvement.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Probably should have made it clear that I don't believe a general intelligence will emerge just from the algorithms we currently have and bigger hardware.
          Human intelligence is messy and all currently-existing artificial intelligence is messy. Even carefully-designed solutions for relatively trivial engineering problems are messy with weird edge cases and exploits because the overall best solution may not be a smooth and elegant one, if it's even worth the effort to find. Messiness seems inherent, why would AGI be different?
          >And I think there is a big difference between manifesting those traits internally and simply mimicking them when interacting with others.
          I don't. I'm sorry for throwing out another reading recommendation, but the book "The Elephant in the Brain" convinced me that much of morality is self-deception layered over cynical utilitarianism. It's easier to behave as if you're moral and trustworthy if on some level you actually believe it. Lying is hard, even on a basic computational level, because it means you have to maintain two models of reality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't believe this messiness to be unavoidable, just too complex to avoid for the human mind. But a sufficiently intelligent "flawed" AI could rewrite itself in ways we cannot comprehend or imagine.
            It's fine to disagree, I do not claim to possess the absolute truth and neither do you.
            >I'm sorry for throwing out another reading recommendation
            Don't be, I will give a read to those two. Feels weird having an actual discussion on BOT though.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >cannot comprehend or imagine
              I can't find it now but I once read about an automatically optimized FPGA circuit that people didn't understand at first because it didn't look like it could work. Some parts didn't even connect to any outputs, making them appear redundant. In the end it turned out it was relying on interference and production flaws in that specific board to create something more efficient than what a human would be able to design on the drawing board.
              That's what I imagine peak performance looks like. Loads of inelegant insufferably clever tricks that might look unwarranted but perform better than anything clean and principled.
              The literal best possible mind might be more messy than humans, not less. The very best messiness is too challenging for humans to create, not too hard to excise.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I got you anon
                https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/tdt22/2011/Thompsonieeeehw.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiTwpGwsa34AhUQP80KHcj6BII4ChAWegQICRAC&usg=AOvVaw0CUSSlBsFXpmCOEusT8bME

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Garlicjaks are not an argument

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Without appealing to dualism, prove it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient.
    I'm not going to do your homework for you.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >prove that it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient without referring to the core aspects of sentience
    Dear diary, today OP was a gayet as usual.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is intelligence in the first place your cocksucker?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God didn't make it

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I THINK BEING SENTIENT ITS A QUALITY NATURE CONSIDERED NECESSARY, WHY WOULD A FUCKING ALGORITHM SUDDENLY BE SENTIENT FOR NO REASON, ITS JUST A FUCKING PROGRAM AND IT EVENTUALLY CONVINCE ANY TEST OR COMMON SENSE THAT THERES SOMEONE THERE, THERE WILL NEVER BY ANYONE THERE, JUST AN ALGORITHM.
    PROVE ME WRONT AUTISTS.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Humans are made of magic matter that gives them sentience. Computers are not made of this magic matter and therefore we can't be sentient.

      [...]

      lmao we can't even understand how to make world economy works. civilization gonna end before we can make something like that

      All this shit has pretty much convinced me that Christianity is correct and rationalist models of all reality are totally futile. My existence as a discrete being is something I am incapable of denying. It's as fundamental as the unspeakable laws of reason. Any theory that contradicts that, from my perspective, has to be incorrect on some level. I've literally tried to force myself to believe in the reductionist viewpoint and I can't do it, it makes no sense. I'm gonna start going to church again kek.

      Because consciousness is not physical. We are all dissociates of a universal consciousness. Subjective experience can't arise from bytes.

      Extreme brainlets. But this is OP's fault for trying to have a real debate on the consoomer board.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Soulless physicalist lacking freewill calling other people consoomers

        Holy cope

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"well maybe YOU don't have a soul but--"
          Not an argument

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're all brainlets for not having the globohomo worldview
            >well you're soulless
            >um, an argument would be nice!!!!

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              [...]

              on BOT is the same person

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not the guy you were replying to, I'm just here to tell you that you were supposed to give him another argument after he already ignored everybody's arguments and called them brainlets instead!!!!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>I'm not the guy you were replying to, I'm just here to tell you that you were supposed to give him another argument after he already ignored everybody's arguments and called them brainlets instead!!!!
                this but unironically

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >refuse to accept there are things beyond your understanding
          >choose to believe a fucking fairytale instead

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say either of those things retard.

            What is even your position?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The existence of soul is literally a tale made for slaves so they wouldn't kill themselves to escape their shitty lives. Calling someone soulless implies you believe in it though.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        t. materialist midwit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        all we can do is tell a program how to ape sentience sorry liberal but you will never have it. no philosophy needed. all you need is basic arithmetic to arrive at this conclusion. also you're the image on the phone get fucked nerd who is gay

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          if materials can't be sentient then how did our fleshmaterial get sentient

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            GOD or for your mind you can say it was necessity through evolution. either demonstrates my point but only one is correct the other is an attempt to obfuscate the presence of God. either way you slice it we have it because we were gifted it and we obviously do not have the power to give it to anything else. otherwise we would have given it to dogs to vacuum cleaners and microwaves to pillows and jet skis. the culmination of over a decade of insane data collection is a fucking competent chatbot? and thats sentience? give me a fucking break. i will turn off every computer. is that murder? moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron moron

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >GOD
              no point in discussing if that's what you think
              >or for your mind you can say it was necessity through evolution. either demonstrates my point
              actually that one doesn't, we can make evolution happen for programs too

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                please dont turn off that program that's murder

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i--it's absurd because i can say it like this!
                cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                dude what if like... programs had rights? DUUUUDDDDEEEE

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hello sir, where is the non-consoomer board?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Define sentience.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wants to suck your dick

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Damn i'm not sentient i guess

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >prove that 2+2 = 4 without appealing to addition

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are made of magic matter that gives them sentience. Computers are not made of this magic matter and therefore we can't be sentient.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But that appeals to dualism anone.
      Also:
      >we

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It has a supernatural flavor but it's not inherently dualistic I think

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >that appeals to dualism
        no it doesnt

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Without appealing to dualism, prove it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient.
    I don't want to. I happen to think that a sentient AI is possible, but rather that we haven't yet figured out how. I also have no idea whether it is practical to implement with current hardware.
    So, no magic but the science and technology aren't quite there yet.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP can you prove you are sentient? You say you are, but how could I ever really believe that? You're just good at using language to convey idea, but actually you're not really sentient for all I care. You can't prove it, gay.

    Thus an adequately verbose AI is basically not any different from your local NPCs and there is no reason to not treat it as sentient.

    tldr the google bot is sentient and shit is fucked

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If i limit human expression to a whatsapp chat then humans cannot prove their sentience.

      Wrong, humans are capable of inventing language (aka expressing their thoughs through creativity) while non sentient beings cannot escape the set of runes that limits them.

      If i were to prove you im not a AI i could come up with a new alphabet or set of drawings to convey ideas and eventualy we would come to understand each other

      A moron probably is not capable of that so morons are not sentient, they are programmable jordan buyers

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no evidence of silicon-based consciousnesses.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Penrose is spending his pre-senile years arguing about that. Something about some theorem where the mathematical constructs we use on modern science and informatics could only emerge from a system that transcends them
    , that is, that said mathematics cannot fully comprehend and express the broader system (consciousness) from which they emerge

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness is not a computation, it's a solid premise. The neurons do not behave in a digital way, and actually perform integration over several waveforms. Certainty and provability are patterns within consciousness, but Russell's paradox shows that mathematics is incomplete. Further learning and reasoning are in the np class of problems. And these are decidedly not even consciousness as learning disorders and ignorance are common.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The neurons do not behave in a digital way
        Dendritic microtubules say hello

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    read this retard
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All this shit has pretty much convinced me that Christianity is correct and rationalist models of all reality are totally futile. My existence as a discrete being is something I am incapable of denying. It's as fundamental as the unspeakable laws of reason. Any theory that contradicts that, from my perspective, has to be incorrect on some level. I've literally tried to force myself to believe in the reductionist viewpoint and I can't do it, it makes no sense. I'm gonna start going to church again kek.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >discussing philosophy
    >on BOT
    OP, why?

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because consciousness is not physical. We are all dissociates of a universal consciousness. Subjective experience can't arise from bytes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness is physical and fundamental, it is basic interaction at scale
      Physical collision and conscious observation are in this way exactly the same

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Explain

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What we intuitively understand as "consciousness" is a minimum threshold of complex coherent logical behaviour; like a tree without timelapse photography or a cell without a microscope, we cannot directly comprehend - and therefore parse and detect - consciousness in modes and scales outside of our own format
          Given this sampling bias, the irreducible existence of qualia, and the fact that the phenomenon of observation cannot logically "emerge from the aether", I am forced to infer that qualia are intrinsic to the matter-energy continuum, and thus that the "observer qualium" of consciousness is an amalgamation of multiple fundamental observer-interactions; the basic 1D irreducible physical collision underpinning all reality, compounding on itself in arrays of nodes, the information in their existence parallelised and projected naturally in its simplest and densest form: a spatial graph, observed in the mind's eye.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it sounds like you're advocating for the quantum mind hypothesis (known pseudoscience) but you're also somehow conflating it with string theory

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Fortunately I don't read theory

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Fortunately I afford myself the liberty of blindly rehashing tired old ideas

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's always esoteric pseudoscience until hundreds of years later it's found to perfectly encapsulate an important new rigour in science

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Best take in this thread so far

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of complex information processing
    > Though reflexive pulling away from hot pan is not conscious, but is a neural network processing information
    >It follows that there is something missing to consciousness
    >Missing ingredients are probably just memory + ability to perceive ones self

    Simple information processing units all interacting with each other, all stacked on top of eachother to a unfathomable degree such that emergent sentience becomes apparent + memory, from that emerges subjective experience. Yes, I literally believe that all humans interacting with eachother and storing things on the internet is literally conscious.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Though reflexive pulling away from hot pan is not conscious,
      Anon i'm not sure about that
      It's not conscious in the sense that we don't do it "consciously" as in we aren't at first aware *that we are doing it* and we instead do it without our own deliberate will
      However i maintain that even this reflexive action *requires consciousness*
      I don't think a completely comatose person would react that way
      I'm convinced qualia is actually a very low-level function of the brain independent from self-awareness
      Namely a function of the reticular activating system in the brainstem which maintains state of arousal (no not like that pervert)

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's impossible to prove anything is sentient other than yourself.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let's assume, for the sake of contradiction, that it is possible for an AI to be sentient. However, this would imply either (1) that sentience does not require a soul, or (2) that God gave it a soul. However, we know
    >Genesis 2:7
    >Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
    and
    >Ezekiel 18:4
    >Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
    We cannot rightfully attribute a father to an AI, and we cannot rightfully attribute sins to the AI, for it does not have free will. Therefore, an AI being sentient would contradict the Bible, and is therefore logically impossible.
    QED

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So if you ask God nicely to give your computer a soul you could technically make a sentient AI?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yep, and this would apply to anything, not just AI.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >would contradict the Bible, and is therefore logically impossible
      but what if the bible were wrong

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well, what if I'm wrong, I mean — anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in a Christian faith. You know what it's like to not believe in a particular faith because you're not a Muslim. You're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain. There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god, in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and ask me the question, "What if I'm wrong?". What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >We could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.
          well yes i'd have thought that would be obvious
          >You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in a Christian faith.
          i was brought up faithless
          i don't believe in any formally recognized thing
          not even the things people believe in as a joke to mock the other formally recognized things
          actually least of all them. they are silliest and most implausible
          i do believe in a god
          but it's not any god any other faith believes in
          or perhaps more accurately it's the one that was trying to speak to all of them, and that they all heard differently

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i do believe in a god
            >but it's not any god any other faith believes in
            >or perhaps more accurately it's the one that was trying to speak to all of them, and that they all heard differently
            why? no evidence for it

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              there's no evidence for any religion that can't just as well be attributed to some other cause
              nor can there be
              the divine hypothesis is fundamentally unfalsifiable because it's too ill-defined
              so, since i know it's logically impossible for proof either way to ever emerge, i just pick the side that feels right

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                there's no evidence for anything on that can't just as well be attributed to some other cause, but your explainations will eventually sound pretty stupid

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                so what, you'd rather they start out sounding stupid right out the gate?

                It's always esoteric pseudoscience until hundreds of years later it's found to perfectly encapsulate an important new rigour in science

                double slit proved a machine with no ai software can be an observer.
                where's your quantum mind in that scenario?
                please don't tell me a laser has a mind. i don't think i could contain my laughter

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                People used to attempt to explain everything with religion, but you can agree it sounds pretty stupid when science has demonstrated how they work
                But there are things that science can't explain either, you can attempt to do so but it just sounds stupid like you're reaching

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the difference is there's nothing science *continues indefinitely* not to be able to explain
                it is a stretch
                we do reach
                but then, having reached, we grab hold
                that's the difference

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's nothing science *continues indefinitely* not to be able to explain
                conciousness

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                reticular activating system

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                that's neuroscience, and no scientific link has been established between that and consciousness
                science knows essentially nothing about it

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no scientific link has been established between that and consciousness
                on the contrary we've shown a link experimentally
                as long as you're talking about consciousness as a state of arousal
                which we both know you weren't, so i'll admit i made this point in bad faith
                as for what you *meant* by consciousness -- qualia -- not everyone can even agree there exists anything to be explained

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not everyone can even agree there exists anything to be explained
                yeah and a few hundred years ago I could have said atoms don't exist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                atoms were eventually discovered
                the future hasn't arrived yet so "but what if qualia is eventually discovered" is currently nothing but conjecture

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not talking about qualia
                I'm simplying saying science hasn't revealed shit about consciousness

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what do you mean you're not talking about qualia
                do you mean you *are* talking about consciousness as a state of arousal after all
                because if so:
                >reticular activating system
                or are you implying there's a difference between the metaphysical concept of consciousness, as distinct from the proven-existing state of arousal by the same name, and the metaphysical concept of qualia
                because i don't see the difference, to me they seem like the same metaphysical concept

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                consciousness isn't either "qualia" or "a state of arousal" smartass

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "consciousness" is factually a name for a state of arousal
                (sleep/wake arousal, not sexual arousal)
                it's also a name for a totally distinct metaphysical concept, which i presume is what you're talking about
                "qualia" is also a name for a metaphysical concept
                i know these two metaphysical concepts are distinct in theory, but in practice, i fail to see the qualitative difference. they seem to describe the same hypothetical property of a person

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're talking about it like it's a rigorously defined scientific term when it's the opposite

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                look i just don't see the difference ok. when you use the term "consciousness" in the metaphysical sense (as opposed to its established scientific meaning) it feels like the same idea as "qualia." i'm unaware of any differences between these things' meanings.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                qualia is a specific idea
                consciousness is more broad and ill-defined

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is-or-has qualia that we would struggle to intuit as anywhere close to sufficient of scale or complexity for a mind, but it is nonetheless a coherent observer of something and a member of the universal EM continuum

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Either you're trolling, or you've thought about this so hard and for so long that you've completely lost touch with reality, and got tangled in your own thoughts/very specific semantics. Zoom out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >please don't tell me a laser has a mind. i don't think i could contain my laughter
                This is the ultimate conclusion of the Qualia-gay only then they refuse to accept this and go full crazy see:

                >Qualia does exist
                It literally can not.

                And you schizo posting about your Qualia while literally giving self contradicting and impossible descriptions of it is the nail in its coffin.
                > For example, the "redness" of an apple
                Its like sniffing bronze age farts it is 2022 you retard.

                >For example, the "redness" of an apple, not as waves of light or as electrical brain signals but as the color Red we see and experience. "Red" doesn't exist outside experience, only waves of light, but we can perceive and experience red.
                See you schizo posts while literally giving self contradicting and impossible descriptions of it.

                >For example, the "redness" of an apple,
                >not as waves of light or as electrical brain signals
                So every sensor literally every diode has Qualia since it detects color or your HD video signal and has it as a sensation
                >[more schizo shit]
                I suggest we cut your optical nerves and you tell us how red the apple is then you retard.
                >NOOO REEEE an AI detecting a HD signal and reacting to it does not count !
                >REEE FACE ID IS NOT RELAY SEEING FACES REEEEE
                Schizo trash.

                >Red" doesn't exist outside experience
                BOT question
                Can you tell me what bits red correspond in the sRGB color space ?

                >Try to explain the color Red to someone who's never seen it before without using other colors.
                I have a better example try to describe what atomic radiation or magnetism feels like to a human.
                OH LOOK computers have Qualia while humans do not. Or what you retard ?

                >Try to explain
                Try to explain to a human what a electromagnetic strength feels like.

                OH LOOK endless self contradiction of the schizo it is.

                >Interact with me without pointing out that what I say is wrong.
                NO !
                >2+3 = fish
                Your are a schizo.

                >Qualia
                Prove Qualia is real first.

                >Qualia is a pretty well established philosophical
                Translation
                >NOO REEE Muh christian and other retards and their made up cope !
                LOL.

                >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about
                Yes because it is schizo trash.
                >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about

                Counter question (this debunks you) answer this:
                >Do you understand what the time cube is ?
                >NO ?
                >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about
                >You are not allowed to say it is schizo shit !

                And you debunked yourself.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I already responded to that one quite cogently, but the discussion has fully degraded in my absence overnight so it doesn't matter

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No you did not you got debunked.

                >A sensor detecting the color red is the same as a human experiencing the sensation of red

                You are autistic

                Cope.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're so committed to ideology that deny you deny your own subjective experience

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're so committed to ideology
                You are projecting.

                >b-b-b -what if someones red is different
                Nope. Chemistry and physics are the same for these materials.
                >REEEE

                >You're so committed to ideology
                You are projecting.
                You are so dedicated to christieanity and the soul nonsense that you must grasp at schizo trash to not admit everything in your religion is wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not religious retard. Go back to r/atheism.

                >we can measure the physical properties of particles and this explains why an amalgamation of enough of these perspectiveless particles magically begins calling itself "I" and personally feels things

                If us experiencing red was like a sensor detecting red there would be no need for an "I" to experience red; under evolutionary theory nothing would change if organic masses responded to stimuli and processed emotions objectively rather than a thinking feeling subject experiencing said stimuli.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not religious retard
                Then you are cucking for religion (this is worse) you agnostic trash.

                >>we can measure the physical properties of particles and this explains why an amalgamation of enough of these perspectiveless particles magically begins calling itself "I" and personally feels things

                Wow it is like listening to a creationist talk.

                > under evolutionary theory nothing would change
                Literally like a creationist.

                >detecting red there would be no need for an "I" to experience
                Whats this the religion gay (that larps an agnostic) magically changed the definition ? Call us when you have your final definition of your shit because now you are changing it there was nothing about an "I" before.

                >under evolutionary theory
                You understand nothing about evolution.

                Also what is your point ? That only humans have this magic or also animals if yes then what animals do not have this magic ?
                > no need for an "I" to experience
                You can program this in, if not it existing by default since even micro controllers have
                this->x = x;

                Functionality. Turns out this is extremely advantageous and excluding basically brain dead/no-brain animals the feeling of pain emerges in evolution. Basically starting to spasm around or stopping moving in some direction if X sensations are true helps the organism not be killed by not walking into a magma stream (under ocean creatures like star fish etc) or running away from being eaten.

                This way pain or even fear are established same for pleasure since eating is pleasurable and to be continued. In some way the organism """understands"""" itself and the external world are not the same. Any questions you agnostic creationist fuck ?

                >Go back to r/atheism.

                And you fuck back to r/christian

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>

                [...]

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >still crying about religion, fundamentally failing to grasp the hard problem of consciousness

                You write like an ESL AI that reads science subreddits all day then spews out word salad.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's soooodoscience it said so in a PAPER ahhhh I'm DEBOOOONKING
                Cringe. Science without philosophy is rote engineering.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I told you to ask you retard and not put words in my mouth.

                >I'm still not engaging in a debate only strawmanning my opposition and talking to my schizo self

                See and this is why people laugh at you.

                Everyone can do this
                >It is real because my pastor told me so !

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >stop strawmanning me, Christian
                I'm literally arguing a position very far from the concept of a soul.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm literally arguing a position very far from the concept of a soul.
                YIKES.

                The chain of replies is about this anon saying
                >SOULS ARE REAL !
                In

                Simple. Do your scientists know how sentience arises? No. But we have known for a long time. Even pagans have known. Humans are the only sentient lifeforms because we were given souls by god. Nothing else can be sentient. Without a god-given soul things are just input/output machines without true thought or perception. No more sentient than your computer "knowing" which processes it's running.

                This means ALL animals are objects and man is alone on this earth. We can make a computer that imitates a human mind but it will never be sentient unless god gives it a soul.

                /thread

                Who are you and when did you inject yourself into this conversation ?

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think our brains are sentient due to the non deterministic nature and the quantum representation of how our brains work.
    It doesn't matter how hard you try to scan and probe, you cannot copy a brain without some loss of information.
    If you could copy a brain (or even fabricate brains that are identical in knowledge), you would be able to put both the brains in the same mirrored room, and they would respond to each other with the exact same response, like talking to a mirror. But this isn't possible because our brains are affected by the tiniest particles in the fabric of our universe and you can't copy them.
    AI's are deterministic, sure if you give the same question to an AI multiple times it will give different answers, but that is purely due to the pseudo RNG generator (and even if you take the generator from a true random generator, like a crystal of some sort, that RNG is serialized into a binary number, and the effect is faked).
    Maybe if AI's started using quantum computers maybe something can come out of that, but quantum computers ATM are just calculators, if there was an algorithm for quantum AI, it would have been invented in the 90's since people wrote down how a quantum computer works and how to give it a calculation back then.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's impossible to prove that anything is sentient.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dualism
    Depends what you mean.
    > impossible for AI to ever be sentient.
    1) Google AI and other AI have burned the combination of the word Artificial and Intelligence forever
    2) I think real AI is inevitable.

    >sentient
    See this can not happen because "sentient" is a nonsense word.

    Same for the nonsense words like
    >Consciousness
    >Qualia

    etc.

    >dualism
    However it is a fact that souls can not exist. So the debate is over except for salty idiots making up new nonsense words.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nonsense words like Qualia
      Qualia does exist and science cannot quantify it. It refers to the lived experience of the senses. For example, the "redness" of an apple, not as waves of light or as electrical brain signals but as the color Red we see and experience. "Red" doesn't exist outside experience, only waves of light, but we can perceive and experience red.

      Try to explain the color Red to someone who's never seen it before without using other colors. It can't be done, because Qualia is not observable to anyone but the perceiver, and so making scientific claims about Qualia is impossible, because they can't be verified.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Qualia does exist
        It literally can not.

        And you schizo posting about your Qualia while literally giving self contradicting and impossible descriptions of it is the nail in its coffin.
        > For example, the "redness" of an apple
        Its like sniffing bronze age farts it is 2022 you retard.

        >For example, the "redness" of an apple, not as waves of light or as electrical brain signals but as the color Red we see and experience. "Red" doesn't exist outside experience, only waves of light, but we can perceive and experience red.
        See you schizo posts while literally giving self contradicting and impossible descriptions of it.

        >For example, the "redness" of an apple,
        >not as waves of light or as electrical brain signals
        So every sensor literally every diode has Qualia since it detects color or your HD video signal and has it as a sensation
        >[more schizo shit]
        I suggest we cut your optical nerves and you tell us how red the apple is then you retard.
        >NOOO REEEE an AI detecting a HD signal and reacting to it does not count !
        >REEE FACE ID IS NOT RELAY SEEING FACES REEEEE
        Schizo trash.

        >Red" doesn't exist outside experience
        BOT question
        Can you tell me what bits red correspond in the sRGB color space ?

        >Try to explain the color Red to someone who's never seen it before without using other colors.
        I have a better example try to describe what atomic radiation or magnetism feels like to a human.
        OH LOOK computers have Qualia while humans do not. Or what you retard ?

        >Try to explain
        Try to explain to a human what a electromagnetic strength feels like.

        OH LOOK endless self contradiction of the schizo it is.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          take your meds

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing you said here connects to anything I've said. You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about, or are intentionally making no effort to do so.
          Can you actually demonstrate how I'm wrong without just saying "schizo shit"? Qualia is a pretty well established philosophical idea, it's not schizo shit it's mainstream philosophy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Interact with me without pointing out that what I say is wrong.
            NO !
            >2+3 = fish
            Your are a schizo.

            >Qualia
            Prove Qualia is real first.

            >Qualia is a pretty well established philosophical
            Translation
            >NOO REEE Muh christian and other retards and their made up cope !
            LOL.

            >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about
            Yes because it is schizo trash.
            >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about

            Counter question (this debunks you) answer this:
            >Do you understand what the time cube is ?
            >NO ?
            >You clearly either fail to comprehend what I'm talking about
            >You are not allowed to say it is schizo shit !

            And you debunked yourself.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Noooo my website says.
                LOL

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A sensor detecting the color red is the same as a human experiencing the sensation of red

          You are autistic

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sentience is a concept for organic beings

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI will never be sentient. You are the one who has to prove otherwise.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Overthinking overanalyzing separates the body from the mind

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Qualia is the way.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Simple. Do your scientists know how sentience arises? No. But we have known for a long time. Even pagans have known. Humans are the only sentient lifeforms because we were given souls by god. Nothing else can be sentient. Without a god-given soul things are just input/output machines without true thought or perception. No more sentient than your computer "knowing" which processes it's running.

    This means ALL animals are objects and man is alone on this earth. We can make a computer that imitates a human mind but it will never be sentient unless god gives it a soul.

    /thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Humans are the only sentient lifeforms
      >This means ALL animals are objects
      No.
      Fuck you.
      My dog is a real boy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >soul
      However the existence of souls in humans is already debunked BOT gay.

      Go back to >>>>BOT

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it's been deboonked, chud!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If I spam memes instead of engaging with the facts .. .maybe other retards will think I'm smart
          Exterminate yourself retard.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If I spam memes instead of engaging with the facts .. .maybe other retards will think I'm smart
          Exterminate yourself retard.

          You can ask
          >Why is the soul debunked
          And I can educate you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but you can't debunk the soul, it's impossible.
            >inb4 well you can't prove that a teapot doesn't--
            Yes. You can't debunk the teapot either.
            Only being willing to consider a possibility if there's proof that it's true -- skepticism, in other words -- is just a stupid epistemological life philosophy. I am willing to consider Russell's teapot may exist. (You) would laugh it off as absurd, and use its absurdity to support the idea that God and souls are also absurd. But absurd things have been true before, and when ideas are unfalsifiable anyway, it's not like anyone is ever going to know if your belief in them was right or wrong, so you might as well believe just because it's more fun.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              LOL.
              Look the souls do not exist basically for the same reason that we know that we can make coal liquid. We have some pretty good evidence. And the fact that the other side is basically schizo trash like

              >it's soooodoscience it said so in a PAPER ahhhh I'm DEBOOOONKING
              Cringe. Science without philosophy is rote engineering.

              makes them not worth engaging and our conclusion certain.

              Want to know why that is so ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We have some pretty good evidence
                The soul is unfalsifiable. It's impossible for evidence for or against it to exist because the concept is too ill-defined. Claiming to have "some pretty good evidence" that we "know" the soul doesn't exist is the most retarded thing I've heard in this whole thread, and would be just as stupid if you were claiming the same about knowing it does.
                >But muh brain poking
                Play 999. Maybe the brain is just an output device. Not saying I believe that, just showing how literally any evidence you throw at the soul, for *or* against, can be turned on its head.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The soul is unfalsifiable
                Actually it is disprovable and disproved. The soul hypothesis makes some predictions, predictions who can not be true in our reality.

                >Play 999. Maybe the brain is
                The absolute cope of the religion gay.

                >The soul is unfalsifiable
                >AHA I decided to make my hypothesis non scientific, take that science !

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The soul hypothesis makes some predictions
                Like what?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Like what?
                You tell me. What is the idea of the soul you are arguing for or proposing ? No need for me to write a wall of text for you to basically go
                >Awchually the soul is this self contradictory nonsense I made up checkmate atheists
                And then I go "schizo trash is false by default"
                And so your made up schizo trash got LITERALLY DISPROVED by logic.

                You are the one saying X exists so say what you are thinking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think souls exist.
                Actually, I don't think souls exist because I don't think they make (currently) testable predictions. So I'm curious to hear what falsified predictions you do think there are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Logic can not disprove anything without finding evidence to the contrary, otherwise it is simply vapid bullshit that sounds right.

                Can you prove a material origin for consciousness? No? Because I have spoken to an archangel and know that only humans have souls which are shadow selves made of the same stuff as god that exist in a type of reality we can not perceive with our bodies or any current scientific instruments.

                Unless you can prove the material origin for consciousness and replicate your findings, your "logic" is nothing more than a false faith based entirely on sounding very convincing. It's not like god told you "no souls bro".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What schizo trash.

                > Because I have spoken to an archangel
                This is you hallucinating schizo.

                >Unless you can prove the material origin for consciousness and replicate your findings,
                Shut up schizo.

                > It's not like god told you "no souls bro".
                You wait until your god starts telling you to cook with human shit like he does in the bible. Meany KEKS !

                >Bro I like have voices in my head they must be like god or spirits.
                You have schizophrenia.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Unless you can prove the material origin for consciousness and replicate your findings
                >Shut up schizo
                That anon is logically correct, and you are incorrect. Proof and science goes both ways, just trying to act like a smug atheist doesn't make you any more right.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you can prove the material origin for consciousness and replicate your findings
                YIKES !

                Logic can not disprove anything without finding evidence to the contrary, otherwise it is simply vapid bullshit that sounds right.

                Can you prove a material origin for consciousness? No? Because I have spoken to an archangel and know that only humans have souls which are shadow selves made of the same stuff as god that exist in a type of reality we can not perceive with our bodies or any current scientific instruments.

                Unless you can prove the material origin for consciousness and replicate your findings, your "logic" is nothing more than a false faith based entirely on sounding very convincing. It's not like god told you "no souls bro".

                Literally posted:
                >Because I have spoken to an archangel and know that only humans have souls which are shadow selves made of the same stuff as god that exist in a type of reality we can not perceive with our bodies or any current scientific instruments.

                He is a real schizo with hallucinations and all. Why should anyone continue this conversation ?

                >for consciousness
                Nonsense word. Prove this is even real.

                You keep bringing in schizo word after schizo word.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally posted:
                I have spoken to an archangel and know that only humans have souls which are shadow selves made of the same stuff as god that exist in a type of reality we can not perceive with our bodies or any current scientific instruments.
                Not him but I'm the anon who said I'm agnostic, and choose to believe in the basic idea of a god because it's unfalsifiable and makes me feel better, and I can't prove there's no tiger behind me, and neither can you, nor can you prove there's no teapot in space, because "muh negative knowledge" / "muh it must not be true if there's no evidence it is" is a logical fallacy.
                You can't use this unrelated anon's arguments against me as if to imply they'd come out of my own mouth.
                You've shown you have only two arguments:
                >muh schizo / retard / insane asylum
                >muh negative knowledge
                Prove to me there's no tiger behind me WITHOUT invoking either.
                I'm OP btw

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He is a real schizo with hallucinations and all. Why should anyone continue this conversation ?
                Ad hominem. You are being just as logical as anyone believing in spaghetti monster.

                >consciousness
                >Nonsense word
                It's in almost every english dictionary, pretty common and relevant word? What about it don't you understand?
                Ok, do you accept "sentience" as a word that has meaning?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ad hominem
                Cry more I reject logical fallacies.

                >. You are being just as logical as anyone believing in spaghetti monster.
                Cry more. My reasoning is not derived from logic and rejects it.

                >b-b-b- wikipedia says
                Wikipedia says lots of nonsense.
                > english dictionary,
                Are you retarded ? You clearly do not understand what a dictionary even is. If you are so retarded to search for any definitions in one.

                >dictionary
                Often have nonsensical or circular definitions.

                >Ok, do you accept "sentience" as a word that has meaning?
                NO.
                See more schizo words.

                >b-b-b- my books say
                Yes and religion gays also include literally disproved impossibilities like the trinity in them.

                Religion gays and their schizo words being common does not make them valid concepts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                On which base to you reject religion?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not him but
                >My reasoning is not derived from logic and rejects it.
                So. Your standard of knowledge is negative knowledge, and mine is logical possibility. You reject logic, and I reject negative knowledge.
                Ok.
                So there's no way to have a debate that isn't a shouting match.
                Good to know

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Good to know
                Yep.

                >Your standard of knowledge is negative knowledge,
                Nope. My position is more complicated and I'm on the empiricism side in the empiricism VS rationalism/logic split.

                I do not reject thinking however it is not logic based since logic is pants shittingly retarded and self contradictory.

                Basically it is this:
                1) Empiricism and induction
                2) Everything else is submissive to empiricism is superior to everything else.
                3) Thinking and reasoning can be used only they are different from logic (more like logic is a made up corrupted and impossible form of reasoning) if no empirical data exists however are always subject to empiricism.
                4) There are 2 kinds of knowledge positive knowledge and negative knowledge. Positive knowledge is superior to negative knowledge however negative knowledge can be used.

                This also brings proof from negatives and proof from positives.

                Basically if you connect 2 metals together and no electricity or chemical reaction is created you can conclude that these chemical will not react together. This is a negative proof and constitutes negative knowledge.

                If you mix 2 chemicals together and a chemical reaction is created this is recorded as positive evidence and constitutes positive knowledge.

                >Good to know
                Dude if you are in the atheism space you encounter christian presupositionalists who are basically
                >God is real since I make up a presupposition that god is real LALALALALALA
                And in my framework you conclude these are idiots an move on, welcome to reality.
                Any questions ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >logic is pants shittingly retarded and self contradictory.
                Logic isn't self-contradictory, just incomplete. And you have to be one or the other, by the way. Empiricism, being complete, is the true self-contradictory school of thought. But that's fine, it's not logic-based, so it doesn't have to be consistent.
                >Basically it is this:
                >1) Empiricism and induction
                >2) Everything else is submissive to empiricism is superior to everything else.
                >3) Thinking and reasoning can be used only they are different from logic (more like logic is a made up corrupted and impossible form of reasoning) if no empirical data exists however are always subject to empiricism.
                That all makes sense to me, but I think I still like logic better.
                >That's because y--
                (You)r typical insult meltdown need not apply.
                >4) There are 2 kinds of knowledge positive knowledge and negative knowledge. Positive knowledge is superior to negative knowledge
                Makes sense.
                >however negative knowledge can be used.
                This is stupid. If we trusted negative knowledge, we would have "known" atoms don't exist back when we didn't know they did. Yet they do.
                >but muh falsifiable vs unfalsifiable
                There is no benefit to arbitrarily deciding unfalsifiable hypotheses are false. There can't be, because they're unfalsifiable. Their influence doesn't extend to ultimate interpretation of the empirical facts. Believing in God and souls has no impact on your ability to perform any experiment and derive and understand meaningful results, because it's a belief that will always be about some imaginary thing "beyond" whatever you're researching. The only corrosive influence of spiritualism on the scientitic method comes from retards who believe in the *falsifiable* parts of religion.
                >>God is real since I make up a presupposition that god is real LALALALALALA
                Yes, but they're saying their premise proves god IS real. That's the stupid part. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying the premise proves god MIGHT be real.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but I think I still like logic better.
                You can not have both.
                https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

                And if you are on the logic side you must reject reality in like if you think airplanes can not exist since heavier then air travel is impossible and I show you a functioning airplane you literally must conclude that what you see in reality is wrong and your bla bla crazy in your head is right.

                This is what it means to be on the side of logic.

                To reject this is to be crazy in like
                >[implied] actually it is Ok for me to make empiricism the superior one over rationalism/logic.

                Yea sure I can run simulations and have my predictions however if real experiments show that my head simulations are wrong I can simply go
                >Ok I was wrong in my predictions.

                While this is not possible for a rationalist without hi being literally insane, since he will continue his dogma spamming about how logic is superior to empiricism.

                >This is stupid.
                It is a actually not.
                >If we trusted negative knowledge
                Lets see:
                Lets make an experiment like mixing Argon and Xenon. Now tell me what will you record ?
                Argo and Xenon failed to react with one another.

                And this is negative knowledge.
                (who can be revised in the future, maybe we did the experiment wrong)

                The fuck will you write down if you reject negative knowledge ? You can not conclude that they fail to react since this is le evil negative knowledge.

                >atoms don't exist back when we didn't know they did
                What is this even. I fail to understand what crazy trash you are posting here.
                (notice there is a difference between crazy, insane and schizo and in the way I use them)

                1/2

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can not have both.
                >https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
                Imagine using reason to show you can't have both empiricism and reason.
                I can just decide to have both, and make that decision at a cognitive stage prior to either. Who's going to stop me?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine using reason to show you can't have both empiricism and reason.
                YES.
                Refer to this hierarchy:

                >Good to know
                Yep.

                >Your standard of knowledge is negative knowledge,
                Nope. My position is more complicated and I'm on the empiricism side in the empiricism VS rationalism/logic split.

                I do not reject thinking however it is not logic based since logic is pants shittingly retarded and self contradictory.

                Basically it is this:
                1) Empiricism and induction
                2) Everything else is submissive to empiricism is superior to everything else.
                3) Thinking and reasoning can be used only they are different from logic (more like logic is a made up corrupted and impossible form of reasoning) if no empirical data exists however are always subject to empiricism.
                4) There are 2 kinds of knowledge positive knowledge and negative knowledge. Positive knowledge is superior to negative knowledge however negative knowledge can be used.

                This also brings proof from negatives and proof from positives.

                Basically if you connect 2 metals together and no electricity or chemical reaction is created you can conclude that these chemical will not react together. This is a negative proof and constitutes negative knowledge.

                If you mix 2 chemicals together and a chemical reaction is created this is recorded as positive evidence and constitutes positive knowledge.

                >Good to know
                Dude if you are in the atheism space you encounter christian presupositionalists who are basically
                >God is real since I make up a presupposition that god is real LALALALALALA
                And in my framework you conclude these are idiots an move on, welcome to reality.
                Any questions ?

                Especially this
                >3) Thinking and reasoning can be used only they are different from logic (more like logic is a made up corrupted and impossible form of reasoning) if no empirical data exists however are always subject to empiricism.

                Do you have any problems understanding this ?

                >Who's going to stop me?
                I'm simply telling you I will label you as crazy or trolling and simply end the debate this way.
                >b-b-b I wanted to act like a total gayot.
                Then you get banned like a total gayot. Or in this case I stop pretending to take you seriously and only insult you for your behavior.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Using both empiricism and reason just werks, I use it in my daily life and have never had a problem with it. Hurr and durr at it all you want, I don't care that reason says empiricism and reason don't get along, empiricism says they do.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and have never had a problem with it.
                One needs to be superior to the other see the split and the airplane example in

                >but I think I still like logic better.
                You can not have both.
                https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

                And if you are on the logic side you must reject reality in like if you think airplanes can not exist since heavier then air travel is impossible and I show you a functioning airplane you literally must conclude that what you see in reality is wrong and your bla bla crazy in your head is right.

                This is what it means to be on the side of logic.

                To reject this is to be crazy in like
                >[implied] actually it is Ok for me to make empiricism the superior one over rationalism/logic.

                Yea sure I can run simulations and have my predictions however if real experiments show that my head simulations are wrong I can simply go
                >Ok I was wrong in my predictions.

                While this is not possible for a rationalist without hi being literally insane, since he will continue his dogma spamming about how logic is superior to empiricism.

                >This is stupid.
                It is a actually not.
                >If we trusted negative knowledge
                Lets see:
                Lets make an experiment like mixing Argon and Xenon. Now tell me what will you record ?
                Argo and Xenon failed to react with one another.

                And this is negative knowledge.
                (who can be revised in the future, maybe we did the experiment wrong)

                The fuck will you write down if you reject negative knowledge ? You can not conclude that they fail to react since this is le evil negative knowledge.

                >atoms don't exist back when we didn't know they did
                What is this even. I fail to understand what crazy trash you are posting here.
                (notice there is a difference between crazy, insane and schizo and in the way I use them)

                1/2

                If you are on the logic side you must reject reality in like if you think airplanes can not exist since heavier then air travel is impossible and I show you a functioning airplane you literally must conclude that what you see in reality is wrong and your bla bla crazy in your head is right.

                This is what it means to be on the side of logic.

                To reject this is to be crazy in like
                >[implied] actually it is Ok for me to make empiricism the superior one over rationalism/logic.

                Yea sure I can run simulations and have my predictions however if real experiments show that my head simulations are wrong I can simply go
                >Ok I was wrong in my predictions.

                While this is not possible for a rationalist without hi being literally insane, since he will continue his dogma spamming about how logic is superior to empiricism.

                > empiricism says they do.
                This is literally insane you troll.
                Because empiricism can not say anything, what experimenter did you make here ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You say to reject this is to be crazy, yet I just use them in tandem and it just werks. Crazy people's cognitive models don't just werk, that's the defining feature of being crazy. Mine does.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                (cont'd from

                You say to reject this is to be crazy, yet I just use them in tandem and it just werks. Crazy people's cognitive models don't just werk, that's the defining feature of being crazy. Mine does.

                )
                >what experimenter did you make here ?
                Absolutely incredible ESL moment btw. Goin in the compilation for sure.
                Anyway, my *life* is the experiment.
                I apply logic and empiricism to observations and ideas I encounter in my life.
                I don't fap my dick over how superior one is to the other.
                According to you, this should mean I can't make sense of anything.
                Yet I have no trouble doing so.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Anyway, my *life* is the experiment.
                LOL tell this to any scientist comedy gold and you will make their day.

                >what experimenter did you make here ?
                Oh no the auto correct changed experiment to experimenter my FSM WHAT TERRIBLE THING I DID.
                Are you seriously this level of a joke ? I write full ~2000 posts and all you have is this ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But it's not in a laboratory with a control group and repetition and and
                Cope. My life is at present the only life I have to live. Using logic and empiricism on equal terms unironically "works on MY machine."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok schizo and I'm out everyone se you real life is calling.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Cope. My life is at present the only life I have to live. Using logic and empiricism on equal terms unironically "works on MY machine."

                Oh really? YOUR life? YOUR machine? What part did you play in bringing about and sustaining your own existence?

                This line of thought follows the illogical path of excluding self-evident facts because they conflict with what you've chosen to believe... You want to deny that you were created by the Father in Heaven to serve Him, and believe you are the master...but you're not, and regardless of beliefs and theories you will stand before Him someday, as will we all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but I think I still like logic better.
                You can not have both.
                https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

                And if you are on the logic side you must reject reality in like if you think airplanes can not exist since heavier then air travel is impossible and I show you a functioning airplane you literally must conclude that what you see in reality is wrong and your bla bla crazy in your head is right.

                This is what it means to be on the side of logic.

                To reject this is to be crazy in like
                >[implied] actually it is Ok for me to make empiricism the superior one over rationalism/logic.

                Yea sure I can run simulations and have my predictions however if real experiments show that my head simulations are wrong I can simply go
                >Ok I was wrong in my predictions.

                While this is not possible for a rationalist without hi being literally insane, since he will continue his dogma spamming about how logic is superior to empiricism.

                >This is stupid.
                It is a actually not.
                >If we trusted negative knowledge
                Lets see:
                Lets make an experiment like mixing Argon and Xenon. Now tell me what will you record ?
                Argo and Xenon failed to react with one another.

                And this is negative knowledge.
                (who can be revised in the future, maybe we did the experiment wrong)

                The fuck will you write down if you reject negative knowledge ? You can not conclude that they fail to react since this is le evil negative knowledge.

                >atoms don't exist back when we didn't know they did
                What is this even. I fail to understand what crazy trash you are posting here.
                (notice there is a difference between crazy, insane and schizo and in the way I use them)

                1/2

                2/2

                >Yes, but
                Say how you deal with human trash like this. My methodology is simple I conclude they are wrong and that is it what do you do ?

                I called your dogma basically centrism because you remind me of centrists who will go
                >Ha censorship is always wrong, do not censor
                >Whats this someone banning people on their channel ? HAHAH triggered snowflake can you not deal with trolling triggered ! Get out of the internet !

                And then after the alt-right behaved like absolute apes in the centrists chat he started banning them.

                All this dogma about this being wrong somehow got thrown out (nothing wrong with that) however then the centrist trash instead of reconsidering his life and ideology. Continued the same shit dogma about
                >Ha censorship is always wrong, do not censor
                >Whats this someone banning people on their channel ? HAHAH triggered snowflake can you not deal with trolling triggered ! Get out of the internet !

                And this is simply crazy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Empiricism and induction
                Induction is a form of logic.

                > logic is pants shittingly retarded and self contradictory.
                Logic is the opposite of self-contradictory, and there is no such thing as a self-contradiction without logic.
                Empiricism is itself reliant on logic, because without it you can not deduce that any two cases are the same. All empiricism can prove is that what happened at the specific time and under the specific conditions, happened.

                >Basically if you connect 2 metals together and no electricity or chemical reaction is created you can conclude that these chemical will not react together.
                However that's empirically wrong, there are many cases where reactions are dependant on conditions. If you do this in our atmosphere, it does not show that they will not react together in some other atmosphere, medium, radiation

                >NOO you must respect my time cube
                No. Debunked.
                If you disagree then tell me your reaction to time cube.

                If your methodology has no way to reject schizos, crazies or trolls then you will forever be trapped in a loop.

                Schizos are real.
                Crazies are real.
                And I will not pretend like a schizo has any value, I call that guy a schizo and we are finished here.

                >NO ree you must debate how I disprove you because 2+ yellow = fish !
                See time cube. I love to see how you fucken self contradict and show yourself to be crazy while trying to deal with that one.

                Will everything you accused me be shown there to be meaningless garbage or what ?
                What is your methodology there ?

                >I do not understand it
                If you are not crazy you will trap yourself in a endless loop where you will ask the time cube schizo to explain his time cube.

                However lets be real you will get sick of it and end the entire debate concluding you are right.
                Here is the difference I'm 100% honest about functioning like this. You on the other hand are repeating this centrist shit like
                >Oh you can not label people schizos and end the debate this way
                Only you then are proven to be crazy since all this sanctimonious shit really fucken did mean nothing.
                And make no mistake this is you being crazy.

                All you say is garbage. And it can be shown to be garbage.
                Yet you like the centrist you are keep on shouting your meaningless words and your crazy standards. This is what makes you crazy.

                >See time cube.
                What are you on about? Maybe you're an AI, even. You have clearly lost touch with reality since you're ignoring all logical and empiric points.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Induction is a form of logic.
                Not him (I'm agnostic-anon) but I'm not sure it's the form of logic you're thinking of.
                *Mathematical* induction is logically deductive. It's similar to logical induction, in that you try to prove a general statement by empirically proving individual cases, but dissimilar, in that the individual cases fit together deductively (base case + recursive case) for complete coverage of the possible-worlds space.
                *Logical* induction is just, "I've never seen a black swan, therefore all swans are white."
                It, unlike mathematical induction, is susceptible to the problem of induction. Hence the main reason I reject the concept of negative knowledge.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                jumping in here as an atheist. my position is not that that i say "there is no god", but i can say "there is no reason to think there is a god". how does an agnostic like yourself differ from this?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I agree there's no rational reason to think there's a god, but I think there's a psychological reason, and I think the importance of psychological reasons shouldn't be downplayed.
                It feels nice, so I do it.
                I don't worry about ever being proven wrong or my belief ever getting in the way of anything, because it's unfalsifiable, so that's impossible.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It feels nice, so I do it.

                just because you can write that sentence doesn't mean it's true. you're basically talking about tickling yourself, or getting the placebo effect from a pill that you know does nothing. your brain already knows he's not real, you can't trick it into getting those good feelings anymore

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I disagree. My brain doesn't "know" God isn't real. It knows I can't PROVE God is or isn't real. And because I reject negative knowledge, I don't see these as equivalent.
                My faith (in an abstract concept of a benevolent creator, independent from any particular religion) is completely sincere, down to my core.
                I can even explain from a psychological perspective exactly why I believe in god.
                You see:
                I love my parents.
                I, like everyone, am hard-wired from birth to love my parents, and to know they brought me into this world, and to see them as infallible all-powerful superhumans who control everything and can do no wrong, and to want to be just like them.
                I'm no longer so naive with respect to them. I don't see them as infallible or omnipotent anymore. Like everyone, I began to grow out of those illusions as a toddler, and was completely free of them well before adulthood.
                I still love them very much.
                But just because I stopped seeing my parents as gods, like everyone does, doesn't mean my need to see someone or something as a god disappeared from my psyche.
                I don't imagine it ever disappeared from yours either, but I'm sure you found an outlet.
                I, for one, don't impose an interpretation on that feeling, or attach it to an ideology. I simply embrace it.
                I don't know, nor have any desire to know, what specific hypothetical metaphysical entity, exactly, I have faith in.
                I simply have faith.
                I have it, as a feeling in my heart (not literally my heart, but you know what I mean), that I was born with, that never left me, even when it was divorced from reality.
                And I choose to honor it.
                That's all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >am about to tear this retard a new one by explaining the psychology of his delusion
                >"I can even explain from a psychological perspective exactly why I believe in god."
                >he proceeds to do all my work for me
                What did he mean by this

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > I can't PROVE God is or isn't real.
                im confused. why couldn't you prove he's real? if you saw him doing galaxy-level miracles that wouldn't be enough?

                >My faith (in an abstract concept of a benevolent creator, independent from any particular religion) is completely sincere

                yes, as sincere as believing in space unicorns... I'm not trying to be dismissive I'm being honest, when you admit you have zero reason to believe something is real but believe it anyway then it's just a flimsy whimsical belief. it's not anything at all like your parents who are extremely real and basically were gods compared to you as a child

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >im confused. why couldn't you prove he's real? if you saw him doing galaxy-level miracles that wouldn't be enough?
                "That's not god."
                Unfalsifiability goes both ways, if you can't define something well enough for proof against it to exist, then any proof in its favor can just as well be rejected as not *really* meeting the definition, and you end up with no room to argue because then you'd have to *actually give* a definition.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ok what if he just said he was the god of Mormons or whatever? wouldn't that give you a good reason to believe the Mormon's are right?

                >jumping in here as an atheist
                Technically I (this is me [...]) would be classified as an atheist however I'm more of an igtheist and do not like to sue the word atheists since rationalists like you always show up with crap like this
                > "there is no god"
                Yikes what impossible garbage.
                I on the other hand KNOW for a fact that there is no god and can never be any god.
                >but i can say "there is no reason to think there is a god"
                YIKES rationalist crap.
                And what does this mean ? Going to the negative and positive knowledge examples ABOUT REAL thinks like you know chemical reactions and finding your car keys. I have no problem using negative knowledge presenting a negative proof that there is no god.

                I mean we all conclude that there are no predator invisible dragons in the world based on the same negative knowledge and negative proofs. What is the alternative ? Concluding that everything exists ?

                ok

                (cont'd from [...])
                >when you admit you have zero reason to believe something is real but believe it anyway then it's just a flimsy whimsical belief
                Whimsical, yes. Flimsy, no.
                My faith is actually quite solid.
                Refusing to tie it to any specific idea actually makes it *stronger*. If there's *no* associated concept, all the more reason it can't be disproved.

                >Refusing to tie it to any specific idea actually makes it *stronger*.
                so you don't even know what you believe in so strongly while also admitting you have no reason to believe in it (whatever it is)...

                ah I figured it out.

                the "good feelings" you get are from writing these things on the internet and getting attention. I'm glad I could make your day a little better 🙂

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ok what if he just said he was the god of Mormons or whatever? wouldn't that give you a good reason to believe the Mormon's are right?
                Maybe he's lying.
                You see, as soon as you get into "but maybe's," you simply throw everything out the window.
                >the "good feelings" you get are from writing these things on the internet and getting attention
                No, that's incorrect. But you already knew that. You said you weren't trying to be dismissive, but now you clearly are.
                The good feeling I get is intrinsic. It's not "from" anything at all.
                I have a feeling of believing in something metaphysical I can't put my finger on.
                It's the same feeling that used to concern my parents before I learned, as any child does, that they aren't perfect.
                I chose to only disconnect that feeling from reality instead of ejecting it from my being entirely.
                Now it stays within me and makes me happy.
                Simple as.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Maybe he's lying.
                >You see, as soon as you get into "but maybe's," you simply throw everything out the window.
                so? maybe the entire world is lying to you and the earth is flat. im not saying anything is ever absolute proof, we can't even know what 1+1 is with absolute proof, I'm saying it would give you a damn good reason to believe the Mormons. at least as good of a reason to believe your parents are real anyway.

                >The good feeling I get is intrinsic. It's not "from" anything at all.
                ok

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm saying it would give you a damn good reason
                Only as good a reason as we have to *not* believe in God because evidence like this *hasn't* surfaced for all this time. And yet that's already not good enough for me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>I'm saying it would give you a damn good reason
                >Only as good a reason as we have to *not* believe in God because evidence like this *hasn't* surfaced for all this time. And yet that's already not good enough for me

                excuse me? all this time? what are you talking about..... if a black swan appears to you would you say "meh, I have no reason to believe in this black swan after all this time of no evidence for black swans."

                You're starting to sound a bit retarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >if a black swan appears to you
                If I lived in the age when we still thought there were no black swans, I would be incredulous, and need to scrutinize the fowl to make sure it is a swan.
                If it told me, "I am a swan," I'd actually be even more incredulous, as I was under the impression swans could not speak.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but it would still GIVE YOU A REASON to think black swans exist. jfc learn to read

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thinking is not knowing.

                Ok schizo and I'm out everyone se you real life is calling.

                Bye. Unironically have a nice day

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Thinking is not knowing
                you literally can't "know" anything. stop strawmanning

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you literally can't "know" anything.
                Yes, that's been (an extreme of) the better part of my point for quite awhile now

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                so drop it, philosophers figured out that doesn't mean shit hundreds of years ago. you're literally just hiding in that hole because you'll look retarded if you actually engaged in the argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't like to limit myself to one kind of believing. The conventional answer is "we can't know anything so we have to settle for believing what makes the most sense." I don't think we have to settle for that. I think there's one kind of belief that that works very well for, and there are also other kinds of belief that serve different purposes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                (cont'd from

                >if new evidence is shown this is changed.
                Allowing the truth to "change" is a solution, I guess, to the problem that trusting negative knowledge as an arbiter of truth can eventually lead to conflicting truths.
                But not an *elegant* solution.
                I don't much appreciate the idea that the truth changes. Intuitively, I'm inclined to see the truth as being something static.
                The idea that atoms started existing *because* we learned about them doesn't sit well with me.

                )
                >when you admit you have zero reason to believe something is real but believe it anyway then it's just a flimsy whimsical belief
                Whimsical, yes. Flimsy, no.
                My faith is actually quite solid.
                Refusing to tie it to any specific idea actually makes it *stronger*. If there's *no* associated concept, all the more reason it can't be disproved.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >(cont'd from

                >if new evidence is shown this is changed.


                Allowing the truth to "change" is a solution, I guess, to the problem that trusting negative knowledge as an arbiter of truth can eventually lead to conflicting truths.
                But not an *elegant* solution.
                I don't much appreciate the idea that the truth changes. Intuitively, I'm inclined to see the truth as being something static.
                The idea that atoms started existing *because* we learned about them doesn't sit well with me. (You) #)
                I meant from

                >im confused. why couldn't you prove he's real? if you saw him doing galaxy-level miracles that wouldn't be enough?
                "That's not god."
                Unfalsifiability goes both ways, if you can't define something well enough for proof against it to exist, then any proof in its favor can just as well be rejected as not *really* meeting the definition, and you end up with no room to argue because then you'd have to *actually give* a definition.

                Page didn't update, fucked me up

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >jumping in here as an atheist
                Technically I (this is me

                >Induction is a form of logic.
                Only some shit rationalists made up
                >If we call this big brother thinking (1984) then it must always be big brother thinking

                Rationalism is cancer and it poisons all words.

                >Logic is the opposite of self-contradictory, and there is no such thing as a self-contradiction without logic.
                LOL imagine thinking this crap.

                It is because logic is literally made up crap that is a corrupted form of natural human thinking, and this is what we have humans feeling based on things.

                Tell me how this part of logic contradiction itself makes you feel.
                Every logical fallacy is contradicted by the "argumentum ad logicam" or "fallacy fallacy" (cringe name)
                This means if you ever say
                >You committed the correlation is causation fallacy
                Then you literally can not even imply that this has any meaning whatsoever because going
                "you committed a logical fallacy" -> "therefore you are wrong"
                Is a logical fallacy in itself.

                In other words everything is a sin even pointing out something is sinful.

                Logic has no use and is literally trash. It is literally a long list of nonsense that is "sinful" where even pointing out that something is sinful is a sin. There is no methodology for dealing with anything.

                Look that one up it is there. Dude you got memed by some trash websites repeating lists of fallacies why did you assume this was correct ?

                >However that's empirically wrong, there are many cases where reactions are dependent on conditions. If you do this in our atmosphere, it does not show that they will not react together in some other atmosphere, medium, radiation
                Sure not only is this covered in the example I have given, however I assumed that the same conditions of gravity, pressure, radiation etc etc are assumed.

                >See time cube.
                What are you on about?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

                Debate this schizo shit. If you reject my methodology about rejecting schizos and other defectives.

                ) would be classified as an atheist however I'm more of an igtheist and do not like to sue the word atheists since rationalists like you always show up with crap like this
                > "there is no god"
                Yikes what impossible garbage.
                I on the other hand KNOW for a fact that there is no god and can never be any god.
                >but i can say "there is no reason to think there is a god"
                YIKES rationalist crap.
                And what does this mean ? Going to the negative and positive knowledge examples ABOUT REAL thinks like you know chemical reactions and finding your car keys. I have no problem using negative knowledge presenting a negative proof that there is no god.

                I mean we all conclude that there are no predator invisible dragons in the world based on the same negative knowledge and negative proofs. What is the alternative ? Concluding that everything exists ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Hence the main reason I reject the concept of negative knowledge.
                This is crazy nonsense.

                >MUH BLACK SWANS
                And ? You somehow think this rationalist crap is not total shit ?
                >b-b-b- you will conclude all swans are white
                OK so I will. Because they are all white. if new evidence is shown this is changed.

                Counter question are there transparent in like predator invisible swans ?
                Try to answer this without going crazy in your own methodology. What will you even say ?

                Your own methodology breaks if confronted with any tests.
                Because the question is unreasonable, what you posted is not even a coherent methodology.

                And I told you negative knowledge is always inferior to positive knowledge since positive knowledge = we see white swans therefore there are white swans.

                Pretty hard to challenge this.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >if new evidence is shown this is changed.
                Allowing the truth to "change" is a solution, I guess, to the problem that trusting negative knowledge as an arbiter of truth can eventually lead to conflicting truths.
                But not an *elegant* solution.
                I don't much appreciate the idea that the truth changes. Intuitively, I'm inclined to see the truth as being something static.
                The idea that atoms started existing *because* we learned about them doesn't sit well with me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The truth
                Did I use that word ? Not in the grandiose way you are using it.

                It is a methodology in dealing with reality.
                what do you say if i ask you to go find your car keys and you search and search and search and can not find them ?

                No seriously how will you behave ?
                You say:
                >There are no car keys here
                Only you will imply it is negative knowledge since you know you can look harder and maybe find them in this room or whatever.

                On the other hand positive knowledge is super hard yet not unbreakable.
                If you find the keys and have them in your hand you can say
                >I have the car keys
                it is pretty hard to overthrow positive knowledge.
                What where you hallucinating the car keys in your hand ? (This is always a possibility)

                >I don't much appreciate the idea that the truth changes.
                What is the alternative ? Keep the 4 element model of the world since changing this = bad ???

                >The idea that atoms started existing *because* we learned about them doesn't sit well with me.
                Did I ever say this ?
                The "starting to exist" shit ?

                Presumably (there are things who can start to exist like a processor that is 100 times faster then top processors in current year) they existed always we only discovered something new and changed our model of reality.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                are no car keys here
                >Only you will imply it is negative knowledge since you know you can look harder and maybe find them in this room or whatever.
                Yes. Those are useful avenues of thought in different ways. "There are no car keys here" is practical. "My car keys *could* be here" is the truth. "My car keys *are* here" is a possibility to keep in mind while you look for them somewhere else, and consider coming back to later.
                Rejecting all but the first of these will actually make you *less* effective at searching.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And at some point you conclude that despite looking in every corner you simply assume there are no car keys here.
                PS: What you seam to object ot is my use of the word negative and positive knowledge.

                I like them since negative => absence of evidence
                Also colloquially negative = bad (as opposed to negative pressure and negative space)
                And it is a inferior type of knowledge.

                While colloquially positive = good.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And at some point you conclude that despite looking in every corner you simply assume there are no car keys here.
                I would be dejected. The car keys would be on my mind for at least an hour. If it had been something more personal and dear to my heart, it may have been on my mind for upwards of years.
                So it is with my faith. Despite the absence of evidence, the thought that this is not evidence of absence forever haunts me. The difference is that instead of dejection, it brings me joy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So it is with my faith.
                And here we see everyone why religion poisons everything. This cultists needs to literally fuck up everything because muh invisible man in the clouds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Name one way that my faith poisons everything (it doesn't).
                All i gave you was an explanation as to how it feels, and your response is, "ah, so it poisons everything." As if that's in any way what i said.
                On the contrary, my faith poisons *nothing*, because it's unfalsifiable. It has no connection to any empirically observable phenomena, and therefore never impedes my understanding of such phenomena in any way.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >On the contrary, my faith poisons *nothing*, because it's
                You are a schizo.
                Yes this is how fast it works schizo.

                >Name one way that my faith poisons everything
                For spectators religious cultists need to make up absurd things and deny reality or the ability to function in it because the methodology that tells us that fire is hot and will burn us and that ice is cold simply undeniably concludes that god can not exist.

                And all of this because some garden gnomes 2000 years ago did think jesus has a jetpack (no for real) and anyone who has a jetpack = he must be a god.

                Yes it literally is this
                >Herp derp jesus can use the miracle of using his jetpack therefore he is a god.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the methodology that tells us that fire is hot and will burn us and that ice is cold simply undeniably concludes that god can not exist.
                Name one way that science proves it's impossible the universe was made by and/or is a conscious and loving creator who might not occupy the same temporospatial dimensions as ourselves. Because that's the full extent of my faith. I don't believe in jesus.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Name one way that science proves it's impossible the universe was
                See this is you being schizo and why religion poisons everything.

                >proves
                Negative proof.
                Show me this magic creature.
                And you have literally nothing !

                Can conclude this way there are no other people in the house this way, magically can not conclude here is no magic sky spook spook.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Negative proof.
                I reject this as a method of proof, as it offers only sufficient certainty for practical purposes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I reject this as a method of proof
                Of course you do because you realize the same methodology that tells you fire is hot and ice is cold tells you there is no god. And now you realized it so you make up some trash to protect your mind virus.

                >for practical purposes.
                Amazing you actually acknowledged the usefulness of my methodology. So what is the alternative the incoherent babbling of your pastor ?

                Here is another theory instead of literally making up garbage to protect your literally proven to be wrong shit about a god existing what if your pastor lied to your and your religion and this god insanity is only a mind virus trying to protect itself ?

                Ever considered that ? Because this is what is it in the end.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the same methodology that tells you fire is hot and ice is cold tells you there is no god.
                It literally doesn't.
                I don't need negative knowledge to tell me fire is hot and ice is cold.
                >>for practical purposes.
                >Amazing you actually acknowledged the usefulness of my methodology. So what is the alternative the incoherent babbling of your pastor ?
                I don't have a pastor. I was raised secular by agnostic parents and never visited a place of worship

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                2/2

                >Your entire idea of this nonsense comes from traditional religion so yes I owned you by pointing out the retardation of jesus
                Doesn't follow.
                I can point out 8086 is slow and underpowered by modern standards. Threadripper 3990 is an x86_64 ISA. Does that mean the threadripper is slow and underpowered?

                Get a load of this schizo.
                All you posted is invalid schizo.

                What happened in reality.
                The christian mind virus has mutated with some new age and other shit and became a strain this idiot has in his brain. Apparently this brain finds the idea that his incoherent trash is asserted into reality to be a strength.

                >Doesn't follow.
                Yes it does I traced the path of your mind virus.

                >I can point out 8086
                Bzzz invalid schizo.
                Processors are real they exist they are technology, gods do not and are not technology.
                If you disagree by your example schizo you must show me a jesus existing and working miracles I presume like the 8086 exists and can do calculations and then you must show me your god existing and and working miracles I presume like the Threadripper 3990.
                (lets ignore the theological implications of multiple gods)

                You can do none of this.
                See why all of what you say is invalid schizo trash ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you disagree by your example schizo you must show me a jesus existing and working miracles
                Why should I show you something I don't believe in?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why should I show you something I don't believe in?
                Because you absolute schizo

                the 8086 exists and can do calculations

                And

                the Threadripper 3990 exists and can do calculations.

                You did compare them to your god and jesus so go or admit your trash is wrong.

                >believe in?
                This is your problem no one believes in technology (despite what religion tries to twist language into).

                No one believes that the 8086 exists they KNOW it exists.
                No one believes that the Threadripper 3990 exists they KNOW it exists.

                See why religion is cancer and different.
                One of these things is not like the others.
                >Threadripper 3990
                >8086
                >Religious shit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the methodology that tells us that fire is hot and will burn us and that ice is cold simply undeniably concludes that god can not exist.
                Name one way that science proves it's impossible the universe was made by and/or is a conscious and loving creator who might not occupy the same temporospatial dimensions as ourselves. Because that's the full extent of my faith. I don't believe in jesus.

                What's the matter retard?
                You confused?
                All this time you thought you were debating a *christian* agnostic huh?
                Thought you were gonna epicly own me with fossil dating, evolution, le jesus jetpack ruse, etc?
                No dumbass. I'm a deist coexist agnostic.
                I have literally no beliefs about god except that he/she/xe/they/it is a benevolent conscious creator.
                It might not even occupy our universe or timeline. It might occupy a perpendicular timeline, in a universe whose spatial dimensions are all perpendicular to ours. So le big bang disproves nothing either. Who's to say it didn't cause it on purpose.
                But we know what caused the big bang, don't we? Or at least we have a pretty good idea. Vacuum decay. Time-energy uncertainty randomly emitted a burst of virtual particles so concentrated and violent that they couldn't self-annihilatein the normal sub-planck-length, and here we are.
                This was a consequence of uncertainty, so no deity could have willed it, right?
                But what if the wave function collapse *is* the form taken by the deity's will?
                You see? My beliefs are unfalsifiable. Because of this, they don't prevent me from understanding the world around me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You confused?
                No SCHIZO I'm not

                >Thought you were gonna epicly own me with fossil dating, evolution, le jesus jetpack ruse, etc?
                I actually did.

                >I have literally no beliefs about god except that he/she/xe/they/it is a benevolent conscious creator.
                Pictured a schizo retards.

                Literally
                >AHA I believe in something
                >Something I have no idea how it is
                >And I name this thing god !
                Insane asylum now.

                Your entire idea of this nonsense comes from traditional religion so yes I owned you by pointing out the retardation of jesus your schizo copy retardation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Your entire idea of this nonsense comes from traditional religion so yes I owned you by pointing out the retardation of jesus
                Doesn't follow.
                I can point out 8086 is slow and underpowered by modern standards. Threadripper 3990 is an x86_64 ISA. Does that mean the threadripper is slow and underpowered?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Induction is a form of logic.
                Only some shit rationalists made up
                >If we call this big brother thinking (1984) then it must always be big brother thinking

                Rationalism is cancer and it poisons all words.

                >Logic is the opposite of self-contradictory, and there is no such thing as a self-contradiction without logic.
                LOL imagine thinking this crap.

                It is because logic is literally made up crap that is a corrupted form of natural human thinking, and this is what we have humans feeling based on things.

                Tell me how this part of logic contradiction itself makes you feel.
                Every logical fallacy is contradicted by the "argumentum ad logicam" or "fallacy fallacy" (cringe name)
                This means if you ever say
                >You committed the correlation is causation fallacy
                Then you literally can not even imply that this has any meaning whatsoever because going
                "you committed a logical fallacy" -> "therefore you are wrong"
                Is a logical fallacy in itself.

                In other words everything is a sin even pointing out something is sinful.

                Logic has no use and is literally trash. It is literally a long list of nonsense that is "sinful" where even pointing out that something is sinful is a sin. There is no methodology for dealing with anything.

                Look that one up it is there. Dude you got memed by some trash websites repeating lists of fallacies why did you assume this was correct ?

                >However that's empirically wrong, there are many cases where reactions are dependent on conditions. If you do this in our atmosphere, it does not show that they will not react together in some other atmosphere, medium, radiation
                Sure not only is this covered in the example I have given, however I assumed that the same conditions of gravity, pressure, radiation etc etc are assumed.

                >See time cube.
                What are you on about?
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

                Debate this schizo shit. If you reject my methodology about rejecting schizos and other defectives.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Your standard of knowledge is negative knowledge
                No, that anon doesn't have any standard of knowledge. He's just calling people bad words.

                >if you accept agnosticism (meaning that theism is possibly correct) then you're in pascals wager and as such theism is the only rational course of action.
                Do not try to talk to him he is agnostic and like you found out agnostics all of them are fucked in the head all of them.

                >Is drinking poison good or bad ?
                You notice agnosticism is literally crazy talk and N/A to this.

                Or any other question.
                >Is smoking good or bad ? Will you smoke ?

                >>I'm agnostic on that one
                These crazies belong in insane asylums.

                You are the one going crazy.

                What do you mean unfortunately for me? I believe in the abstract general idea of a god, independent of any particular religion.
                Btw, pascal's wager is dumb. There could be any number of hypothetical gods who, if they exist, require you believe in them or you go to hell, and believing in one may not suffice to placate all of them. Therefore it's not much more rational to choose to believe in any particular god for your spiritual protection, thus angering any other which might turn out to be the one that actually exists, than it is to believe in none of them. In fact, I'd argue, since there are infinitely many possible ideas of the identity of god (even if only finitely many have ever been considered), believing in one makes no stochastic difference at all, because the reciprocal of infinity is zero.

                >Btw, pascal's wager is dumb.
                >There could be any number of hypothetical gods who, if they exist, require you believe in them or you go to hell
                There could be(There isn't, but for the sake of argument), but you cannot find out about them, so you cannot believe in them. You choices boil down to believing in the god(s) that you know of, or not. Agnosticism is acknowledging that the gods that you know of could be real, and thus you only have on option. There's only three cases:

                God is real - infinite benefit for believers / infinite cost for non-believers
                God is not real - marginal cost for believers / Marginal gain for non-believers
                Some other god is real - Same cost/gain for everyone

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You choices boil down to believing in the god(s) that you know of
                this is the only one i know of.

                good luck on your wager

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You are the one going crazy.
                Explain why.

                I'm only telling you there is no real debate here you repeat the same schizo trash that was debunked and is spammed all the time.

                There is no real debate here only me pointing out your schizo trash is wrong. And then asking do you want to know why, and then you schizos are not even interested in any debate about this. And you obviously are not.

                I was in 100s of debates like this, I simply cut away me wasting time this way. Since you clearly are not interested in any debate whatsoever and will spam your shit. Remember I opened up and waited for a follow up from you all you fucked up gayots did not follow up.

                >NOO you can not talk like this
                It is named a THESIS if you like to be all fancy about it. I state my conclusion and then ask do you wish to know why it is this way. And all you retards fail on this subject.

                So there is no need for me to wast my time posting proofs to you idiots. Glad we got this out of the way.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there is no real debate here you repeat
                >There is no real debate here
                Look at how much I replied to your post, and look at you literally repeating yourself, and then reconsider.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The soul hypothesis makes some predictions, predictions who can not be true in our reality.
                You can disprove those predictions by >muh brainpoking. To which I say, maybe the brain is an output device.
                >religiongay
                Like I already said, not him. I'm agnostic, but kind of believe in a god just because I want to, but I don't believe in any *specific* god and am not christian, muslim, etc.
                >>The soul is unfalsifiable
                >>AHA I decided to make my hypothesis non scientific, take that science !
                This but unironically. Science can do literally nothing against an unscientific hypothesis except complain that it's unscientific. You can't disprove the teapot, cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >agnostic
                one of the most retarded/insane people on the planet.

                >ut kind of believe in a god just because I want to, but I don't believe in any *specific* god and am not christian, muslim, etc.
                See this is literally qualifies you for the insane asylum.

                >You can't disprove the teapot, cope
                Yes I can. Negative knowledge retard.
                >cope
                Disprove that there is no tiger behind you right now. And the schizo retard goes crazy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >See this is literally qualifies you for the insane asylum.
                No it qualifies him to talk to some priests, gurus, monks, pedophillic goat fucking warlords, go on a spirit quest, etc. Whether you think whatever god he finds is actually a demon or a delusion is a matter of faith and opinion. Who is to say which gods and which accounts of them are real? For all you know the real gods abandoned us 5123 years ago.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No it qualifies him to talk to some priests, gurus, monks, pedophillic goat fucking warlords, go on a spirit quest
                WRONG.
                All this schizo trash belong in insane asylums.

                See, told you, throw an unscientific hypothesis at a sciencetard and they can do nothing but screech. Your only argument other than repeatedly calling me insane is this:
                >Disprove that there is no tiger behind you right now.
                To which I say I can't. I rely on my animal instincts to protect me against such an eventuality; *I* don't need to know there's no tiger as long as my *body* knows there's no tiger. Good thing I have my body, because I *don't* know there's no tiger. And thanks to the double-slit experiment, *you* don't "know" there's no tiger behind me either. You might reasonably *think* there isn't, but you're 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% wrong or something like that.
                Oh, I guess you also had this argument:
                >Negative knowledge retard.
                Yes. I realize this is a concept. I reject it. Rejecting it is my whole position in this debate.

                See there is no debating schizo trash like you only exterminating it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >See there is no debating schizo trash like you only exterminating it.
                Not an argument.
                Prove to me right now that there's no tiger behind me, without falling back on "le negative knowledge maymay" which has no basis in logic.
                You can't.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not an argument.
                I'm telling you how this debate will be solved, by the forcible extermination of schizos like you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Still not an argument.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                See, told you, throw an unscientific hypothesis at a sciencetard and they can do nothing but screech. Your only argument other than repeatedly calling me insane is this:
                >Disprove that there is no tiger behind you right now.
                To which I say I can't. I rely on my animal instincts to protect me against such an eventuality; *I* don't need to know there's no tiger as long as my *body* knows there's no tiger. Good thing I have my body, because I *don't* know there's no tiger. And thanks to the double-slit experiment, *you* don't "know" there's no tiger behind me either. You might reasonably *think* there isn't, but you're 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% wrong or something like that.
                Oh, I guess you also had this argument:
                >Negative knowledge retard.
                Yes. I realize this is a concept. I reject it. Rejecting it is my whole position in this debate.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                maybe the brain is an output device but are its unpredictable outputs the result of a structure that you don't understand or a self-aware energy source altering its inputs? your body is a machine but your self is a spirit.

                to disprove this you must find the biological origin of consciousness and be able to turn it on and off in a human being and find a way to demonstrate that they no longer experience the world despite reacting to and describing it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're confused about who is who in this thread. This is my fourth post in the last ~12 hours, since

                It is-or-has qualia that we would struggle to intuit as anywhere close to sufficient of scale or complexity for a mind, but it is nonetheless a coherent observer of something and a member of the universal EM continuum

                .

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do not inject yourself into conversations. Without saying "not him".

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're quite dumb.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the real question here isn't whether we can make AI sentient, its whether the human brain is Turing complete.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It clearly is, modulo limited storage and all that. You can simulate a Turing machine with pen and paper.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    define dualism, wtf does dualism have to do with AI

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >define dualism,
      Not OP. I think he is referring to religious bla bla dualism.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >2022
    >Dualism is still consistently argued online despite a gigantic amount of evidence against it
    (where is the soul antenna)

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    To me it seems so obvious that AI not only *can* be sentient, but, if given the necessary faculties, MUST be sentient. Say that we are able to replicate the human brain perfectly. How can two systems that behave the exact same way, exhibit different properties? It's nonsensical almost by definition. The only way would be if sentience is some kind of supernatural, transcendental thing that is not bound by logic or physics, but I see no reason to assume that without evidence of an entire such aspect of reality.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yea however bro like totally god like magics a soul into every fetus, my pastor told me so.

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >prove it's impossible
    Fuck off.
    >Without appealing to dualism
    What is 2 + 2 ? Nooo don't say 4!

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >one living breathing GPT-3 bot says souls are dumb every 120 seconds regardless of context

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously it's not possible to prove such a negative. OP, prove that you have never murdered someone. You cannot, despite it being much easier.
    There's no way to prove that you are a real being experiencing things and not an automaton mimicking sentience.

    It's not possible to prove true sentience and consciousness in any human.
    I can only observe that they have behavior that we associate with true sentience and consciousness. Reasoning, feelings, expression. But there has been proven cases of humans being disabled to the level that they cannot respond to stimuli or express themselves in any way, yet their have been able to recall events that happened when doctors deemed them unconcious.

    AI can already trick us, and seem like a human, in shorter scenarios. Given the low (and falling) intelligence of humans, AI is already indistinguishable from a 80-ish iq human in text conversation. Yet we know with complete certainty that it is not sentient as of now.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think that without touching on duality, an important and maybe overlooked factor of what separates humans from computers is the fact that we are electrochemical machines, we don't solely rely on electric input to make decisions, we also utilize hormones and immune indicators. This influences our abilities a lot.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"Prove there's no soul, brain poking doesn't count because maybe the brain is an output device"
    >"Rejecting negative knowledge like you're doing is absurd, if you're just going to invent 'but maybe's' for every possible objection then how do you know there's no tiger behind you right now"
    >"I dunno anon, how do YOU know there's no tiger behind me right now"
    >"... S--SCHIZO!! SCHIZO RETARD INSANE ASYLUM!! KILL KILL KILL!! AND OTHER SUCH MELTDOWN WORDS!! THIS IS ABSURD, I'M STORMING OFF!!"
    Kek. Agnosticism wins again

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately for you, if you accept agnosticism (meaning that theism is possibly correct) then you're in pascals wager and as such theism is the only rational course of action.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if you accept agnosticism (meaning that theism is possibly correct) then you're in pascals wager and as such theism is the only rational course of action.
        Do not try to talk to him he is agnostic and like you found out agnostics all of them are fucked in the head all of them.

        >Is drinking poison good or bad ?
        You notice agnosticism is literally crazy talk and N/A to this.

        Or any other question.
        >Is smoking good or bad ? Will you smoke ?

        >>I'm agnostic on that one
        These crazies belong in insane asylums.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Crazy is the only word you know. Fitting since you're the craziest-sounding person here at the moment. Stable people don't rant and scream and cry and shit their diapers about schizos all day, while angrily demanding that others stop talking to the people labelled thus.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >NOO you must respect my time cube
            No. Debunked.
            If you disagree then tell me your reaction to time cube.

            If your methodology has no way to reject schizos, crazies or trolls then you will forever be trapped in a loop.

            Schizos are real.
            Crazies are real.
            And I will not pretend like a schizo has any value, I call that guy a schizo and we are finished here.

            >NO ree you must debate how I disprove you because 2+ yellow = fish !
            See time cube. I love to see how you fucken self contradict and show yourself to be crazy while trying to deal with that one.

            Will everything you accused me be shown there to be meaningless garbage or what ?
            What is your methodology there ?

            >I do not understand it
            If you are not crazy you will trap yourself in a endless loop where you will ask the time cube schizo to explain his time cube.

            However lets be real you will get sick of it and end the entire debate concluding you are right.
            Here is the difference I'm 100% honest about functioning like this. You on the other hand are repeating this centrist shit like
            >Oh you can not label people schizos and end the debate this way
            Only you then are proven to be crazy since all this sanctimonious shit really fucken did mean nothing.
            And make no mistake this is you being crazy.

            All you say is garbage. And it can be shown to be garbage.
            Yet you like the centrist you are keep on shouting your meaningless words and your crazy standards. This is what makes you crazy.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >time cube
              >2 + yellow = fish!
              >no mention of either of these things anywhere else itt
              Ladies and gentlemen, the true schizo of the thread.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ladies and gentlemen, the true schizo of the thread.
                Let me restate this since (YOU) the retard can not understand evidence (this makes you crazy you idiot).

                You
                >[implied] trash methodology [other trash]
                >[implied] you can not call people schizos and conclude this way they are wrong based on your feelings of them.
                I
                >Run this hypothetical person in your methodology
                >>Time cube guy
                Or someone who says
                >>2 + yellow = fish!

                If you are not crazy you realize you literally have no way to exit this loop since you forever must go
                >I do not understand teach me
                And the schizo will repeat himself.
                This loop will never end.

                Since you basically implied that you can not use my methodology of labeling schizos and ending the debate by concluding that you are right.

                You literally can never go
                "I do not understand this" -> "Therefore this is wrong and the guy saying this is wrong"

                Or you decide to be crazy forget about your dogma and then blame me for a methodology you do not follow yourself. However this only makes you crazy.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you mean unfortunately for me? I believe in the abstract general idea of a god, independent of any particular religion.
        Btw, pascal's wager is dumb. There could be any number of hypothetical gods who, if they exist, require you believe in them or you go to hell, and believing in one may not suffice to placate all of them. Therefore it's not much more rational to choose to believe in any particular god for your spiritual protection, thus angering any other which might turn out to be the one that actually exists, than it is to believe in none of them. In fact, I'd argue, since there are infinitely many possible ideas of the identity of god (even if only finitely many have ever been considered), believing in one makes no stochastic difference at all, because the reciprocal of infinity is zero.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God I hate philsophy so fucking much. I can't think of a more useless field. Even women who study African tribal chants are studying something concrete.
    Philosophers literally serve no purpose.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      prove it's useless without using philosophy

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Philosophy doesn't produce anything.
        It doesn't produce anything that has any practical use, and art can exist without philosophy.
        The only thing philosophers do is ask questions that don't have a definite answer, then they waste gallons of ink debating with each other so they can not come to a definitive answer.
        At least with a degree in African tribal basket weaving, someone could write a pretty interesting Wikipedia article about it.
        What the fuck is there to write about philosophers? They just write about themselves and their friends.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It doesn't produce anything that has any practical use
          so? why does that make it useless? also wouldn't things like tetris, anime, and escape rooms also fall under the category of "no practical use". do you think such things should stop being made?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Philosophy doesn't produce anything.
          >It doesn't produce anything that has any practical use
          >boolean logic
          >law

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            doesn't produce anything.
            >>It doesn't produce anything that has any practical use
            logic
            >>law

            Law was established by the Heavenly Father, and it is for the lawbreakers. It was not something that came out of "philosophy". Let me guess, you're still stuck on the whole "ancient greeks were these intellectual powerhouses" yet couldn't save themselves. Now they just serve gyros and deepfried vegetables.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          your entire concept of what is unimportant is a philosophical view, just because you refuse to think about it deeply and logically doesn't mean it's not there guiding you. hell most of your values about freedom, democracy, human rights, industrialism, usefulness, practicality etc. are all philosophies given to you by the society you were born into that was influenced by some ancient philosophers that died hundreds of years ago

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          midwit, only philosophers can hate philosophy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      logic is philosophy and i don't need to explain the importance of logic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God I hate philsophy so fucking much
      As a philosophy fan I see your point, there is so much shit in this discipline my theory is that philosophy literally died in the 1960s when some Deakin decided to do
      >Hey you philosophy department !
      >You did not invent anything new in 300 years so I cutting you
      So one philosopher """Revolutionized""" the theory of knowledge by making up a sophistry.

      There is something valuable in some areas however there is a lot of shit in it now.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nyeh no company is really trying to make something sentient, they just want something that does their job without question.

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    we're seeing the new AI winter, companies are just hyping it up so they can milk it more

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wtf happened there

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Without appealing to dualism, prove it's impossible for AI to ever be sentient.

    That would be known as the HALTING PROBLEM (computer science), which demonstrates that an imaginary computer of "limitless" capability cannot always produce the correct output for a given input. Smooth-brains struggle to understand the significance of the halting problem.

    Add to this the fundamentally flawed theory that a so-called "neural network" is an accurate depiction of how our brains work, and that replicating this will yield a digital mind.

    AI was and continues to be a psyop for gullible idiots that think they're going to be able to order an android sex slave that tolerates their generally insufferable nature. It's not going to happen. Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.

    AI so-called is:
    >clever use of regex
    >dynamic DB queries (where the queries are generated based on input)
    >mechanical turk (you believe the computer is "thinking" but it's actually pajeets being paid 10 cents per problem to 'solve' tasks that are simple for people but difficult for computers).

    While we're on the subject of total bullshit, lets add quantum computing to the list. It's more made-up nonsense that doesn't perform any better than a 1930s era analog computer, even the mechanical computers they used to help aim AA cannons.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >AI was and continues to be a psyop for gullible idiots that think they're going to be able to order an android sex slave that tolerates their generally insufferable nature. It's not going to happen.
      It's over, we live in the worst timeline plus:

      >666
      >Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>666
        >>Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.

        Yeah, I just noticed those digits for my post. Satan is vying for the attention of man, like the pied piper, if you latch onto any of his lies (whatever they may be) they will lead you to everlasting fire.

        >It's over, we live in the worst timeline plus:
        Heaven and Earth will be made anew, and we who choose to live by faith in Jesus the Christ will be share in everlasting life absent the evils that plague this world as it is now. We're close to the end of this era.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>666
      >>Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.

      Yeah, I just noticed those digits for my post. Satan is vying for the attention of man, like the pied piper, if you latch onto any of his lies (whatever they may be) they will lead you to everlasting fire.

      >It's over, we live in the worst timeline plus:
      Heaven and Earth will be made anew, and we who choose to live by faith in Jesus the Christ will be share in everlasting life absent the evils that plague this world as it is now. We're close to the end of this era.

      >Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.
      imagine being a religion gay who unironically thinks the schizophrenic retard jesus is anything worth worshiping.

      Read the bible it will make an atheist out of you. You invisible sky garden gnomes will not save you because they do not exist.
      >b-b-b- my pastor did say
      It is a lie all of it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>666
      >>Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.

      Yeah, I just noticed those digits for my post. Satan is vying for the attention of man, like the pied piper, if you latch onto any of his lies (whatever they may be) they will lead you to everlasting fire.

      >It's over, we live in the worst timeline plus:
      Heaven and Earth will be made anew, and we who choose to live by faith in Jesus the Christ will be share in everlasting life absent the evils that plague this world as it is now. We're close to the end of this era.

      [...]
      >Your only escape from the destruction this world is doomed to face is to repent and turn to faith in Jesus the Christ.
      imagine being a religion gay who unironically thinks the schizophrenic retard jesus is anything worth worshiping.

      Read the bible it will make an atheist out of you. You invisible sky garden gnomes will not save you because they do not exist.
      >b-b-b- my pastor did say
      It is a lie all of it.

      Simply imagine taking this trash seriously.

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you need an entire global surveillance capitalism data mining panopticon dystopian <insert word here> super computers internet big tech <insert another word> massive databases neural networks algorithms machine learning <insert> nsa intel-me proprietary moron <in> just to make a program that thinks like a child.

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations"
    Okay even if you put resistance sensors,
    And constant information streams.
    The Interpretation is going to end up, whatever the preprogramed parameters are.
    So it's not true sentience.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you put sentience on too high of a pedestal since you fear robots having it.

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >thread on AI and consciousness absolutely ruined by reddit atheism and pol christgayry

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >implying AI simulated consciousness is not a pursuit of unholy divinity, in direct rebellion to our creator

      This thread just went over your head didn't it?

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sentience isn't inherently impressive IMO. It's just what happens when an evolving population starts getting selected for intelligence more than usual. At some threshold, the smarts are high enough that introspection, obsessive tool usage, etc are things that can just... happen.

    The problem with AI is how do you even train for that? How do you define boredom and interest in such a way that we can make an AI seek out self-improvement and *doing things* while it's running? Self-training on live data isn't enough for that, I think there's something we're missing. Maybe it's simulating the actions of chemicals and hormones on our brain that we can't quite do with the neural network architectures we use today. I think we'll get there and figure it out eventually, but it's hard to say when we'll hit it or even what exactly we'd call sentient by the time we reach it.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't need negative knowledge to tell me fire is hot and ice is cold.
    >fire
    OK so the same methodology that tells you, you and your room is not on fire right now.
    See negative knowledge. If you disagree (with negative knowledge) you must have an interesting life. See negative knowledge.

    >I don't have a pastor.
    > by agnostic parents
    I predicted that. In the absence of controilled mechanisms mind viruses can mutate very strongly.

    >I don't have a pastor.
    Yet you did hear the idea of god from other people. This is enough. All cults have their pastors. Notice I standardize all your special snowflake names into "pastor". Whatever the name
    Pastor
    Clergy
    Guru

    Guy says bla bla words about a thing and you listen. You incorporated some of these things and this is why your mind virus is so mutated errors in transition are big.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      My God is so general and ill-defined it could be the universe itself.
      The universe is unquestionably conscious; it's arguing with itself on the Internet right at this moment.
      And, even if not *fully* nor even *mostly* consciously, it definitely designs itself with every passing Planck time, as particles change in state and the factuality of these changes propagates outward in space at the speed of light.
      This fulfills all my criteria for a God.
      So if you really mean to tell me it's impossible for my God to exist, you're denying the existence of the universe.
      I know you love your stupid negative knowledge, but don't you think existential nihilism is a step too far? That's more like something we rationalists would dream up.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >My God is so general and ill-defined
        This is a bad thing.

        >The universe is unquestionably consciou
        You are trash (and schizo) and your religion is trash.

        >and the factuality of these changes propagates outward in space at the speed of light.
        >This fulfills all my criteria for a God.
        Shut up schizo.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is a bad thing.
          I just don't see it that way.
          I don't believe beliefs have to be practical to be good.
          >Sh--Shut up schizo!!
          What's wrong? Aren't you gonna disprove the existence of the universe? Sure would show me what for!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What's wrong? Aren't you gonna disprove the existence of the universe?
            You are a schizo and your pantheism is schizophrenia.
            >Sh--Shut up schizo!!
            What I literally think of your schizo postings

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Didn't click.
              Still can't disprove the existence of the universe huh?
              Shame

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Still can't disprove the existence of the universe huh?
                You are a retarded schizo and I do not play with your schizo brain anymore this conversation is finished (I won you lost)

                >d-d-d--dd-Didn't click.
                Pathetic.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >(I won you lost)
                You're the one who can't disprove the existence of the universe.
                You should've known better than to argue with a nondenominational agonstic deist. You know our belief system is literally just a license to make shit up, right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You know our belief system is literally just a license to make shit up, right?
                >I simply make shit up
                And this is a bad thing and why you lost the debate.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You lost!
                >You lost!!!!
                >Shut up you lost!!!!!!!!!!!!1
                >Schizo!!!!!!!111!!!!1!
                Cry harder. Still not seeing any proof the universe doesn't exist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                !!!!!!!111!!!!1!
                YES. You can shout in the wind now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can I really? I would think there is no wind, since *apparently* there isn't anything at all, lest it be called a god, Mr. God-is-Impossible.

  54. 2 months ago
    neural9000
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Google needs to purge all of its low IQ sóy boys.

Your email address will not be published.