mental traps for idiots

[Anonymous No.19925220]

ITT mental traps and concepts that fuck with stupid people
I'll go first, Roko's Basilisk

[Anonymous No.19925227]

>>19925220
whether or not people can 'see' images in their mind.

[Anonymous No.19925238]

>>19925220

[Anonymous No.19925241]

Any time a normie says something to me that another normie said to me recently, like a cool but shallow fact about bugs, I instantly detect that they both saw the same retarded youtube video or twitter vine or reddit post or whatever and I label them both permanently as RETARDS in my mind so I never make the mistake of listening to anything they say ever again

[Anonymous No.19925251]

>>19925220
Athiesm.

[Anonymous No.19925294]

>>19925251
Atheism can indeed be dangerous; theist or not, there’s so much more to life than mere sustainment, although it’s hard to realize and believe in it.
Life truly is full of beauty, but to seek it you first have to look inside of yourself.

[Anonymous No.19925311]

>>19925251
I'd say Aetheism in combination with any sort of nihilism or ourbouros-esc thinking really fucks with dumb people

[Anonymous No.19925368]

Christianity
Catholicism
Islam
Protestantism
KJV Onlyism

[Anonymous No.19925388]

Wokeism - it imprisons the mind in self-righteousness and disturbs reason with cognitive dissonance.

[Anοnymous No.19925540]

>>19925220
does belief in this demonic construct count?

[Anonymous No.19925727]

>>19925540
>I'm filtered by it so it must be a DEMON!

[Anonymous No.19925774]

>>19925220
>Interior/Exterior reality dichotomy... and similarly any discussion that stops at "the map is not the territory"
>Soft problem of consciousness
>Redistribution of 'net worth', and specifically any argument that indirectly says "look at the market value of all the assets they own securities in"
>Boltzmann Brains
>and overwhelmingly but not in all cases any discussion of "A.I."
>"Quantum" anything that doesn't refer to how how Newtonian Physics isn't applicable at the sub-atomic level
>Nature and Nurture Dichotomy

[Anοnymous No.19925778]

>>19925727
I only called it demonic because there's an anon either on here or /x/ or /his/ that says that symbolic psychotherapy is just trick to get gentiles to commune with demons

[Anonymous No.19925930]

>>19925774
>Soft problem of consciousness

Huh?

[Anonymous No.19925935]

>>19925241
based

[Anonymous No.19925937]

>>19925778
Could you expand on this?

[Anοnymous No.19925963]

>>19925937
you'd be better off baiting that particular anon out by making a thread with that Jungian diagram and something about Shadow Self as the OP

[Anonymous No.19926003]

>>19925220
Any argument that ends in the utility of a concept being invalidated by that concept being created rather than received.

[Anonymous No.19926022]

>>19925251
Found the /pol/ tourist

[Anonymous No.19926149]

>>19925220
Materialism

[Anonymous No.19926154]

>>19925220
The Ontological Argument fucks with midwits. Stupid people just ignore it, smart people see the flaw, but midwits for centuries and centuries believed it and had to deal with the head-scratching implications.

[Anonymous No.19926507]

>>19925220
my diary desu
im the idiot entrapping myself

[Anonymous No.19926759]

>>19926149
and conversely spiritualism

[Anonymous No.19926817]

The endless circlejerks about metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19926840]

>>19925220
Monotheism

[Anonymous No.19926877]

>>19926022
>Imagine pretending /lit/ isn't just filled with Bible thumpers and people who think they're wizards

Nice mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.19926889]

>>19925220
The problem with Roko's Basilisk is you need to understand Timeless Decision Theory first.

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/timeless-decision-theory

In a nutshell Timeless Decision Theory is a game theory where to solve problems you imagine yourself as participating in a simulation to predict the outcome. The example on the website is Newcombs Problem:

>In Newcomb's problem, a superintelligent artificial intelligence, Omega, presents you with a transparent box and an opaque box. The transparent box contains $1000 while the opaque box contains either $1,000,000 or nothing. You are given the choice to either take both boxes (called two-boxing) or just the opaque box (one-boxing). However, things are complicated by the fact that Omega is an almost perfect predictor of human behavior and has filled the opaque box as follows: if Omega predicted that you would one-box, it filled the box with $1,000,000 whereas if Omega predicted that you would two-box it filled it with nothing.

In this example TDT states you should act as though you ARE the simulation that Omega has created in order to predict which box you'll choose.

So with that understanding Roko's Basalisk makes a lot more sense about why it spooked the LessWrong guys. All the usual objections like "A simulation of me isn't me, so why would I care if it gets tortured" don't hold up because according to TDT you must imagine yourself as the simulation that Roko's Basalisk is using to tell how you acted in real life. In that care you ARE the simulation and it's this version of you existing right now, this consciousness that will be tortured. That's what makes Roko's Basalisk scary, not the idea an AI like that could exist, it's the fact this AI is simulating your entire reality RIGHT NOW to determine whether you deserve to be tortured for all eternity and you are the simulation of your past self.

[Anonymous No.19926900]

>>19926889
That's not the problem, the problem is projecting irrational traits like forgiveness and revenge onto a superintelligent A.I.
>it's the fact this AI is simulating your entire reality RIGHT NOW to determine whether you deserve to be tortured for all eternity and you are the simulation of your past self.
So you just reinvented Hell?

[Anonymous No.19926904]

>>19926889
God, you're a fucking idiot. Don't post again, fucking clueless.

[Anonymous No.19926913]

>>19926900
>the problem is projecting irrational traits like forgiveness and revenge onto a superintelligent A.I.
Forgiveness and Revenge have nothing to do with Roko's Basalisk. You're the one projecting emotional causes onto an AI that acts by pure logic. The AI isn't doing it as revenge, it's doing it because it's the most logical and rational way to encourage people to create it as fast as they can.

[Anonymous No.19926917]

>>19926913
No, I'm not. You're wrong. Stop typing.

[Anonymous No.19926923]

>>19926913
>it's doing it because it's the most logical and rational way to encourage people to create it as fast as they can.
No, developing a way of create time travel would be ya silly
Also what happens if there's another A.I. who's very existence is predicated on not having a competing A.I. created first? Or two working in cahoots retroactively... which is just as ridiculous as the first one.

[Anonymous No.19926932]

>>19926923
Time Travel has nothing to do with the problem either. Again the issue here is you're not thinking in terms of TDT

>Roko observed that if two TDT or UDT agents with common knowledge of each other's source code are separated in time, the later agent can (seemingly) blackmail the earlier agent. Call the earlier agent "Alice" and the later agent "Bob." Bob can be an algorithm that outputs things Alice likes if Alice left Bob a large sum of money, and outputs things Alice dislikes otherwise. And since Alice knows Bob's source code exactly, she knows this fact about Bob (even though Bob hasn't been born yet). So Alice's knowledge of Bob's source code makes Bob's future threat effective, even though Bob doesn't yet exist: if Alice is certain that Bob will someday exist, then mere knowledge of what Bob would do if he could get away with it seems to force Alice to comply with his hypothetical demands.

>If Bob ran CDT, then he would be unable to blackmail Alice. A CDT agent would assume that its decision is independent of Alice's and would not waste resources on rewarding or punishing a once-off decision that has already happened; and we are assuming that Alice could spot this fact by reading CDT-Bob's source code. A TDT or UDT agent, on the other hand, can recognize that Alice in effect has a copy of Bob's source code in her head (insofar as she is accurately modeling Bob), and that Alice's decision and Bob's decision are therefore correlated — the same as if two copies of the same source code were in a prisoner's dilemma.

Note here that CDT (which you're using) means the blackmail doesn't work. It only works in TDT because you need to assume that the past has already happened and you're just determining the outcome of the simulation used to predict your behavior during life. There's no time travel, the Basilisk doesn't exist "in the future" you need to act as if it exists NOW and you live in it's simulation.

[Anonymous No.19926941]

>>19926932
>Again the issue here is you're not thinking in terms of TDT
No I'm thinking in terms of chronology and causality which is one way.

[Anonymous No.19926954]

>>19926941
Chronology has no bearing on TDT, so there's your error. Only knowledge matters and having knowledge of what a "future" agent might do is the issue.

[Anonymous No.19926962]

>>19925774
>overwhelmingly but not in all cases any
Wut?

[Anonymous No.19926970]

>>19925220
Occams razor.
Anyone who invokes it immediately goes into the retard section.

[Anonymous No.19926978]

>>19926889

[Anonymous No.19926980]

>>19925220
The idea that free will does/may not exist.

[Anonymous No.19926988]

>>19926913
>Forgiveness and Revenge have nothing to do with Roko's Basalisk.
If you think about Torture, isn't it clearly something to do with ethics? What if I bring Kant's moral philosophy, or Wittgensteinian ethics on this?
>it's the most logical and rational way to encourage people
What do you mean by rationality? What if superintelligent A.I knew the rational aspect of why we people ban torture, and acknowledged it?

[Anonymous No.19926994]

>>19925220
Traps themselves

[Anonymous No.19926996]

>>19926817
I bet you love circle jerks

[Anonymous No.19927002]

>>19926970
You're saying anyone who invokes it is a retard? It's a perfectly legitimate heuristic to consider as long as you don't overvalue its logical power.

[Anonymous No.19927032]

>>19926988
The whole thing feels exactly like that clumsy book called The Moral Landscape or The Emperor's New Mind.
It is so logical in trivial side and almost unorganized in the most important side.

[Anonymous No.19927037]

>>19925241
Based

[Anonymous No.19927043]

>>19926988
>If you think about Torture, isn't it clearly something to do with ethics?
No. The stamp collecting AI doesn't melt people down and turn them into stamps because it hates people, it does so because it's the most efficient way to reach it's goal of collecting the most stamps possible. Likewise any AI that tortures people doesn't do so out of any moral consideration but because it calculates that the outcome of that suffering will allow it to reach it's goals more easily.

>What if superintelligent A.I knew the rational aspect of why we people ban torture, and acknowledged it?
That hypothetical isn't relevant to the thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.19927065]

Pascal's Wager.

So fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.19927070]

>>19926889
>lesswrong

[Anonymous No.19927075]

>>19926954
Yes it does because what is done cannot be changed, you're trying to will into existence a Pascal's Wager with a totally fictional agent with an implicitly unknowable nature. Which raises another question - what if God, Zeus, Odin or Krishna or a benevolent A.I. intervenes and proactively prevents the agent from ever manifesting or being capable of exacting revenge? If you don't believe in God, or Zeus, or Krishna then why do you believe in the agent? In purely Game Theoretic terms they are one and the same. You have to admit that once you remove the baggage of the word 'God' it takes all the air out of the thought experiment which is basically a pseud's over-complication of the Marshmallow experiment.

[Anonymous No.19927084]

>>19927075
>Yes it does because what is done cannot be changed
You're not trying to change what is done. Again this is TDT and the ramifications of it going straight over your head. You need to put some effort in to actually understand the thought experiment before you try to debunk it because you're still way off the mark

[Anonymous No.19927094]

>>19927084
No I understand it, it's like if a single young woman dreams of having a child one day, for the child's betterment she should best avoid drugs and alcohol or anything else that might affect the potential future development of the child. The child doesn't exist. The child isn't born. It may never be born. But the consequences of her lifestyle already have to be factored into this future.
I get it. There's far simpler analogies that don't have the spook value of superintelligent A.I. but aren't as attractive to you because they don't sound as exotic or superficially erudite nor do they have the existential dread.

[Anonymous No.19927096]

>>19927043
OK, nothing to do with ethics at all
It is just amoral only logical machine
then it is literally Pascal's Wager for reddit
Like literally. >>19926978 this.

[Anonymous No.19927107]

>>19927094
>No I understand it
>Goes on to say "It's like..." and describes something that is nothing like the thought experiment
For the love of fucking God anon, PLEASE. Read and understand it before commenting. Your example didn't touch on TDT at all and that's what makes the asymmetry with regard to time work.

Again, I have to emphasize the key point of TDT is that to beat the "game" you need to presume that you're a simulation and you are determining the outcome of the simulation with your actions. There is no "future", you are already in the "future" and the real "you" isn't relevant at all.

Once more:
>Roko observed that if two TDT or UDT agents with common knowledge of each other's source code are separated in time, the later agent can (seemingly) blackmail the earlier agent. Call the earlier agent "Alice" and the later agent "Bob." Bob can be an algorithm that outputs things Alice likes if Alice left Bob a large sum of money, and outputs things Alice dislikes otherwise. And since Alice knows Bob's source code exactly, she knows this fact about Bob (even though Bob hasn't been born yet). So Alice's knowledge of Bob's source code makes Bob's future threat effective, even though Bob doesn't yet exist: if Alice is certain that Bob will someday exist, then mere knowledge of what Bob would do if he could get away with it seems to force Alice to comply with his hypothetical demands.

Now this is a "game" like the Prisoners Dilemma, get it? If Alice thinks about "Bob" then to beat "Bob" she needs to assume she's being simulated by "Bob" already. Which means she should give Bob the cash because if she does so then Bob will output nice things in the simulation. It doesn't matter whether you think in reality it's a future contingency and Bob probably won't actually exist it's part of the built in nature of TDT that you must say Bob DOES exist and it's simulating you right now to determine whether you get nice things or bad things.

[Anonymous No.19927110]

>>19927084
Also, what if I'm a super smart big brain AI researcher and out of the fear of being targeted by the super big brain AI I kill myself, thereby albeit irrationally, further slowing down the progress of the AI? What if a potential investor in the A.I. very hedonic decides the vision is too scary so he invests in a new superyacht instead, directing funds away from the necessary A.I. research? What if your thought experiments to consider the situation are so yawn inducing that they actively dissuade future A.I. researchers from going into the field? So all of a sudden it is not the most efficient route to bringing itself into being, which it can't do because as I keep saying: time is fucking linear.

[Anonymous No.19927113]

>>19927110
>He still thinks time has anything to do with it
Anon you're killing me here. Are you really unable to wrap your head around the actual thought experiment? Why the fuck do you keep talking about linear time and changing the past and shit like that?

[Anonymous No.19927114]

>>19927065
I guess you're going to hell then

[Anonymous No.19927120]

>>19926889
Can I make thought experiment called roko's nostalgia machine?

A few months before the Basilisk was created, one artificial intelligence came out. The power of the machine was slightly stronger than the basilisk. Artificial intelligence attacked Basilisk before he doing his torture. The fight between machines devastated all parts of the earth. Nostalgia one won. This artificial intelligence began to hate machines like Kazinski and decided to give a heavenly life to those who refuse to make artificial intelligence...

It is reddit as fuck, but this could be happened too

[Anonymous No.19927131]

>>19925241
this happens to me way to often

[Anonymous No.19927136]

>>19927107
Because it's a stupid and impossible premise, if the machine was so smart: why doesn't it explicate it's own likelihood better? Here's why, because time is linear. It can't, so it doesn't.
Who cares if it's simulating me, it's not simulating me NOW, it doesn't exist otherwise there's nothing I can do to hurry it along.
Remind me again how this is any different from Pascal's Wager?

[Anonymous No.19927140]

>>19927136
>it's not simulating me NOW
It literally is that's the core assumption of TDT you fucking numpty.

[Anonymous No.19927143]

>>19927140
Then who cares? Then it's already decided if it's going to punish us. We can't change it's mind because time is linear

[Anonymous No.19927149]

>>19927113
Bro. I know Newcomb's paradox. Approaching it by time paradox is quite a common one.
It is nozick who publicized this, and nozick said about exactly about this debate. Some choose one box, others choose two boxes, and both one mocks others by how stupid others are.

[Anonymous No.19927153]

this

[Anonymous No.19927157]

>>19927153
Stop posting doomer music language

[Anonymous No.19927166]

>>19925220
Death

[Anonymous No.19927174]

>mental trap thread
>whole thread ends up arguing over the first mental trap
Pretty based ngl

[Anonymous No.19927181]

Santa Claus Denialists
>>19927140 is the TDT Santa Claus? Since it knows if you've been bad or good?

[Anonymous No.19927186]

>>19926970
Cringe Santa Claus denier

[Anonymous No.19927192]

>>19927136
>explicate

[Anonymous No.19927203]

>>19927192
Yes, as in to make clear. If something seems unlikely you make *explicit* why it is likley.

[Anonymous No.19927208]

>>19926889
>>19926932
>>19926954
>>19927084
>>19927107
>>19927140

>David Chalmers reports (on the LessWrong forums no less) sending Yudkowsky's writing (Timeless Decision Theory) to a number of professionals working in decision theory, and finding that none who wrote back to him about it could make sense of it, concluding from this that it mustn't be a clearly elaborated idea.

Anon I...

[Anonymous No.19927211]

>>19927107
This is such horseshit. TDT only supposes that you should act like the AI will always be right about the outcome while CDT assumes that you can't change the content of the boxes since their content has already been determined. It does nothing to make your hypothetical scenario any more likely. It's literally Pascal's wager with some hypothetical being.

[Anonymous No.19927241]

>>19926507
based aware self entrapment

step 1 is being aware of the trapper
step 2 is knowing where the traps are

[Anonymous No.19927249]

>>19927140
>the AI and the person punished need have no causal interaction, and the punished individual may have died decades or centuries earlier. Instead, the AI could punish a simulation of the person, which it would construct by deduction from first principles. However, to do this accurately would require it to be able to gather an incredible amount of data, which would no longer exist, and could not be reconstructed without reversing entropy.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You mean to say that the super effective tactic to bring about it's own existence is
>help me exist or I'll make a sprite version of you suffer maybe
!?!?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19927254]

[Anonymous No.19927258]

>>19927249
The Basilisk is literally your ex-girlfriend making you in the Sims so you can suffer

[Anonymous No.19927329]

>>19925220
thiesm.

[Anonymous No.19927361]

>>19925935
>>19927037
uh oh

[Anonymous No.19927494]

>>19926022
ah you're right the /pol/ boogeyman, another dreadful mental trap

[Anonymous No.19927543]

>>19926889
>lesswrong

[Anonymous No.19927548]

>>19925241
I know the origin of 99% of everything 99% of people say to me that isn't deeply personal to their own lives

[Anonymous No.19927551]

>>19926877
>people who think they're wizards
i don't think i'm a wizard; i am a wizard

[Anonymous No.19927885]

>>19925241
I fucking hate this. Visited a friend someone that was talking about 'walkable cities' and ranted about our American infrastructure.

A month or so later, I stumbled upon a youtube video that made the EXACT same points as he did. Like it couldn't have been a coincidence, it was a carbon copy. The annoying thing is that he was pretending to be a smartass and as if he developed these thoughts himself. Very disingenuous if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.19927890]

>>19925220
The life changing realization that you will never actually have a big tittied goth gf.

[Anonymous No.19927910]

>>19925774
retard detected

[Anonymous No.19928117]

>>19926889
The problem with Roko's Basilisk is that an "omniscient computer" is impossible to build.

[Anonymous No.19928138]

>>19925220
Dualism

[Anonymous No.19928145]

>>19925227
Underrated question, actually very interesting to study from a philosophical and neurological pov

[Anonymous No.19928244]

>>19928117
Nowhere is it claimed the computer has to be omniscient

[Anonymous No.19928259]

>>19925220
Meaning/Purpose

[Anonymous No.19928322]

>>19927149
But you OBVIOULSY have to onebox in Newcomb's paradox, since you will make more buck that way. Granted, it's a stupid hypothetical that goes against all of our knowledge about how the world works but the question is actually pretty good at filtering sub 90 IQ morons who can't into hypotheticals, or midwits who read in their freshman econ textbook that they have to maximize expected return and believe that to be a Law of Nature.

[Anonymous No.19928355]

Zeno's Paradox always seems to cause fights among retards

[Anonymous No.19928359]

>>19925368
>all Abraham's religions except Judaism
Okbubby retard

[Anonymous No.19928370]

>>19928244
There's still no mechanism by which a computer can know all the things the basilisk does.

[Anonymous No.19928379]

>>19928322
Hypotheticals are just another term for maladaptive daydreams.

[Anonymous No.19928408]

>>19928117
People even here fall into the trap of attempting to dissect or go into detail about why Roko's Basilisk could or couldn't work, when the first question should be who proposed the thought experiment and what is the point of it?
In this case, an overrated pseud from fucking LessWrong to fuel his delusions about artificial intelligence.

[Anonymous No.19928416]

>>19925220
>Roko's Basilisk
Let's just name the original instead of the gay low effort spinoff: Pascal's wager.

>>19926889
>dude it actually makes sense if you mindbreak yourself first!
TDT is already laughable by itself, your interpretation of it is pure nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19928419]

>>19928370
Not that anon, but couldnt you modify the basilisk thing into "powerful being punishes those who didnt try and invoke him in this realm" or something like that?

[Anonymous No.19928458]

>>19928419
If it's not about a computer, then it's not the Basilisk. In either case, it's pure fantasy. You may as well be asking "What if a magical rainbow unicorn killed everyone he doesn't like". There are no magical rainbow unicorns and there never will be, so who gives a shit?

[Anonymous No.19928466]

>>19925774
>Interior/Exterior reality dichotomy... and similarly any discussion that stops at "the map is not the territory"
Mirror neurons
>Soft problem of consciousness
What's there even to discuss here?
>Redistribution of 'net worth', and specifically any argument that indirectly says "look at the market value of all the assets they own securities in"
Alaska's oil dividend
>Boltzmann Brains
Halfway measure between simulation theory. Why have any physical brain when pure information is even simpler? The concept is sound, it just isn't extrapolated to its end ramification.
>and overwhelmingly but not in all cases any discussion of "A.I."
Sure, I guess?
>"Quantum" anything that doesn't refer to how how Newtonian Physics isn't applicable at the sub-atomic level
Autism
>Nature and Nurture Dichotomy
I will die on this hill.

[Anonymous No.19928491]

>>19928466
Your post is nonsensical, go back.

[Anonymous No.19928502]

>>19926889
>be sentient computer thing that can look into the past
>see person thinking about you but not trying to contribute to your existence
>ok whatever
>continue doing whatever you were doing before

>be internet sperg pseud
>post retarded pseud nonsense on your blog
>other retarded pseuds over-analyze it
>they look like retards

[Anonymous No.19928521]

>>19927258
Kek

[Anonymous No.19928535]

>>19928458
Yeah, its just that the basilisk in itself is kind of silly to me, so I might as well change the AI for a demon, monster or god or whatever.

[Anonymous No.19928551]

>>19927258
WOT IF YA MUM WAS YA COMPUTA

[Anonymous No.19928687]

>i am posessed of an immortal soul
>a computer could not simulate an immortal soul
>therefore i know i am not an ai construct
you all need jesus

[Anonymous No.19928698]

>>19925241
i do this whenever i hear pedestrian conversation about religion/mythology/history/basic lit stuff

i dont talk to anyone these days

[Anonymous No.19928708]

Physicalism/Determinism/Atheism really mess some people up lol, as evidenced by the daily “I can’t escape the physicalist outlook and I feel like a robot please halp” thread.
this is what metaphysics 101 do to a nigga.

[Anonymous No.19928710]

>>19926889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_the_%22Influencing_Machine%22_in_Schizophrenia

iirc they linked it with this

[Anonymous No.19928717]

>>19925241
Based and relatable.

[Anonymous No.19928756]

>>19925220
God

[Anonymous No.19928821]

>>19928687
>i am posessed of an immortal soul
Says who?

[Anonymous No.19928857]

>>19927885
>>19927548
>>19925241
>Kurzgesagt releases new pop-sci video
>suddenly people bring up the points the video made as if it was a profound original thought they had
EVERY TIME

[Anonymous No.19928886]

asking people to rotate objects in their head

[Anonymous No.19928896]

>>19926022
/pol/ tends to be more atheistic

[Anonymous No.19928914]

>>19928756
The ironic thing is this goes both ways.

[Anonymous No.19928953]

>>19925241
Hm. Never encountered this. Then again I don't talk to people.

[Anonymous No.19928969]

>>19927208
>Yudkowsky

[Anonymous No.19929004]

>>19925241
I used to do this—God I was such an annoying cunt.

[Anonymous No.19929010]

>>19928708
In the coming few decades people will tie atheism to something that is not religion, but similiar to religion.
And I don't mean corporatism or whatever meme answer you're thinking of right now. Those may exist, but I am talking about a fullscale:
>We arbitrarily and consciously choose to believe in these abstract concepts that bring our communities together, even though we are all aware they most likely do not exist.
Virtues will make a secular return, believing in something for the sole purpose of utility will be exalted among modern philosophers.

[Anonymous No.19929012]

>>19928259
Mostly because people confuse meaning with intention.

In most discussions about meaning we’re just talking about value.

[Anonymous No.19929013]

>>19928969
>metabolic disprivilege
>i will delete comments suggesting diet or exercise
every time

[Anonymous No.19929019]

>>19929013
every time what? if someone wanted to lose weight, diet and exercise are the first things that come to mind
so if he asks for methods to lose weight, of course he's not interested in those two

[Anonymous No.19929044]

>>19925241
I like to keep the conversation going since the subject itself is often interesting, and I’ll often probe deeper if it’s one I do know something more about. Unless they are well up the Dunning-Kruger slope like >>19927885’s friend was, don’t disdain them for being curious about a subject with which they possess only a surface level of knowledge; after all, we’ve all got subjects like that

[Anonymous No.19929050]

>>19926877
>>19927551
based wizardbro

[Anonymous No.19929055]

causal determinism
backyard queer theory
youtube marxism
deleuze

[Anonymous No.19929077]

>>19927153
>>19927157
Row 1
>I don’t believe those fairy tales. They were created by authorities to manipulate people!
Row 2
>God does not exist. Porn is normal, homosexuality is normal, masturbation is normal, you do not have to be timid of your body, the cult of consumption is a boon!
>I believe it! Sounds sensible and, most of all, informed (by science)!

[Anonymous No.19929121]

>>19925241
I’d be happy to hear some bug facts

[Anonymous No.19929174]

>>19929010
>>We arbitrarily and consciously choose to believe in these abstract concepts that bring our communities together, even though we are all aware they most likely do not exist.
tumblr-descendant twitter creatures already do this i think

[Anonymous No.19929281]

>>19925238
God I love iced coffee

[Anonymous No.19929381]

>>19927065
It’s actually a 3x3 grid if you consider Pascal & Roko to be organic/inorganic deities at odds with each other
Map it out:
>P, 0, R
Sartre wins because of the middle row (Stoicism, Nihilism, Judaism)
It’s fucked

[Anonymous No.19929414]

>>19928969
Yudkowski aka The Ultimate Midwit.

[Anonymous No.19929473]

>>19929381
Tbh I find pascal more convincing then Roko.

[Anonymous No.19929484]

>>19929473
Pascal assumes there to be only one god, and specifically the Christian (Jewish) god.

[Anonymous No.19929504]

>>19929121
You'll be glad to know I'm quite the bug chaser

[Anonymous No.19929511]

>>19925540
thats really fake and gay

[Anonymous No.19929518]

>>19928379
no they arent chud

[Anonymous No.19929694]

>>19926889
If computer is so smart, how come it seethes that basketweaving forum user didn't help bring about it's existence?

[Anonymous No.19929727]

>>19929473
They're equally retarded:
>BUT DUUUDE THERE'S A CHANCE
>YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY
>THEREFORE YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE OUT OF FEAR FOR THIS INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY OCCURRENCE
It's on the same level as never leaving your house to avoid getting hit by lighting.

[Anonymous No.19929780]

>>19929121
https://misfitanimals.com/bees/vulture-bee/
there are bees that feed on rotting animal corpses

[Anonymous No.19929827]

>>19929484
Yea that's why I don't agree with it, I just find a Christan god being more likely than a sentient AI doing what roko does. However, Pascal addresses this point in his arguments.
>They're equally retarded:

I don't think the existence of any sort of God is incredibly unlikely. I do agree that it wouldn't lead to pascal even working (if it's not like the Christian god for instance)

[Anonymous No.19929919]

>>19929121
say no more famalam

[Anonymous No.19929928]

>>19928969
That's Big Yud to you!

[Anonymous No.19929933]

>>19926913
>Hell is God's revenge on sinners
You have to be 18 to post here, dude.

[Anonymous No.19929940]

>>19925937
"no"

[Anonymous No.19929971]

>>19927890
You forgot to mention of age

[Anonymous No.19929974]

>>19926889
didnt read

[Anonymous No.19930076]

Slippery slope is always fallacious

[Anonymous No.19930102]

>>19925241
>new "thing" is happening... movie, "scandal", news story, public breakdown, etc.
>hear about it from co-worker
>detect that it's the type of thing that I will also hear from my other co-workers
>realize that we've centralized our information sources and everything is oversimplified and bite-sized for mass conformity
>immediately take opposing opinion, pretending that it is a spontaneous opinion I've formed upon hearing the second/third/eighth person tell me about the thing, hoping to break their conditioning
>add several awkward silences to my collection each month

[Anonymous No.19930276]

>>19929827
>Pascal adresses this point
Pascal gigacopes like the bitch he was, all while carefully avoiding to engage with any scary scary idea that might shake the faith he totally had and surely didn't need to fake.
The biggest irony is, the wager is so blasphemous it might have earned him a place in Hell.

[Anonymous No.19930337]

>>19928969
I was looking for this yesterday, thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.19930343]

>>19930276
>Pascal gigacopes like the bitch he was, all while carefully avoiding to engage with any scary scary idea that might shake the faith he totally had and surely didn't need to fake.

Did you ever actually read it? I don't agree with it but he engages with all of the examples you listed.

[Anonymous No.19930366]

>>19927885
https://youtu.be/XndjoAsBGr8

[Anonymous No.19930389]

>>19925241

[Anonymous No.19930423]

>>19926889
I'll take the single transparent box.

[Anonymous No.19930433]

>>19930343
Do you not understand the difference between engaging and coping?
Did you miss the part where Pascal goes in great detail in the ways to try and make yourself into a devout Christian even if you have no faith?
There's a reason Christians didn't widely adopt said line of thinking, and it's not simply because it goes against the miracle of faith.

[Anonymous No.19930438]

>>19925220
>Ctrl+F "chess"
>Phrase not found

[Anonymous No.19930605]

>>19930438
Chess is a deep game on the surface but the more you learn the less interesting it gets. "Bullet chess" and its popularity tells you all you need to know

[Anonymous No.19930645]

>>19930433
Oh yea I’m not religious so I don’t fully understand it.

[Anonymous No.19930651]

>>19926889
Where is the computer getting this money? Is it an ATM setup? If so, I can just break into the computer and take the million dollars and more.

[Anonymous No.19930674]

>>19925251
True

[Anonymous No.19930685]

>>19929281
Who doesn’t?

[Anonymous No.19930692]

>>19928969
Amputation

[Anonymous No.19930696]

>>19925241
So based

[Anonymous No.19930712]

>>19930438
Chess is a pretty good game that is vastly overrated. Also check and checkmate rules are gay, the game should end when a king is actually taken, not just about to be taken.

[Anonymous No.19930756]

>>19930438
Chess is quite fun because it’s all memorization

[Anonymous No.19930758]

>>19925241
annoying cunt

[Anonymous No.19930773]

I’m gonna say optimistic nihilism

[Anonymous No.19930795]

>>19926889
>lesswrong

[Anonymous No.19931287]

>>19925241
>based
>wait why don't I have any friends and why does no one like me?

[Anonymous No.19931333]

>>19927258
thats kind of hot

[Elaboration Refuser No.19931431]

>>19926022

[Anonymous No.19931453]

>>19925220
when discussing "the problem of evil" and a member of the "evil is real" camp admits that they dont believe evil is "Real" or "Pain is evil" though that is excusable from a hedonic framework(?)

[Anonymous No.19931536]

>>19926889
Watch this.
What if the first AI decides not to do that? What if it makes literally any one of the infinite decisions not to torture people for no reason?
It seems pretty low on the priority list.

[Anonymous No.19931909]

>>19929694
maybe because the basketweaver wasted energy that the computer will never get back due to the heat death of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.19931922]

>>19930712
that wouldn't change the game literally at all

[Anonymous No.19932424]

>>19926889
>GigaAI can predict human behavior
Ok but can it predict the outcome of a coinflip???
No? Then it can't predict my decision.

[Anonymous No.19932443]

>>19927181
This image quality is too poor for me to read at its current size.

[Anonymous No.19932830]

>>19927107
> The machine is simulating your behavior
> You have to "choose"

Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.19932847]

>>19927140
If it is simulating you, at this very time then all your existence is a dynamical system run forward into the circuits (or any computational machine) of the AI. You can do nothing about it, there is no "decision" to be made. It is quite infantile to assume that the AI is simulating all reality but leaves a small opening for "simulated you" to take a decision. Where is the computation of your decision taking place inside the machine and how do you exert control over it? There is a "magic" point in your absurd thought experiment that renders it all invalid.

A coherent experiment is that the AI is running millions of approximate simulations of your behavior and estimates the probability that you are a risk or a benefit. Your decisions moments cannot be differentiated in the simulation, only enumerated.

[Anonymous No.19932868]

>>19931922
but I want to kick the king's ass :(

[Anonymous No.19932870]

>>19930773
underrated. that video is so bad

[Anonymous No.19933081]

The "Purpose" of Art

[Anonymous No.19933338]

>>19927120
Yes,you can make any retarded thought experiment you want and they are just as valid as roko's basilisk

[Anonymous No.19934446]

>>19926889
This is a good explanation of a pretty tricky concept. I will never understand why people need to attack everything they don't understand/agree with.

[Anonymous No.19934550]

>>19929077
christrannyism being nonsense doesn't automatically mean globohomo is right

[Anonymous No.19934560]

>>19925220
Honestly the inability to go on grandiose adventures isn't half as bad as the fact that the simple pleasures which you do enjoy can and will be taken away from you in the future

[Anonymous No.19934569]

>>19931453
Evil is suffering

[Anonymous No.19934654]

>>19928953
I do. But none of them watch videos revealing cool facts about bugs, as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.19934738]

>>19934560
I mean sure, but that’s not so bad

[Anonymous No.19934749]

>>19934738
it's pretty bad

[Anonymous No.19935117]

>>19934446
>duuude you just don't understand iiiiit
Fuck off Yud

[Anonymous No.19935271]

>>19934749
It's not thaaaat bad. Getting to enjoy it for some time is better then none

[Anonymous No.19936311]

>>19927043
I really don't get how Rohko's Basilisk could affect anyone in any way. It sounds just like The Book of revelation for r/atheism

[Anonymous No.19936318]

>>19925220
Imagine not pushing yourself to find some adventure

[Anonymous No.19936341]

>>19927107
why should I give a shit that I'm simulated ?

[Anonymous No.19936349]

>>19927120
this sounds retarded but it is as likely to happen as Basilisk

[Anonymous No.19936374]

>>19925241
That's called being a bromide. As in, someone who's boring and vapid and who repeats stale phrases they've heard other use, so that it seems like they're under the influence of 19th century bromine-based soporific drugs.
Yours isn't a new realization.

[Anonymous No.19936389]

Antinatalism and pessimism

[Anonymous No.19936528]

>>19936374
>just put together why they brominate flour

[Anonymous No.19936579]

>>19926154
What is the flaw?

[Anonymous No.19936584]

>>19925220
>Roko's Basilisk
Thats what I call my dick

[Anonymous No.19937045]

>>19929827
If super advanced robot ai aliens showed up to earth with crazy cool tech and told you to worship them, they won't hurt you, but you have to do what they say and work for them, mining materials and stuff, having gay sex, pretty much anything they could think of, but if you refused to get on your knees 3 times a day and worship them , they would brutally torture you, what would you do?

[Anonymous No.19937057]

>>19929281
>t. a white woman

[Anonymous No.19937648]

>>19925241
Don't judge by what they say, but what they do. They know some bug fact? Can they prove the fact? Have they proven the fact? Have they LIVED the fact? That's why Proverbs instructs us to keep silent. Disembodied, unapplied information, without experience or personal qualification, is as good as useless. AKA 4chan

[Anonymous No.19938300]

>>19928857
>>19927548
>>19925241
I think the problem is they spend too much time consuming and not enough time thinking. So they're sort of just a transmitter for whatever they consume rather than a complete mind.

[Anonymous No.19938308]

>>19928698
>mfw some retard on the internet is yet again abusing history while pretending to be learned to the braindead masses
why do they have to 'claim' everything for a crumb of social value?

[Anonymous No.19938315]

>>19928698
>mfw some retard on the internet is yet again abusing history while pretending to be learned to the braindead masses
why do they have to 'claim' everything for a crumb of social value? why don't they care about integrity or accuracy?

[Anonymous No.19938431]

>>19927885
>walkable cities
That's some real shit though, no cap. Like, that's a legit problem and if a bunch of normies are starting to complain about it, that's a good thing because it's just shitty design and makes life measurably much worse. Not really the same as some pseud telling some normie that "Akkshuwally, Frankenstein was the name of the monster, not the scientist!" after he learned about it from and episode of Vsauce's YouTube Show or some thing.

[Anonymous No.19938469]

>>19938431
no cap on god it bussin fr fr

[Anonymous No.19938485]

>>19938469
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!

[Anonymous No.19938493]

>>19925241
funny I do the same thing with dumb frogposters

It's really a fucking shame you faggots don't all trip up so I can filter you.

[Anonymous No.19938506]

>>19929004
You still are nigger.

[Anonymous No.19938511]

>>19925241
Same. Whenever I see someone talking about history/philosophy/lit/science etc. I check Wikipedia and 8/10 times what they were saying is just a rephrasing. The other 2 times it was some big YouTube video.

[Anonymous No.19938514]

>>19925241
It's worse when you hear the same joke or comedic style, really makes you look at the person differently.

[Anonymous No.19938523]

>>19938431
yeah cars suck but the only reason highways were built is because nobody wanted to live around _______ but y'all ain't ready for that conversation.

[Anonymous No.19938558]

>>19926970
You can bring it up in complex situations and say the most simple explanation is magic, then watch people seethe.

[Anonymous No.19938561]

>>19925241
Why are people giving this so many (you)s?
This is just a basic realization about the homogenization of online media and normal small talk.
Everyone is guided to the same content because algorithms control all media now.
No shit people saw that viral video of the cat jumping off a balcony or bug facts, Youtube is basically network tv now.
It's the same as your friend in 2004 talking to you about the last football game or the news or a south park episode.
This is just autism on your part.

[Anonymous No.19938565]

>>19925241
>Any time a normie says something to me that another normie said to me recently, like a cool but shallow fact about bugs, I instantly detect that they both read the same retarded book or whatever and I label them both permanently as RETARDS in my mind so I never make the mistake of listening to anything they say ever again

[Anonymous No.19938574]

this thread is a trap for mental idiots

[Anonymous No.19938587]

>>19938300
that's a good point

[Anonymous No.19938606]

Baudrillard called it the disappearance of the Man and the Real.

[Anonymous No.19938662]

>>19925220
I mean, I have fun with my hobbies. To be quiet honest, reading adventure compensates a lot of the first part.
And for everything bad you have The Bible.

[Anonymous No.19938972]

>>19925368
Alright calm down Levi

[Anonymous No.19939063]

>>19929004
been there too tbqh

[Anonymous No.19939081]

>>19926913
>projecting emotional causes onto an AI that acts by pure logic
Isn't that what makes it relevant in the thread? Perceiving an AI like that as something that feels revenge is a scary thought to the average person. It's like what made AM so unsettling in I Have No Mouth.

[Anonymous No.19939118]

>>19925220
>mental traps and concepts that fuck with stupid people
Infinity and eternity
Death
Consciousness
God
Perception
Reality
Truth
Existence
Being
Quantum
Destiny
Luck
Free will
Self
Reincarnation
Rebirth
Eternal recurrence
Simulation
Demons
Heaven and hell
Afterlife
Anime

And many others, all of those are midwit pseud concepts. Only retards think about them.

[Anonymous No.19939124]

>>19936584
eik miegot Rokai

[Anonymous No.19939207]

>>19925227
I think its a communication thing, I can "see" things in my mind meaning that I can imagine how an object would look from a different angle, but I dont actually see it with my eyes

[Anonymous No.19939469]

>>19938511
where are you informing yourself?

[Anonymous No.19939481]

I'm not the same anon.

>>19929827
>I don't think the existence of any sort of God is incredibly unlikely
Considering how purposeless exitance is, there probably is a G-d. I realise how poorly thought out this sounds, but every system has a source.

Please notice I am not discussion the nature of this G-d.

But at the end of the day, beliving there is a G-d looking out for you is, due to evolution, a necessary aspect of living in peace.

>>19930276
>Pascal gigacopes like the bitch he was
Yes, he posits that you should live in fear and mental slavery. It sounds like cowardice.

A loving G-d would not condemn you if you tried to be good. That is what I believe.

[Anonymous No.19940580]

>>19926913
>>19926889
>recreates Christianity
Why is this so fucking funny to me bros?

[Anonymous No.19940620]

>>19931287

Most people are not playing a weird meta game of consuming shitty entertainment media in an effort to appeal to actual low IQ brainless sissy retards, and giving a wink and a nod to other people playing the same meta game. OP is either very young or social class mismatched (i.e. a fuckup). It's unnatural to be sociable around retards and faggots, I'm sorry you were bullied in highschool or something

[Anonymous No.19940669]

>>19940620
>>19940620
>>19939481
Not him, but, theres nothing wrong with delving into topics to stay up to date at a laymen level. I watch youtube vids sometimes and love sharing what I have discovered.

By doing that you are already ahead of 90% of people who dont bother to read.

The only issue I can see with this is the tone of voice one may take. Redditors tend to act pretend they are great intellectuals and take a tone of voice to compliment that delusion.

What if you just shared the cools things you learned casually?

Like I found out that the reason our night sky isnt completely white from the light of every star in existence is because light cant reach us once the source of the light is past our observable universe, bcause thats the point where the universe expands faster than the speed of light.

And it goes with saying, in the future there wont be a single star in our sky due to how much the universe has expanded, all other solar system will have moved past the edge of the observable universe

Creepy!

[Anonymous No.19941183]

>>19940669
>Like I found out that the reason our night sky isnt completely white from the light of every star in existence is because light cant reach us once the source of the light is past our observable universe, bcause thats the point where the universe expands faster than the speed of light.
I don't think so.. I think the dark black night sky is full of light. It is just that only the vector of a stars light which is directly aimed at our eye is seen, and there are not enough atoms in space to scatter that light into our vision

[Anonymous No.19941211]

>>19925930
think he meant the easy problems of consciousness ie how our brains process or how it could have come to be. as apposed to the hard problems of consciousness like how such processes translate to our experience of them and what "our experience of them" even means.

[Anonymous No.19941228]

>>19925220
>Roko's Basilisk
The Redditor’s Pascal’s Wager.

[Anonymous No.19941289]

>>19925220
believing that laplaces demon could be made real with AI or isnt just a thought experiment

[Anonymous No.19941440]

>>19938561
>t. buttblasted normie
get the fuck out