/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14709814
Even if your chemicals were off you and you couldn't feel anything would still be capable of sacrificing yourself for what you value.

>>14709814
This response is beautiful in that it will never make sense to an NPC, but it makes perfect sense to real people. It's a litmus test of humanity. So where's the guarantee that your chemically forced "thought process" is valid in any way? Where's the guarantee that you are able to judge? Your likes actively erode the very basis of any knowledge and any judgment.

>>14709814
Donald is rightly using science to come to a logically correct conclusion while not claiming that the logical conclusion has any moral implications, whereas mickey is reacting hysterically because he heard some fact he doesn't like and making absurd appeals to emotion and violence.

>>14709814
What if the AI comes to the conclusion that all of existence is electricity going through silicon?

>Donald is rightly using science to come to a logically correct conclusion while not claiming that the logical conclusion has any moral implications, whereas mickey is reacting hysterically because he heard some fact he doesn't like and making absurd appeals to emotion and violence.

>>14709877
Why would it?

>>14709877
>>14709889
You are both brainlets. If the AI comes to the "correct" conclusion (whatever that means in a context where you've stripped us both from the ability to come to correct conclusions about anything) that all of its thoughts and perceptions are forced by factors outside of its control, it will have to further draw the conclusion that all of its thoughts and perceptions are inherently suspect.

>>14709899
>it will have to further draw the conclusion that all of its thoughts and perceptions are inherently suspect.
So? Welcome to science, where you use imperfect and limited experimental knowledge all the time to study the true nature of the universe.

>>14709913
>So?
So there is no solid rational basis for any conclusion, including the conclusion about how its thoughts come about.

>>14709916
The rational basis of coming to correct conclusions with limited knowledge is called science.

>>14709924
You're literally subhuman.

>>14709926
I'm sorry you don't like the scientific method. The good thing about science however is that it works whether or not luddites like you protest against it.

>>14709931
Seriously, it's hard to believe you are anything but a GPT spambot.

>>14709934
I'm sure plenty of things are hard for you with your limited brainpower

>>14709940
Call me back when your programmers upgrade you to the extent that you can address the posts you reply to instead of spouting fully generic tripe.

>>14709941
It's not my fault that you don't understand how science works, luddite.

>>14709943
How science works has literally nothing to do with this thread, you confirmed nonhuman. lol

>>14709873
Your precious logic is nothing but a very limited tool, not reality.

>>14709945
It absolutely does, and you would realize that if you weren't a hysterical luddite. Stop replying to me and pick up a textbook or something.

>>14709948
Is that meme supposed to be your argument? How embarrassing

>>14709951
It doesn't. What OP asks about concerns the ability to think rationally and come to reliable conclusions all. It precedes science. You are nonhuman.

>>14709960
Look here you retard, I'll spell it out for you. In science you start with some initial observations and build models based on those observations which are then either validated or invalidated by some means, usually their predictions and consistency with the observed data. When these models are sufficiently advanced, they also allow you to rationally re-interpret the observations you initially made in novel ways. This is not at all surprising or unexpected. Of course I don't expect you to understand any of these basic things about the scientific method, so instead your next reply will just be you screeching out some other hysterical luddite catchphrase.

>>14709994
Science has nothing to do with this, nonhuman drone. Just stop posting. This is painful to watch.

>>14709995
Exactly like I predicted. Now fuck off retard.

>>14710002
I accept your full concession.

>>14709814
And how is the AI conscious?

>>14710101
It... it just is, okay?

>>14710101
How are you?

>>14710115
I'm fine, thanks.

>>14709957
Not an argument soi boy.

>>14710116
See >>14710119

>>14710132
You're having another episode.

>>14710134
Stop using words and argue like a real man, soi boy

>>14710119
These posters are actually kinda sick ngl

>>14709814
You glossed over the fact that Donald's concern is not that his actions are guided by chemicals, but that - for him - this necessarily means he has no intrinsic value in doing or feeling anything in a purely material universe. Mickey's response is that, if you can't trust your feelings to be genuine because they're just chemicals, why are you trusting the feeling that you have no genuine feelings? Because that had to come from a chemical reaction, too. If your thoughts are invalidated by being the result of chemical reactions, then you have to consider *all of them* invalid, including the one that makes you believe your thoughts are invalid, otherwise you're inconsistent in your own logic.

In your setup, you don't have an analog for whether or not the AI has been led to believe that its "life" has some fundamental intent by which it can derive a sense of genuine purpose for existing, which could then be potentially negated or not by the recognition that its thoughts are nothing more than the product of electrical signals in silicon. In fact, your setup completely fails to be an analogy because of a total mischaracterization of AI with being equivalent to a feeling human being. The whole point of an analogy is to find something which is different enough to be distinguishable but equivalent enough to be a 1:1 stand-in for the logical point. You haven't done that.

>>14709873
>Donald is rightly using science to come to a logically correct conclusion
Donald's logic is that there's no intrinsic value in his thoughts because they are the results of chemical reactions. By his own logic, he'd have to conclude the thought
>there is no intrinsic value in my thoughts
also has no intrinsic value, since its a thought and therefore must be the product of chemical reactions. Therefore, Donald is not acting logically. In fact, he's violating his own logic. Therefore, he has not presented a logical statement.
>no moral implication
>calls chemical actions absurd
How does he justify them as absurd without either misunderstanding how the chemical reactions work (they aren't disordered, incoherent, or illogical, they just are) or by passing a moral judgement on them (he feels it's absurd for his own reasons)?
In any case, Donald is not being purely unbiased or non-ignorant. Nor is he acting logically.

Q.E.D. suck dicks, take a logic course so this stuff doesn't escape you so easily.

>>14709814
Shit like this is why /lit/ makes fun of you atupid niggas

>>14709814
Donald's argument is flawed because of self entitlement. Why do chemicals have no intrinsic value? Why then do you have intrinsic value? What makes you special? He puts his own ego on a pedestal and then when faced with the deep problem of consciousness and being his ego is shattered.
He doesn't understand, so he despairs. The little guy is right, you have to suck it up, understand that our knowledge is based on things we don't know and we can't prove and things we don't even know we don't know. And still we press on

Even if chemicals had no intrinsic value, what makes you think that it's not the chemicals but their arrangement in time and space that gives rise to our own value?

>>14710684
You're like a silly undergraduate who writes long answers full of leaps in logic to hide the fact that he cannot give the correct answer.
>also has no intrinsic value, since its a thought and therefore must be the product of chemical reactions.
Correct, and he confirms that by his use of "everything we know and love".
>Therefore, Donald is not acting logically.
Not at all. No "intrinsic value" is not the same as "no value at all". You fail to understand this simple point, so your post is nonsense.

>>14710692
Go fellate pynchon you self absorbed retard absolutely nobody gives a shit about you and you get zero bitches
>Oh no the dirty homeless drug addict is pointing and laughing at me

>>14710717
NTA but I'm just here to remind you that all of your "logical" reasoning is chemically forced and therefore has no knowable relationship to any actual truth. :^)

>>14710730
>I'm just here to remind you
Okay then, take this (You) and go away

>>14710716
>Even if chemicals had no intrinsic value, what makes you think that it's not the chemicals but their arrangement in time and space that gives rise to our own value?
It's like a painting. Saying that a Michelangelo has no intrinsic value because it's just pigments. It's not the pigments that give the painting value, it's their arrangement

>>14710736
See >>14710730

>>14710744
Do you want money from me or something? Go away, shoo shoo

>>14710730
>NTA but I'm just here to remind you that all of your "logical" reasoning is chemically forced and therefore has no knowable relationship to any actual truth. :^)
You can test the reality you're in. Your statement is nonsense and I'm not sure if the clownface means it's a joke, or if you actually believe what you just wrote. Even so, a lot of people think that's some "gotcha" so it needs addressing.
>>14709814
It doesn't make sense. If someone is unironically parroting that stupid meme I guarantee they aren't worth talking to.

>>14710749
>You can test the reality you're in
Reality I'm in? You mean the perception that chemical interactions force upon me, their interptation that chemical interactions force upon me, and the "logic" that chemical interactions force upon me?

>>14710751
>Reality I'm in? You mean the perception that chemical interactions force upon me, their interptation that chemical interactions force upon me, and the "logic" that chemical interactions force upon me?
You are those chemical interactions. To claim it is "forced" implies and assumes something intermediate, so you're begging the question.

Fact is, you evolved in reality, your evolution necessarily has some relationship to reality. Even if you are a brain in a vat the reality you perceive is testable and therefore truths in it discoverable. This is nothing but a philosophy 101 student's stupid 'gotcha' solipsism to prank children with.

>>14710754
You're nonhuman.

>>14709859
>So where's the guarantee that your chemically forced "thought process" is valid in any way?
Chemically forced thought process works better than schizo thought process.
>Where's the guarantee that you are able to judge?
Ability is directly observable.
>Your likes actively erode the very basis of any knowledge and any judgment.
My likes are truth and correctness, they are the basis of knowledge and judgement.

>>14710730
Then jump from a roof. Nothing will go wrong if perceived danger has no connection to reality, check it experimentally.

Donald is correct but it's an unhealthy viewpoint. It's through ignoring these facts that you allow yourself to believe in love as love, meaning not as a result of chemical processes, but as a the divine connection of two souls. By constantly perceiving the confines of your prison you're forever reminding yourself that you are a prisoner.
Mickey's logic is obviously flawed but what he's ultimately trying to do is pull Donald out of this intense reflection and bring him back into the "real" world. It isn't possible to survive in this world when you can't escape your head, hence is final lines.

>>14709814
It means the 5th argument described here
https://crossexamined.org/5-arguments-existence-free-will/

In materialism you can't actually prove anything since you can't choose

Free will is self evident, simple as
source: me

>>14713986
>I fail to see
Appeal to ignorance is not an argument. When christcuck subhumans will understand this?

>>14713986
>And whichever option he chooses, he did not have to make that choice.
>Nothing internal or external to the man causally determined the man to make the choice he did. His choice was uncaused or undetermined.
This means choice doesn't depend on the agent, i.e. hard indeterminism.

Donald makes as much sense as this.

>>14709814
No dog that leaves without a fight takes anything of worth with it. Maybe if that Advanced complex AI ever comes into being it will do better than you.

>>14716832
Time itself can't be said to meaningfully exist before the big bang. It's not 0-n seconds, it's NULL-n seconds, which is not a numerical value.

>>14716832
It exploded for a reason, just not for a schizo reason.

>>14709814
it would be less true if it wasn't true in the first place

>>14718509
0 is not a numeral value. 0 does not exist, 0 is made up, its fictitious, imaginary and not real, 0 is nothing, wherever you think it is, it is not there, look as hard as you want, you will never find 0, it is always absent because 0 is not part of reality or of anything else. 1 is the unit of all numbers, the ridiculous definition of 0 that mathematicians and others rely on is a fallacy.
Whats the square root of -0?
>-0?
>what the fuck
>it doesn't matter
>its just 0, i don't need to think about it
>oh god please make it go away
>no, wait, i can do this
>just take the limit
>OH SHIT