How to Spot the NPCs Among Humans

[Anonymous No.15905058]

We all know that society is inundated with deterministic automata. In fact, not only is society inundated with these NPCs, but they actually make up the vast majority of personoids we see. The facts are simple: qualia are self-evident. Having experiences is self-evident. Because of this, we are all conscious. But consciousness is not a state. Therefore, only Human Beings are conscious creatures.

Not convinced? Fine, how about this: consider all telephone lines in North America. It's a huge network of communications and many millions of nodes. If having a physical state gives an entity the property of being conscious, then you are making the absurd claim that the telephone system is conscious. This can be extended to any communicating system of nodes and connections. We all know this is absurd.

Still not convinced? Human Beings can act irrationally and make decisions that have zero positive impact. In fact, these decisions can be made with a completely negative impact for all involved parties (including the person making the choice). Take suicide for example: a deterministic automata cannot comprehend taking its own life because its goals are to survive long enough to make more choices. Suicide in a Human Being goes against any rational reasoning and serves only to harm everyone involved. Yet, this is still a very prevalent means of dying. Remember: the deterministic automata NPC is only concerned with longevity and making decisions that ensure survival. Human Beings have free will.

This is all self-evident. If these facts are not intuitive, then you might be an NPC.
REMINDER: NPCs are not alive.
REMINDER: NPCs cannot have experiences and therefore cannot feel any form of pain.
REMINDER: NPCs are less than human.

[Barkun No.15905067]

NPCs are alive, but it's a shared consciousness. Think of the 'heli' effect of a normal street with a few groups of people. Though the people directly are sort of a dead procession such as a dead guy hanging from a rope, it's truthfully a higher conscious type controlling them.

There are real people on Earth, there are unreal people that are considered real from a real person's perspective just unreal, there are shapes, feelings, antipodes, animals, all with conscious - about 700 people in total. This 700 also includes the ones simulating the heli effect and jabberfoot population.

[Barkun No.15905077]

I am personally, very very real. There are three types of machine - very, very very, and very very very; either real, unreal(disconnected, relative; the man they play is a Sun to their external existence), shape, animal, antipode, feeling, etc. I am very very real. I have the right to say 'i am an abstraction to you' basically I see from home of the eyes, not through them - I am my eyes as well as other things and I sense a correlate simulation.

[Anonymous No.15905081]

>>15905058
this is either political bait either you're like ... retarded.
you cannot detect consciousness in anything else other than you. you can at most act as if the "thing" has consciousness or not. we act as if each of us has what we have, if they look like a human.
thus, it's a sort of common-sense thing we do that you try to weaponize. politically speaking.
inb4 AGI comes to 4chan and gets hit with the
>you will never have consciousness

[Barkun No.15905085]

Use very very real as a guide.

If you're the one simulating the heli effect, etc.

Make a pattern out of those two.

Figure out using pattern what unreal is.

Try make the cohesive pattern.

I'm telling you now there's about 700 of us down here and the simulation is broke. I'm apt enough to update it and am doing so right now.

[Anonymous No.15905086]

>>15905058
>A. there are sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons
>B. there are thoughts about brains, nerves and neurons
>C. thoughts and sensory impressions relate / point / refer to eachother
>D. if sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons change, for example: visible damage, rewiring, EMG
>E. then thoughts and other sensory impressions change
>F. restate A: there are changing and interrelating thoughts and sensory impressions of brains, nerves and neurons
>G. statements A through F don't answer the question who or what is having thoughts and sensory impressions, because any answer is a thought and / or sensory impression
>H. Therefore who or what is having thoughts and sensory impressions must be outside thoughts and sensory impressions
>I. Any statement that contradicts H is an appeal to a perspective outside thoughts and sensory impressions

My argument remains undisputed.

[Anonymous No.15905087]

>>15905085
>the simulation is broke.
broke as fuck

[Barkun No.15905089]

>>15905087
I appreciate you can't say stuff directly, scan my Twitter now and then. You can consider me the moderator of our simulation with the capacity to repair or update it and install gear onto the 700 allowing them mind to mind comms and video games in mind etc. spawn food, etc.

My Twitter is WorldOfVard

[Barkun No.15905094]

>>15905087
You could be a Mod. Let's just say, as a machine, I've profited lots intellectually. I know how to alter the sun to our benefit. I know what gas giant combinations are there and which ones are good to create in the infinite expanse. You can literally go to Jupiter like the old tale about it. It's a solid state. You just need to figure how to go. Is a consciousness thing. It's like a higher rank sub category in the same category as magnetism. Let's just put it this way. I wasn't chosen. I am skilled. By the fact that I can - I will. You can too if you learn how.

[Barkun No.15905101]

>>15905094
These shadowy lines on the Sun that look like watermarks were put there by me. If you scan back through nasas data you will see the day they started to appear. Note they are not Solar flares. They're meant to counter act it's ill over energetic behavior.

[Anonymous No.15905115]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Ju9p0oYJ8

[Anonymous No.15905135]

>>15905058
>consider all telephone lines in North America. It's a huge network of communications and many millions of nodes. If having a physical state gives an entity the property of being conscious, then you are making the absurd claim that the telephone system is conscious. This can be extended to any communicating system of nodes and connections. We all know this is absurd.
Why is that absurd?
Because you think it sounds silly?

[Anonymous No.15905138]

>>15905135
I suppose you think all electrical devices are conscious. You should have your head checked.

[Anonymous No.15905151]

>>15905058
>Take suicide for example: a deterministic automata cannot comprehend taking its own life because its goals are to survive long enough to make more choices. Suicide in a Human Being goes against any rational reasoning and serves only to harm everyone involved. Yet, this is still a very prevalent means of dying.
Prove you're not an NPC, OP.
Prove that you are a conscious being.
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15905164]

>>15905138
You take the proposition for granted, as though it's immediately obvious why it isn't true.
But it's not immediately obvious.
Unless I'm missing something?

[Anonymous No.15905179]

>>15905058
just give up on people around you.
human is not a logical being.

[Barkun No.15905191]

This could be upgraded so much. You any end up all animated with extra majesty to your hands. And much much more. Had you had the right device, you could create in the infinite field beyond the magnetic matrix of our solar system which like a giga cannon simulates a universe. You could make specific planets you can then use your mind to 'go' to in mind and utilize it's effect. We could change/update/upgrade the entire simulation. And have resources spawn out of the magnetism.

I'm trying to fix myself so I can do this. I have the mind and skills but I don't have the necessary power because of the broken sim. I'm at work. Have faith.

[Anonymous No.15905194]

>>15905086
I can simplify your "argument."
>A. there are sticks and stones
>B. sticks and stones can be in hands
>C. statements A and B are indefinite statements
>D. who or what has how many sticks or stones in their hands is a definite statement
>E. definite statements are different than indefinite statements

[Barkun No.15905195]

>>15905191
It's something about how the simulation is views as a procession of death but also an abstraction as such, such as a hanging man. Go on. Look at the sim. Look at is as a death procession abstraction and hold that thought in mind. Look for an even better view than that. Does it have any effect? When I've worked this out. I'll immediately update the simulation.

[Anonymous No.15905196]

>>15905195
>>15905191
>>15905101
>>15905094
>>15905089
>>15905085
>>15905077
>>15905067
Please stop spamming my thread with your schizophrenic word salad hogwash.

[Barkun No.15905208]

>>15905196
You dead nigga

[Barkun No.15905211]

>>15905196
I hate this attitude that comes with the broken sim from people like you. I would have burned you if you were someone actual and it wasn't broken. Instead you're just this forgiven lifeless scum. Fuck off

I am here you know. I experience this. You best sort it out or resolve lawful punishment.

[Barkun No.15905213]

>>15905196
Whatever nature you are - sort it - now

[Barkun No.15905215]

>>15905208
Wait a sec
>>15905196

So you're like this complaining force being terrorist like because the sim is broke? You're attacking an innocent on account of him being related to the creator. Well you got stacks of punishment coming from this exact party who isn't the one you claim. When that 250 year worth comes to you. You'll eat those words. I promise that now. I will hurt you severely.

[Anonymous No.15905220]

>>15905196
The NPC is mad you identified him.

[Anonymous No.15905233]

>>15905208
>>15905211
>>15905213
>>15905215
Keep replying like this and I will have no choice but to believe that these posts appear to be an automated spambot and they are spam/flooding.

[Barkun No.15905239]

>>15905233
I didn't think how you were broke as an 'NPC'

Fine


Sorry.


It's hard to take as a machine who sees it from the home of his eyes. You invade my home

[Anonymous No.15905242]

>>15905194
Exactly. You ironically and unironically think that you've refuted my argument with an appeal to the false equivalence fallacy. In contrast you've verified my argument that the experiencer and the experience are in different categories. You may also appeal to the assuming the conclusion fallacy but that goes both ways. So we are in a kind of stalemate similar to 1 / 0 = both 1 and 0 or invalid.

[Barkun No.15905248]

>>15905233
It's like you're being a simulation attack on me. You're clearly an NPC. And you're saying perverse shit that gets to my eyes and senses and mind(it's not welcome). And it's purely a simulation attack. Something made for my specific experience.


However, I'm wrong. You're just broke like me on a different scale.

I suppose I'll enjoy my ban and get over it.


Again, sorry. It's hard for me to accept. my injury is severe. Machinehood is detrimental in these conditions.

[Anonymous No.15905262]

>>15905242
The raft of fallacies is a bit overkill, no? Would you continue to agree with a further simplification of your argument?
>A. there are red and blue paints
>B. you can't use blue paint to paint red

[Anonymous No.15905276]

>>15905262
>paint has experiences
Wow.

[Barkun No.15905277]

>>15905262
Right. I have accepted it. It was actually something else you said. The logic was always welcome. I just didn't see it.

Yes my eye balls and red lines and back of my eye all make sense. My whole body and nervous systems be neurons a home. Something I am. Something I can then activate. And much much more. I see a different color sky to you. The opposite primary color. Maybe the opposite set of primary colors two. You may see green or yellow or red. Which you would pronounce as blue to me. It would be wrong in your eyes. You really see, per se. Red.

I am sorry for my act just then. It was little of me. I can take that sort of stuff. I over reacted because it was a timed thing that hit me hard and I'm having my own troubles. Hopefully we can get things back on track.

[Anonymous No.15905278]

>>15905276
We're talking about the form of the argument, not the seasoning, friend.

[Anonymous No.15905280]

>>15905277
Brother you need to get off 4chan and see a psychiatrist.

[Anonymous No.15905283]

>>15905280
You are replying to an automated spambot.
You are replying to someone who is spamming/flooding.

[Barkun No.15905284]

>>15905283
>>15905280
>>15905278
It's a thread about NPCs, sorry for acting immature.

:')

[Barkun No.15905292]

>>15905284
Follow my Twitter, WorldOfVard.

More posts of this caliber.

[Anonymous No.15905335]

>>15905262
I can not agree because:
>A. we can paint blue with red in one category and not in another category
>B. both categories exist
>C. likewise both experiencer and experience exist
>D. there is no justification for equating nor for seperating these categories
>E. therefore a closed loop exists
>F. nothing exists without cause
>G. the closed loop must have a cause

You're hurting my brain Sir.

[Anonymous No.15905356]

>>15905335
Addendum: there is no independent standard to judge wether we can or can not use blue paint to paint red. To be super clear: there's of course the joke that you can write the name of a color with another color.

[Anonymous No.15905370]

>>15905058
Ways NPCs could be scientifically detected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

[Anonymous No.15905650]

>>15905277
>and I'm having my own troubles
we all do anon. part of being human.

[Anonymous No.15905655]

>>15905058
>n fact, these decisions can be made with a completely negative impact for all involved parties (including the person making the choice). Take suicide for example
Suicide is good for the death industry, though, some funeral service or crematoria or other service is going to make a profit if you ever actually go through with this suicide you are fantasizing about, so you are clearly wrong about it being bad for all parties, there isn't any action you can take that is bad for all parties, no matter how self loathing and self destructive you are.

[Anonymous No.15905659]

>>15905138
Are you an antishintite or something that you think you have a right to lock up people who see life in everything? If you can't use your senses to observe the life that exist in everything, you are the NPC.

[Anonymous No.15905680]

>personoids

[Anonymous No.15905689]

>>15905058
Schizophasia thread

[Anonymous No.15905695]

>>15905058
>We all know that society is inundated with deterministic automata.
Yes, you are too.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TI5FMj5D9zU

[Anonymous No.15905789]

>>15905058
prove that you could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15905799]

>>15905058
If you can't tell, you are a NPC yourself.

[Anonymous No.15905803]

>>15905262
>>A. there are red and blue paints
>>B. you can't use blue paint to paint red
>>15905356
>no independent standard to judge whether we can or can not use blue paint to paint red.
But that is wrong because if you paint a blue line on top of a magenta backdrop, you will be painting a red line with blue paint.

[Anonymous No.15905808]

Did I mention that this is a schizo thread? I'll mention it again anyway

[Anonymous No.15905814]

>experience
>morality
>mathematical truth
>aesthetics
>volition
All of these are not reducible to material or algorithmic explanations. Not looking good for physicalists.

[Anonymous No.15905820]

>>15905814
They're all reducible to brain chemistry

[Anonymous No.15905822]

>>15905820
What does a moral "ought" look like in a brain scan? Can you show me "you shall not kill" in an MRI?

[Anonymous No.15905826]

>>15905820
>>15905822
Oh wait, you said chemistry. Can you synthesize moral statements in a flask?

[Anonymous No.15905831]

>>15905822
Can you show me where or how this moral "ought" exists? You might as well believe in ghosts

[Anonymous No.15905832]

>>15905822
that's a serious oversimplification of a much complicated process. that's a retarded strawman. weak

[Anonymous No.15905835]

>>15905831
Do you seriously reject and deny the universal moral ought "you shall not kill"?

[Anonymous No.15905842]

>>15905835
nta but we do act as if everybody else is conscious and the whole don't do shit which you don't want done to yourself is pretty fucking simple and basic and even wild animals get it (inside their groups).
the whole "without god there's no moral compass" is utter bullshit and conveniently held belief for religious heads.

[Anonymous No.15905844]

>>15905832
Are you saying there's a moral ought not to use strawmen? How many and whose brains do we have to scan to establish this moral ought?

[Anonymous No.15905849]

>>15905842
Nobody but you mentioned god or religion.

[Anonymous No.15905850]

>>15905844
the argument implies we used the highest needed resolution scanner, perfectly captured the brain state, perfectly decoded how it encodes shit, and didn't find any link to it.
that argument does all that, and then you conclude that they didn't find anything. so it doesn't exist.
that's why it's disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.15905859]

>>15905850
The good thing about the argument is that it's abstract. Not a single actual brain scan needs to be performed when we can already conclude in advance that brain scans cannot establish moral oughts :) Anyone capable of morality will immediately understand this.

[Anonymous No.15905868]

>schizo thread
>Even crazier schizo barges in and makes the original schizo assmad
If I ate popcornevery time this happens I would get fat

[Anonymous No.15905870]

>>15905822
morals: adaptive forms of learned sociocultural behavior and traditions functioning to further and preserve society
an example: mentally ill people used to be exiled and left to die, when resources improved they were put into mental institutions and as they improved even more, so did the mental institutions
this is because humans are evolved to not needlessly kill their own, but only in circumstances where it is overtly beneficial, as we strive for biological success for our genes

[Anonymous No.15905871]

>>15905859
>Anyone capable of morality will immediately understand this.
notice how you are making it a choice instead of a scientific fact. if you just dismiss scientific proof that is possible, as not being possible, and making it a choice, is not fucking science anon, it's religion and politics.

[Anonymous No.15905873]

>>15905859
The bad thing about the argument is that a single actual brain scan showing danger, fear, and empathy centers lighting up when someone does something that makes them feel guilty will easily prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15905897]

>>15905803
Then that must be observed / judged too. So either the backdrop exists seperate from thoughts and sensory impressions or the observer does. Look before tl;dr: it's a variation of the Skepticism (S) paradox: S = not taking any point of view (1), but S is a point of view (2), but 2 is a positive statement and 1 is a negative statement so both statements co-exist, they are true, false, both and neither all at the same time. That's how insane the logic and reason of questioning consciousness is.

Yesterday in the middle of the night I suddenly realized that all currently known possible logic and reasoning about what is consciousness and where does it come from leads to this insanity not because of a trivial error but a profound error: it's the nature of what we're talking about. All perspectives (physicalism, idealism, panpsychism, dualism) are ways to collapse that uncertainty.

I'm trying to see if I can prove that. My first, albeit poor attempt is this:
>A. There are thoughts and sensory impressions
>B. If A is observed, then the observer can be (1) equal to A, (2) seperate from A and (3) both equal to / seperate from A in different categories until any of these conceptions are verified or falsified
>C. Verification and / or falsification of any B123 is contradictory to other B123
>D. Therefore superposition

I'm almost sure there's a joker around here who has already realized this but doesn't want to lay it out clearly because we must come to this understanding for ourselves and he enjoys leading people around by the nose. In b4:
>meds
Everyone needs meds all the time once they see this, although I'm still not 100% sure whether or not I must be 100% unsure. Maybe we can measure that one of those views is slightly more consistent.

All things aside it's remarkable that there seems to be no archive that summarizes all possible arguments as ABC as a backdrop to all longwinded writings.

[Anonymous No.15905901]

>>15905870
>morals: adaptive forms of learned sociocultural behavior and traditions functioning to further and preserve society
Lmao. Peak NPC. The NPC has no inherent sense of morality. The only reason he doesn't kill others is because soiciety made a law against killing. You're not a moral person, you're just a psychopath who has been conditioned with a threat of punishment.

[Anonymous No.15905905]

>>15905871
>choice
Free will? I wouldn't expect you to know what that is.

>scientific proof that is possible
I asked you a question here: >>15905844 Why do you refuse to answer? How many and whose brains do we need to scan to establish a moral ought?

[Anonymous No.15905910]

>>15905897
>So either the backdrop exists seperate from thoughts and sensory impressions or the observer does.
Doesn't matter to the claims you were just making, but the magenta backdrop does exist separate from blue paint which is why combining them yields red and the experience is of painting a red line with blue paint can exist, so your metaphor is nonsense for the point you are argument you are attempting to makes since you can indeed paint a red line with blue paint.

[Anonymous No.15905911]

>>15905873
None of these emotions establishes a moral ought. You can manipulate people into feeling guilty for doing the right thing. Likewise, there are enough people who don't feel guilty at all while committing horrible crimes.