What's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
i already decided i wasnt going to answer this. asking it over and over wont achieve anything.
Haha! So you admit you are ■■■■■■■■ then
That's not how fucking science works. To make a valid claim in science, you must design an experiment that can falsify your hypothesis. You have to design an experiment that could possibly show cognition is not contained solely in the brain. Guess what? You can't, so the answer to the question is beyond the capabilities of empiricism to answer
What's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
assume i am wrong. suppose i continue go around preaching that cognition is contained in the brain. i can always spontaneously produce an ad-hoc explanation for why i am right. no experiment will ever prove me wrong. one negative effect is that i piss off people with a philosophy background, but equivalently i piss off conservatives and such, so i dont really care. what are the negative results of me being wrong?
one thing i can think of is i might set back AI research. might i set back AI research?
Which means it's not a valid scientific theory you absolute moron. Science is predicated on being able to falsify a hypothesis or theory. You can never prove something in science is true: you can only falsify it
What's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
yep. we agree that whether its metaphysical or not is ascientific and not accessible to empiricism. why should i care about it if it has no effects?
ive been involved in numerous secret phds and have over 300 confirmed kills.
Because you can't make any assertions about it and assert that empiricism is the only valid epistemological way to gain and knowledge.
And because in the framework of 1st and 2nd order logic, which can actually establish truth unlike empiricism, your assumption about adding extrinsic axioms to a set-theoretic universe proves that your assertion is false and that mine is correct
ok. lets try something else. i am completely uninterested in nerd stuff like logical consistency or truth. i just want to make money. how will metaphysics help me make money?
for example, mathematics helps me make money because you can build cool things and the mathematics is required.
possible answers are that metaphysical exploration of the mind, or language, can help us build AI. which will make money. do you agree with this?
This is a very different thing than you making claims about the nature of consciousness and cognition.
It requires assumptions about the nature of what you're trying to model, which necessarily can't be well-founded because a metaphysical, mathematical structure is being applied to a material phenomena. You can make approximations, but it will never be absolutely true.
No. Metaphysical consciousness necessarily means we can never create AGI. We can create something that resembles AGI, but there will always be something lacking. Once again, because you're applying a metaphysical structure to a physical problem.
okay. so you have made a prediction. the prediction is that we will never make AGI. there are or soon will be lots of people working on AGI. so whether they ever succeed or not is a natural experiment that provides evidence distinguishing cognition being located in the brain, or cognition being metaphysical.
is this okay? our models of the world produce two different predictions.
unless you conveniently claim that anything produced. no matter how cool it is and passes the turing test and does all things, cannot be an AGI, by metaphysical definition. do you make such a claim?
this is the moment where i am motivated to start discarding philosophy. when after all your philosophical thought, you produce a result like "AGI is not possible because consciousness is metaphysical." at that moment the formerly harmless intellectualizing produces a bad result, and intimidates people using big words and circular definitions into barking up the wrong tree and stifling progress.
sorry, that was a harsh take. but thats my fundamental rejection. a claim like that is as absurd to me as "AGI can't happen because God won't let it". its a straight up proof by contradiction to me: your definitions and axioms and inference produced an absurd result, so something in there must be vacuous, circular, or wrong.
obviously you would wonder why i have any reason to believe AGI is possible in principle, but its symmetric both ways. we just both think the other is confused, and i expect im the one that's right, although i cannot convince you of it.
i make a abuse of terminology and call the metaphysical aspect of cognition not captured by physical processes the soul.
you claim the soul has been proven mathematically. okay. i dont think you are cognizant that youre wrong, or know where the mistake is. its just that the evidence that is presented to me supports the hypothesis that you have been deeply confused by volumes of theory that hacked your brain to convince you of a bad result. thats normal. its called religion. lots of mathematicians and philosophers and scientists who did really good work were religious too. human brains are vulnerable to religious attack.
religious people think they are metaphysically accessing God, but they are not. they have some dirty model of God in their heads that is related to but not exactly God Himself. also, i reject that the metaphysical true god even exists.
similarly, you think you are metaphysically accessing the logical structure that results in the conclusion "cognition is metaphysical" through theoretical analysis, but you are not. you have some dirty model of theory in your head with a mistake somewhere. i reject that "cognition is metaphysical" is metaphysically true. you're just mistaken.
and one day, the metaphysical semireligious confusion trickles its way up and leads to silly rejections of AGI. it is quite the shame.
sorry. im not trying to talk down to you. you are certainly a smarter person than average. im not smarter than godel either.
i just think its a big shame.