telling you my level of education opens me up to unproductive attacks, regardless of my level of education. so i wont be providing information regarding it.
1 Like
if consciousness is metaphysical, AGI cannot replicate consciousness. but consciousness is immeasurable. so you conveniently reject all AGIs after the fact by claiming they are necessarily not conscious in a non-falsifiable manner.
it is just very devoid of meaning. and may very well confuse AI researchers.
plus, i asked if i could make money, not replicate consciousness. how about non-conscious money making almost-AGIs that have everything but consciousness? can metaphysics help with that?
âCool thingsâ
making money is very cool.
Is it a shame that you are arguing with someone more or less educated than you, and you feel that you are right?
Which is it hbotz
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 think its a shame that smart people get confused by some abusive forms of philosophy and draw bad conclusions, about God, AGI, or otherwise.
You know, self-education and other informal education can be just as valid as formal education, so you should answer the following question: 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?
No answer the question. Youâve been here sucking the life out of everyone about your personal convictions and itâs been in bad faith.
You should figure out how to admit that.
Alright why the fuck did this post get hidden?
wait, what do you mean? i made this thread. you guys can stop reading and posting in it.
im sorry im sucking the life out of philosophy but i dont see much life in the stuff im sucking the life out of in the first place.
âConfusedâ by some âabusiveâ forms of âphilosophyâ
Thatâs just like
i think the Scientologists are confused by some abusive forms of philosophy.
i think the people who reject AGI on metaphysical grounds are confused by some abusive forms of philosophy. to a lesser extent, of course.
All from a single ewiz post. Meanwhile nyte feels the thing that really needs to be tone policed and subjected to "examine your language" attacks here is hbotz. ???
its okay, people are biased towards their friends and those they agree with. and since i tone policed nyte before, its hypocrisy on my part in that sense.
hbotz doesn't seem like a bad faith kinda guy
Hey you fucking moron, this is proven by goddamn set-theoretical mathematics. Stop saying it's about philosophy which you don't understand either. You don't even fucking understand science as evidenced by:
- Thinking science can affirm things
- Thinking that the burden to create an experiment to test whether object/phenomena is metaphysical is on the one making that claim
- Even thinking that empiricism can make claims about anything other than material phenomena/objects
- Thinking scientific theories don't need interpretations to assign physically existing things to mathematical formalism
- Thinking that you can throw out some random bullshit and it's empirically valid because of "common-sense"
- Thinking that an empirical claim is valid without a method to attempt to falsify it
You are so fucking dumb
No.
Do you think itâs a shame that you disagree with someone who is more educated than you, or less?
You should identify your personal agenda here which is that you believe you are right and youâve approached this whole thing with a confirmation bias. Itâs bad faith by the most basic of formal logic/scientific methodology