Just because someone is spouting thoughts does not make them correct - especially with regards to formal logic. If you do not understand the concepts that are being discussed, it’s in incredibly bad faith to suggest that someone with in depth formal education on the subjects is incorrect or less right just because you feel they are, and you don’t agree with what amounts to be an abstract concept because you lack the in depth knowledge to see otherwise.
It’s exactly like learning math. Just because you have some founding blocks doesn’t mean you have the language to carry you through higher orders of mathematical language - and in fact, low level language is taught in ways that will have to be relearned or shifted, later.
you are interpreting the mathematicians wrong, or the mathematicians are wrong. the mathematicians are great people who have done great work. everyone is wrong about something.
No, that's the fucking definition. A valid scientific hypothesis needs to have a test that would be able to falsify it. That's fundamental to fucking science.
This is once again never an argument I made. If math is correct, then your fucking bullshit about consciousness being a solely material phenomena is provably not true when you make the assumption that it's valid to add extrinsic axioms to a set-theoretic universe
What the fuck are you talking about? In empiricism, verifiable has a very specific meaning. Mathematics is not empirically verifiable. That's a fucking fact. You can't test mathematics by observing material objects/phenomena.
really you still havent addressed the main issue. youre modeling consciousness as a thing that directly accesses metaphysical mathematics. can you tell me what is going on when a drugged mathematician does bad mathematics then?
Mathematical claims can be proven true, false, or unprovable. The methods to do so are 1st and/or 2nd order ,logic. You cannot run an experiment to test them. You cannot create an experiment that could falsify them. If they fell under the domain of empiricism, you could never prove them true or unprovable. You can only falsify claims under empiricism.
How do you not know the very basic fundamentals of the system you say has primacy above all others? Is it because you've never even read a wiki or SEP article on what you're talking about? Because that seems extremely likely. You're just too fucking lazy to put in the effort to learn how to make a coherent position, so you dismiss everything anyone else says, no matter how well cited as "confused." Go fuck yourself.
yes, its hard to accept. because i dont know what it is that im accepting. it turns out that whatever ewiz believes leads him to reject AGI on metaphysical grounds, which is not okay. so it must be wrong in some sense.
consciousness can directly access the metaphysical. mathematics is metaphysical. metaphysical is not by definition, contained within the brain. consciousness is not contained within the brain.
Nothing. He's not doing mathematics. Mathematics cannot be bad. If it is, it's recognizable and dismissed. This is why peer review exists. I already fucking answered this twice.
Godel's proof showing isomorphism between metaphysical mathematical structure and a set-theoretic system shows that we have direct access to those existing mathematical structures. You can't just say I'm misreading Godel without providing a counter-interpretation. And you can't because you won't even read five fucking paragraphs.
consciousness cannot directly access the metaphysical. this is a naive view of consciousness. explain drugged mathematicians doing math in their heads thats completely absurd and yet seems legit to them in the moment.
okay. so how about very subtly bad mathematics that gets published and then a decade later someone finds a problem with it? how about all the dead-in-the water philosophy that is out of fashion?
are there just metaphysical graveyards of dead metaphysical structures? or were none of those people accessing metaphysical structures?
they are drugged. their brain works in a certain way that causes them to believe they are doing math. but whatever they are doing is incoherent to non-drugged people.
non-drugged mathematicians are exactly the same but what they are doing is coherent to non-drugged people. usually.