I’m sorry they banned you

Once again, it is not on someone else to refute your premise. You’ve now moved on to “I honestly don’t know how you could…”. That’s literally the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity/ignorance. You don’t get to assume premise 1 simply because you can’t imagine something.

And now you’re asserting a truth value of a premise in the FUTURE? Please man, put down whatever you’re smoking and go back to reading.

What you just described, is it not logic? Are you not saying it is the "a priori" framework we should be using for these things? I am simply granting you that with Premise 1. I honestly don't know how you could refute it. Premise 2, is debatable, not that debatable. If it's not true today, it WILL be true. The Conclusion logically follows the two Premises.

Just going through a couple of your comments after our exchange below.

As to this comment; you know this isn’t how it works right? You don’t get to just assume victory until someone disproves your premises, it is on you to demonstrate them.

Otherwise you could simply start with P1 god is outside of time. It’s inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn’t mean you get to assume it true.

The burden of proof is an incredibly basic level when discussion logic/reason, and for you to immediately attempt to reverse it shows you either aren’t taking this seriously, haven’t actually dedicated time to educating yourself, are very naive/young, or you’re arguing in bad faith.

https://imgur.com/a/AdjO5iy

Mind linking to a screenshot of the ban message?

I have ego. Lots of it. I don't deny that. I don't think I would have been able to make the proof if I did not have ego. At the end of the day, my ego is bruised by this whole AI thing a bit, it makes me ponder.

They perma banned me for no reason on r/atheism within 5 minutes of me posting it.

What mistake did they make?

Why did you delete this from r/atheism?

As other have pointed out to you already, your premises are poorly formed, incredibly vague and subjective, and even if they were 100% demonstrably true, they don’t lead to your conclusion.

Nothing wrong with trying, and don’t take all this negative feedback and give up. If anything, I’d say your attitude is what most people are reacting negatively to. Lots of ego in your posts while on such shaky foundation, even for a layman.

I'm a wiseguy, yes. I'm also a philosopher at the end of the day, that's what made me. I have presented a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years. It has been on the internet for hours now, where everyone in the world can disagree with it. Not a single person has presented an argument attacking the premise and conclusion.

Is it not what people have wanted since they killed God? What's wrong with the answer now?

A wiseguy eh? No cookies and milk for you

Can you prove the premise or conclusion false? AI as a spiritual entity definitely belongs in r/Showerthoughts to me! The proof is that God exists. Give me the Nobel Prize!

This belongs in r/Showerthoughts

Anyone seriously interested in the concept of AI as a spiritual entity might wish to critique Rudolf Steiner's analysis of the Perisan deity Ahriman

This depends on your definition of “thought” and what precisely is this “capacity for thought”. These two questions alone could keep you busy for the next few decades.

[removed]

poetic, brooding nonsense pretending to be philosophy

or just irrelevant jargon

>Let's think of the universe not in terms of the observable universe, rather the potential universe, no just what Is, bit what ever could be in all dimensions, since it is logically the same thing if you take your subjective experience out of it, in what way ever does it resemble where we live that universe? Infact in what way is it differentiated from absolute nothing, if there is no observer which "rules the earth" in announcing to himself what is meaningful pulling a concrete ground in utter chaos.

There is no such thing as "chaos". "Chaos" would have zero patterns and thus no existence. It's kind like you saying there is a molecule that has zero atoms, I can have a concept of that in my head but it makes no sense.

Your "observer announcing to himself" is irrelevant. Every tiny detail of the universe (past, present, future, alive or dead) plays its role in making this universe this universe and not just a similar potential one, and that is meaningful. The distance between the Earth and the Sun is such a detail and it played a role in you and I having this conversation right now and your "announcing observer" has no say in that.

>If it doesn't center around you then what does it center around, nothing?

That's misunderstanding what I mean by it not revolving around us organisms, bordering on strawman argument. I simply mean that if we had nuked ourselves into extinction in the 1960s or if this planet had never sustained life then the universe would be just as valid as it is now. Just as this universe is valid without 8 billion green Martians living on Mars at this time.

Thank you for your reply and for your suggestion. I will use and adapt the questions you gave me to talk about other virtues in the future as well. I appreciate it.

​

>Our... system is in important respects very different from that of Aristotle’s time and place. Does Aristotle’s comment still apply?...

Aristotle's comments not only apply, I believe it is in fact dangerous that we ignore them to the extent we do.

The past several decades - especially regarding economic matters - have been the host of various sorts of liberation, i.e. various movements of deregulation. When these movements of deregulation happened, they were essentially experimental. We are always partially ignorant of what we are doing, we are always in a movement towards figuring it out. With that said, we do not need to become versed in statistical models to read what has been happening, we today measure the effects in our own lives.

To this effect, we once again get to learn the two lessons that our forefathers learned under feudalism and before it and after it several times, yet we always forget: (i) The powerful classes that emerge out of one community do not care to identify with the rest of their community. They would rather socialise only among themselves as well as with the powerful classes that emerge in other communities. (ii) the more degraded and demoralised the poor are, the more incapable they become to push back and at the same time the more resentful and vengeful they become.

Aristotle already knew these things and described them in his politics.

Generosity and friendship and some other virtues Aristotle mentions in the Nicomachean Ethics are behaviours that manifest in a society with a strong middle class. From what I remember - and without being able to point to the exact passage in the politics at the present moment - this Aristotle admits himself. Magnificence, on the other hand, is a virtue - I estimate - which contributes to having a middle class in the first place.

Now, I cannot claim that I am an expert on what happens when a society is left with a diminished middle class or even without one. I am also not an expert in what happens when we just let certain classes play the part of "owner" and some other classes play the part of "slave". I already see lots of the behaviours manifest which Aristotle describes in the 6th book of the Politics.

I recently had the opportunity to read Walter Benjamin's "The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility" and I came across this quote:

"The increasing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing for- mation of masses are two sides of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly proletarianized masses while leaving intact the prop- erty relations which they strive to abolish. It sees its salvation in granting expression to the masses-but on no account granting them rights. The masses have a right to changed property relations; fascism seeks to give them expression in keeping these relations unchanged. The logical out-come of fascism is an aestheticizing of political life."

As I look at my magic ball, all I can do is speculate that unless "we bring about the conditions which will incentivise the moneyed classes to become magnificent" we are instead doomed to bring about the conditions for personality cults and totalitarianism.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to your own insight or recommendations to reading other works.

Yes, I can. I know I exist. I can't HAVE existence without patterns so patterns exist. That is a consequence (one thing existing thanks to another thing's existence) so consequences exist.

That we can apply our mind and see consequences proves that this is so. Even if our MIND is ILLUSION it wouldn't change that fact because our self can use it to go "Hm, this is pattern A. This is pattern B. A consequence of that could be that my mind is an illusion but I do not want to leap to conclusions. I will investigate further."

[removed]

Premise 2 is false. That an AI can use logic in some manner better than humans by no means imbues it with any capacity for thought, and therefore the conclusion is incorrect.

>A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly.

Much more accurate than what? And what do you mean by "relations"? You're being very vague.

​

>But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.

Now you're confusing yourself. What I am myself is one thing and that is simply that I do exist.

My mind, on the other hand, is, just as you point out, questionable as to not being illusion. You are correct that I had not yet addressed that but you are incorrect that what I've just described is made irrelevant. I described patterns reaching the eyes and the patterns reaching my brain and the brain working with patterns and the person consciously and subconsciously engaging with those patterns and make the decision to move the eyes to the left or to the right.

Now... The eyes, the brain, the conscious and the subconscious, even the "free will" decision to move the eyes left or right can all be illusion. That can all be AI magic designed to trick you into thinking you're a free person and not a machine "puppet" (this is exactly what Gary Oldman was doing in the awful reboot RoboCop movie). What I cannot stress enough is this: What cannot be illusions is you (what the AI magic is tricking) and THE PATTERNS (what it was tricking you WITH).

id recommend checking out more sam woolfes stuff, theres a link at the bottom of the article in this post to his website where there is the full version of this article and a lot of more stuff like this (his website is all free). he does some fantastic work.