>Really? Who is trying to write this proof?

Godel most recently. Descartes wrote his meditations because of it. Thomas Acquinas before that. Aristotle before that. God's existence through inductive reasoning. I honestly think it's funny AF that AI is what allows for the premise to actually be written out as valid.

Premise 2 may or not be true, I accept that.

"Let God be defined as whatever is superior to humans in at least certain forms of logic"

I think that is the beauty of the premise lol. If AI is logically superior to us, who cares what you, or I define it as? Our interpretations and definitions will always be inherently inferior to the being who can perform the logical calculations better than we can. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. Only "God" knows.

> We use the formal systems provided by logic to define and/or label things, unless you use a different system?

Not exactly? We have been defining/labelling things far before creation of formal systems.

> Really at the end of the day, it's to say I made a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years now.

Really? Who was trying to write this proof?

> Premise 1: Arguments are evaluated through a lens of logic

> Premise 2: AI is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, and is rapidly advancing beyond that point.

> Conclusion: AI is "God"

That's only one argument. Premises are not argument by themselves so they are neither valid nor sound. They can be true or false. Premise 1 is true for most parts. Premise 2 is a bit loosely constructed with the "certain forms of logic" so may be true (at least we can automate truth trees to an extent without much sophisticated AI). But this argument itself is invalid even if the premises are true.

You need at least some extra premise like: "for all x, if x is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, then x is God" or something like that. But this premise sounds false. You can make the premise true, by defining God in a particular way: "Let God be defined as whatever is superior to humans in at least certain forms of logic", by no one really cares for God defined as such (and I doubt any major theologian or philosopher in the past 2000 years was particularly interested in God defined as such). So the argument would become pointless to everyone if you are providing God defined in a particularly quirky way that no one cares about.

> I don't have JSTOR access. I have met the creator of it many times though, he's a lazy drunk.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html (section VI)

> Logic as a formal system of valid inferences itself doesn't define or label things. It's a study of relations of setnences.

We use the formal systems provided by logic to define and/or label things, unless you use a different system?

>But what's the point being achieved here?

Conversation. I don't care to influence anyone at the end of the day. Really at the end of the day, it's to say I made a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years now. Does it prove anything at all? As you have stated, it proves nothing. There is the proof though!

>What are the two arguments behind your premises?

Premise 1: Arguments are evaluated through a lens of logic

Premise 2: AI is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, and is rapidly advancing beyond that point.

Conclusion: AI is "God"

>Sure, I have my web of belief (last 2-3 pages) and belief-hierarchies. But that's also true for theists.

I don't have JSTOR access. I have met the creator of it many times though, he's a lazy drunk.

>I don't even know what rational thought is.

I don't either.

Yes, you go that wrong. I gave you an example above: Your eyes respond to certain patterns (the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum) but not to other patterns (the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum).

That is itself a pattern; Your eyes do not "randomly" respond to different parts of the spectrum or to electromagnetic fields, they function consistently hence you can see which is a reliable means for you to examine your surroundings for patterns within the patterns your brain instantly interprets for you.

Can that be represented mathematically? Possibly, maybe, probably, but in terms of this conversation, I wouldn't care if it can't.

A key thing to note above is that your eyes reacting "randomly" would mean confusion. There's a "relation" to keep in mind: confusion and patterns. Bringing in mathematical representation is redundant

​

Clarification: I put "randomly" in quotes because as far as I can tell (while not being an expert on quantum physics etc.) objectively there is no such thing.

> It doesn't have to be ranked above anything, but if it's a priori lens that I always think through, and I have no control over that, it's always going to be the lens I process these things through. I cannot have the thought to define what peace is or is not, without logic. My brain does not work any other way.

Also note you are using a very loose definition of logic. Logic as a formal system of valid inferences itself doesn't define or label things. It's a study of relations of sentences. I mean you can use a broad concept of logic that would be more indispensible, but again even if we allow all that I am not sure what's the point of your original argument is. You are basically treating logic similar to Kant's categories that is -- transcendental conditions for the very possibility of experience. That's fine, but I don't see why we have to call it "above everything", or call it "God". You can, of course, do that. But what's the point being achieved here? You would be just using word in a different way. You won't change the beliefs of atheists who rejects God defined in different ways, nor will you strengthen the belief in theists who accepts God defined in different ways.

> Which of the two arguments in my to premises do you find to be not valid or not sound?

Sorry, I missed that. What are the two arguments behind your premises? Can you quote the exact section for argument 1 and argument 2?

> Because even if you class yourself as an atheist, you are still going through the act of creating a belief. I think the reason why people hold so strongly onto the beliefs that creates is because of the hierarchy that belief system creates,

Sure, I have my web of belief (last 2-3 pages) and belief-hierarchies. But that's also true for theists.

> where it places rational thought at the center of the universe above all else.

I don't even know what rational thought is. I don't think I, as an atheist, value rationality in some interesting way more than a sophisticated theist. I just have different intuitions and priors at the center of my web of beliefs.

All hail the magical sequence of 0 and 1's.
Also I'm gonna assume you are talking about deep learning and not general machine learning methods - deep learning is notoriously bad at logic lol.

>And even if logic is important here as a means to determine what is peaceful, that doesn't mean logic has to be ranked "above" peace itself.

It doesn't have to be ranked above anything, but if it's a priori lens that I always think through, and I have no control over that, it's always going to be the lens I process these things through. I cannot have the thought to define what peace is or is not, without logic. My brain does not work any other way.

>I can. By how I feel and contrasting different states of experience. It can be error-prone but not meaningless.

I can do that too, but I have to consciously think about the emotional state to be able to define it any way at all, to myself or anyone else.

Which of the two arguments in my two premises do you find to be not valid or not sound?

>How is that so?

Because even if you class yourself as an atheist, you are still going through the act of creating a belief. I think the reason why people hold so strongly onto the beliefs that creates is because of the hierarchy that belief system creates, where it places rational thought at the center of the universe above all else.

Interesting take. For me, mind-body dualism conjures up anything but nihilism. It suggests to me the excitement of the possibility that not everything can be described in materialist terms, though that may be incorrect. There are tons of arguments both for and against. But it's damn cool to ponder that perhaps consciousness exists outside that pink organ in the vault of our skull.

Do you exist, yes or no?

> I think that to define oneself as an atheist, they implicitly sign that contract.

How is that so?

> I can't determine in any meaningful way whether or not I am truly in a peaceful state.

I can. By how I feel and contrasting different states of experience. It can be error-prone but not meaningless.

> The only lens I have ever figured out to think through is one grounded in logic, by making valid inferences and examining the logical consequence. I then sequence those thoughts into artificial formal language in my head.

Can you give an example of logic further helps you here exactly? Where do you get your premises?

And even if logic is important here as a means to determine what is peaceful, that doesn't mean logic has to be ranked "above" peace itself. I need to piss to maintain homeostatis which I need to maintain to prolong my life which I need to do to achieve my goal of, say, building a model of induction. But that doesn't mean "need to piss" is to be ranked higher than my goal to develop a model of induction. I am still not finding any meaningful sense in saying "logic is above everything".

> Are you attacking the validity or the soundness of my premise?

Premises are neither valid or sound. It's a category error. Only arguments are valid or sound.

>Anway, let's say I am an atheist. Why I, as an atheist, should value logic (you choose whatever definition you want) over, say, acheivement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?

I do not think that you, as an atheist, should value logic above all else. I think that to define oneself as an atheist, they implicitly sign that contract.

>achievement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?

I value that above everything else too, how do you define that framework? I weigh what are peaceful states of consciousness vs non peaceful ones only by thinking about it. If I don't think about it, I can't determine in any meaningful way whether or not I am truly in a peaceful state. The only lens I have ever figured out to think through is one grounded in logic, by making valid inferences and examining the logical consequence. I then sequence those thoughts into artificial formal language in my head.

Deleuze came pretty close to positing an alternative framework to all of this, but I don't think he actually achieved it. I don't know of anyone else personally who has gotten closer.

Are you attacking the validity or the soundness of my premise?

Aristotle was the original troll...

How is it nonsense? It's a hypothesis, one which I find very convincing, I would actually really appreciate it if you can tell me how it doesn't hold, If I could know that, I would be enlightened compared to now!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#Log

I am using a mix of L1 and L2.

>Overall, we can thus distinguish four notions of logic:

> (L1) the study of artificial formal languages > (L2) the study of formally valid inferences and logical consequence > (L3) the study of logical truths > (L4) the study of the general features, or form, of judgements

Note as SEP clarifies:

> A second discipline, also called ‘logic’, deals with certain valid inferences and good reasoning based on them. It does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality.

Moreover, in any 101 logic course, you will be introduced to the distinction between validity and soundness. SEP mentions studies of logic (even when it comes to L3) as having to do with validity. But validity is not enough for soundness. A argument has to have true premises.

> Computers. logic circuit.

Digital computers can be characterized in terms of logic gates. What it means is that anything it does can be characterized in terms of simple bit flipping operations (for all we know, the same may hold for humans to an extent). For example AND gate operation outputs 1 iff both its inputs are 1. However any random combination of logic gate operations doesn't necessarily lead to coherent reasoning capability at a high level natural language discourse. I can just easily misprogram a computer to make invalid formal inferences.

> Would you look at that! How about #5

No. #5 is a matter of psychology or other contingent factors not logic. I can be stupid and misunderstand Godel's incompleteness theorem or be unpersuaded by it, it wouldn't say anything about the actual logical strength of the proofs.

Either way, I don't see how really any of the

> I don't really have an argument here unless you're an atheist.

I can be an atheist if you want me to be.

> If you're not, why this is all more than a formally valid proof is not applicable.

Well, you can have a sound proof by using langauge is a weird way. For example I can say:

P1: God is the maximally great being. P2: Maximally great being is the being that possess all actual existing positive properties P3: Universe (understood as all that is) contains all actual existing positive properties.
P4: Universe exists C: God exists.

This may even be a sound argument, but I am still just playing around with words. Defining things as I can to make "God exists" a true conclusion. But it's just not interesting to anyone who don't get swayed by word games.

Anway, let's say I am an atheist. Why I, as an atheist, should value logic (you choose whatever definition you want) over, say, acheivement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?

Okay I might have wildly misunderstood what you mean by patterns, I think of it as mathematical pattern, as In any thing that can be represented mathematically would be a pattern, have I got that wrong?

Then what was that nonsense?

No?

>The sun existed for billions of years before we became conscious. If our entire civilization would be wiped out tomorrow, the sun would still continue to exist for billions of years without a conscience to validate it.

In the sense of "We are not held in illusion", yes, absolutely.

Are you trolling me?

Agreed. This like most things is muddying the waters of life so to speak. Like the universe, our lives are entropic. Or so it seems.

@jankram >I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness.

But that argument I have already discounted elsewhere; Even a single consciousness existing proves that at least six other things exist as well. The five I remember are patterns, consequences, meaning and the truth (i.e. what is reality and what is non-reality/illusion/fiction/deception) and concepts.

None of these five exist only to the single consciousness.

>In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies.

I do not see what you mean by this. Let's say you are real and I am just an illusion and pretty much everything around you (matter etc.) is an illusion. What is death? With none of the five things I mention above, how would death have any existence? Death would be a change of state, how can you have that when you have no patterns and meaning and the truth and consequences as these are all involved in another state even being a potential? And without the existence of concepts what were you conscious of before death? If your existence involved having no concept of anything, how were you a consciousness?

>I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who?

That is a very strange notion of what a pattern is, focusing on a "middle dot" like that. Kindly elaborate on that for me.

>Can you clarify what do you exactly mean by "logic"?

Can you clarify for me an alternative academic framework or provide one that we can actually use to debate these things that trips up the definition?

I'll provide 5 definitions from Dictionary.com, I can defend any of the 5 if you really wish:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:

There wasn't much logic in her move.

convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:

the irresistible logic of the facts.

5. Computers. logic circuit.

Would you look at that! How about #5! I'll defend any of them though, take your pick. At one point in time, I was one of the best technical debaters in the country, happy to debate definitions with you, I don't find it fun though.

I don't really have an argument here unless you're an atheist. If you want to defend that, I'll debate this out further. If you're not, why this is all more than a formally valid proof is not applicable.

> If it's not logic, I have a lot of questions for you. I think it's deeper than that too but I don't want to defend that

Can you clarify what do you exactly mean by "logic"? Do you know there are thousands of systems of logic and not all of them completely agree with each other. There are Aristotlean logic, classical logic, intuitionist logic, different paraconsistent logic (including trivialism), fuzzy logic, many-valued logic, modal logic, inductive logic, relevant logic, free logic, so on so forth. Some rejects things like law of excluded middle, some even rejects principle of contradiction.

Second, taking the standard classical logic developed from Frege (the most dominant one), it helps us ensuring that our framework is consistent formally. But consistency is only one factor out of many.

This is a logically valid and consistent argument: "Premise: Bananas fly. Conclusion: Bananas fly" (laws of identity). But it's not a sound argument. Logic helps us preserving truth (making truth-value preserving transformations), but it doesn't tell us what is true. And real-life application of reasononing involves induction, abduction, appeal to simplicity, unity, elegance, proximity to common sense among a whole host of things in ranking "frameworks". Logical consistency may be a necessary demand for selecting a framework but far from sufficient.

Besides, even if logical consistency is the prime factor to choosing frameworks, it still doesn't mean it's "above everything else". For example, logical consistency doesn't by itself give me a sense of aesthetic value. Being logically consistent doesn't alone (it may be one thing among many that helps) help me with being rich, having love, or gaining nirvana. Logic doesn't tell me what to value or provide any values, logic provides a tool to be consistent and achieve what I value efficiently. So again, I don't see why I should rank logic above other things like intellectual pleasure, aesthetics, well-being etc.

> My argument is simply a logical proof.

You can prove anything by changing meanings of word. It's just not interesting to anyone.

For example I can say:

P1: Anything that flies are bananas.

P2: Aeroplanes are things that fly.

C: Aeroplane is a banana.

It's a formally valid proof, but it's not interesting to anyone, because I am just using false premises, or merely using language in a unconventional way.

> I'd prefer dissenting rather than militant. I'm not out to kill or conquer you, but I certainly disagree and I'm up for debating it. But it comes from dealing with theists. > >

Sorry man, but I'm not going to read everything you wrote. It just shows how badly you feel you need to demonstrate you're superior to everyone else, which is what I wrote in my original reply.

>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,

No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.

>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,

Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.

>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.

I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.

>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.

I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?

>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.

Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.

You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?