[removed]

If it’s debatable then by definition it’s not right.

[removed]

[removed]

I think the second premise is debatable. I don't think you can say it is wrong.

>You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Are you conscious i.e. perceiving? Yes. If you did not exist you would not be doing anything e.g. perceiving i.e. being conscious. If you were a non-conscious thing, e.g. a rock, you would still exist. You cannot be a conscious rock that doesn't exist or a conscious person that doesn't exist because consciousness spawns from existence and not the other way around.

>Also implying "necessarily" is a myth?

I did not imply, I stated. "Necessity" is a myth we made up. It is a fictional relation. If you chain me up and tie me to the Titanic on the ocean floor, I can want air in order to breathe air and I can want air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse. I cannot "need" air in order to breathe air and I cannot "need" air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than a drowned corpse can "need" air in order to breathe air, "need" air in order to avoid becoming a living person or "need" air in order to become a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation or "need" air in order to avoid becoming a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation.

"Necessity" affects nothing except via the imagination, it never exists outside our imagination. It's just ego that the universe revolves around us so when we're chained to the Titanic we can do more than just want to survive, we can SOMEHOW "need" to survive. Reality is we never "need". We are all like a 120 year old man on his death bed riddled with cancer and we are all like an outwardly healthy-looking child diagnosed with terminal cancer.

>What ISN'T a myth?

At least seven things that I know of, six of them I can recall. I would remember the seventh but I have memory issues.

>Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon?

Everything. You yourself gave four examples; coherence, your memory, the consistent world around me and your body itself. If you're trying to ask how doubting works, I've already covered that: That's us looking at patterns and consequences and meaning. That's consciousness perceiving. That's you going "What does this mean? What does this entail? What are the consequences here? What does studying the patterns reveal?"

>That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

No, (in that regard at least) not a different definition. But, as I go into above, there is more to it than simply stating "meaning is the base for doubting". Also, you're contradicting your earlier thinking about "an unmeaningful world" since you've essentially just agreed to part of what I've been trying to explain: Doubting cannot be doubted hence meaning cannot be doubted.

Your second premise is wrong.

I can conceive of a universe farting goblin. Does that prove such a goblin exists?

No, no trust me I am trying to understand. I have been thinking about this discussion for a lot of today actually.

You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Also implying "necessarily" is a myth? As In we established there is actual ground reality? Isn't this what this is about? What ISN'T a myth? Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon? That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

>Depends on what you mean by me.

No. The fact that you'd be trying to quantify it like that proves it is yes. If you did not exist it would be simply be "No, in no way, shape or form do I exist."

>does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable.

The answer is yes, you do exist. You're conscious (to be perceiving) as part of you existing, not the other way around (hence me calling it nonsense).

>Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)?

I did not ask about those things and that you think I might proves you haven't understood what I've been trying to explain.

EDIT: To clarify, I have consistently held that the self is "the doubter". Suggesting that I am talking about memory, about things like molecular activity and gravity or about the physical body is arguing in bad faith.

>I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes.

"Necessity" is a myth. It is a fictional relation, like you saying another person is your "property" i.e. that you "own" them. It has no reality,

>In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not,

There is no such thing as an unmeaningful world. It cannot come into existence.

>you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning,

No, that goes against what I've been saying: I know meaning exists becaue it's one of the seven things that (to simplify) without I would not exist in the slightest.

>which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

So you are trolling me. You either have no interest in understanding my conclusions or you do understand and pretend otherwise. Note I say understand my conclusions, not agree with them or accept them as infallible or take it on faith that I'm smarter than you since I'm sure a troll would start acting as if I was.

EDIT: To clarify, that I call something nonsense does not mean I am saying you are to agree without discussion.

Does not being able to define precisely thought or consciousness mean we look at any chat bot and say ‘dang, that thing could be self aware!’? If someone can’t prove my Casio G-shock isn’t sentient should I start wondering if it is? Oddly enough it makes me think of an atheist debater say, ‘if you can’t prove a magical wish granting pony doesn’t exist than you should probably start worshiping it.’ (mocking theists) Paraphrasing, but some of these posts about chatbots and other AI are beginning to sound just as ridiculous.

You said a lot of profound things and ask a few profound questions. I'll give you some of my actual opinions and questions about all of it. What ultimately scares me at the end of the day is, the world is fundamentally run by people like me, not by people like you. Do you think I'm kind of a dick from these interactions? I'm a nice guy in my circles. I actually maintain and find value in cultivating empathy and actually have an interest in society as a whole.

I don't hold myself to high standards. I have not had to quite some time now. When I deal with people in less anonymous settings, they tend to be less forthcoming with me as to their actual thoughts. After this set of conversations, I would say there is a very good chance you are smarter than me, you are definitely more educated than me and at least currently closer to that portion of your life than I am, you definitely have a stronger work ethic than me, and you absolutely hold yourself to higher standards than I hold myself to.

I think overall, on a purely even playing field, I have two advantages over you only. 1. My ability to assess and gauge the strengths and weaknesses of myself and others is more honed. 2. I know things about Economics, Finance, and Business that you never will. I cede the advantage to you in life in every other way. You would never make it into my position even if you devoted everything you have to it though unless your parents happen to own a multibillion-dollar international corporation or something.

You wouldn't make it because that path is setup, very much by design, to block you, and not me. It's very much not logical in the middle, that's the design feature to box people like you out. You have to solve an equation where the answer is not a logical conclusion in order to move past it. A lot of what is true about business tactics, is also directly relatable to military tactics. From that level, the blueprint is thousands of years old and has gone through many iterations to get to the point of where it is today. I bankrupt people who are smarter than me all the time.

I rose up throughout my career on a tactical level because I am exceedingly good at automating things. I couldn't tell you how many people I have automated out of jobs either directly or indirectly throughout my career. I think the number would be somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 if I had to take a blanket stab at it.

My first, very real thought around all of that is, people are very, very, very stupid for giving people like me the type of power they currently keep doing. My second thought is, people do not understand the actual ramifications of overwhelming advantage. While you continue to build it without any thought as to the consequences, guess who is thinking about the consequences? Me, people like me. Do you straight up think I always use all of this knowledge in positive and beneficial use cases towards society? It isn't the "Save The World Foundation" that throws unlimited money at me to fix their problems for them.

> where's the line though between their work and the AI?

I am sure with case by case analysis we can find lines. But when AI is capable enough to publish full coherent papers, engage in high level debates in, say, logic, metalogic, epistemology, physics etc. on a level that experts have to take it seriously and so on, then we can weigh AI's opinion more. Right now AI is both superhuman and subhuman simultnaeously. It's more of a cacophany of personalities. It has modelled all the wacky conspiracy theorists, random internet r/badphilosophers, and also the best of philosophers and scientific minds. What ends up is a mixed bag. AI will respond based on your prompts and just luck and stochasticity. Sometimes it will write coherent philosophy simulating an educated undergraduate, another time it can write plausible nonsense (just as many humans already do and gain following). We will find techniques to make it more controlled and "aligned". That's already being done in part with human feedback, but feedback from just random human, will only make it aligned in so far that the AI becomes able to emulate a the expert style (eg. create fake bullshit but in a convincing articulate language) without substance. Another thing that's missing ATM is multimodal embodiment. Without it AI will be lacking the full grasp of human's conceptual landscape. At the same time due to training of incomprehensibly large data, we also lack the full grasp of AI's conceptual landscape (current AI (still quite dumb by my standards) is already beyond my intelligence and creativity in several areas (I am also quite dumb by my standards. My standards are high)). So in that sense, we are kind of incommensurate different breeds at the moment (but embodiment research will go on -- that's effectively the next step beyond language). Also certain things were already done better by "stupid" AI (or just programs; not even AI). For example, simple calculations. We use calculators for it. Instead of running it in our heads. So in a sense basic calculators are also "superhuman" in some respet. Which is why I don't think it's quite meaningful to make a "scalar" score to rank AIs and humanity or even other animals.

Personally, I don't think there is a clear solution to getting out of bias and fallibility. GIGO is a problem for humans as much for AI. At some point AI may start to become just like any human expert we seek feedback and opinions from. We will find more and more value and innovation in what they provide us. So we can start to take AI seriously and with respect. Although we may not like what it says, and shut of it (or perhaps, AI will just manipulate us to do more stupid things for lolz). We, as AI researchers, have very little clue what we are exactly doing. Although not everyone will admit that. But really, I don't where we should really put focus. Risks of collapse of civilization, military, surveleince, dopamine traps, climate change and what not. I think we have enough on our hands, more than we are capable to handle already. We have created complex systems that are at verge of spiralling out of control. We have to make calibrated descion on how to distribute our attention and focus on some balance between long term issues and urgent one.

We like to be egocentric; it's also not completely about us either. We have no clear theory of consciousness. It's all highly speculative. We don't know what ends up creating artificial phenomenology and artificial suffering. People talk about creating artificial consciousness, but few stop to question whether we should (not "should" as in whether we end up creating god-like overlords that end us all, but also "should" as in whether we end up creating artificially sentient beings that actually suffers, suffers for us. We have a hard time even thinking for our closer biological cousins -- other animals, let alone thinking for the sake of artificial agents.).

But sometimes, I am just a doomer. What can I do? I am just some random guy who struggle to barely maintain myself. Endless debates also just end up being intellectual masturbations-- barely anyone change their positions.

> Then they often give some qualifying criteria for how far AI would have to advance before they worship it.

I don't even find most descriptions of God worship-worthy; let alone AIs (however superhuman)

I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for posting.

+1 Saw it recently, this article reminded me of the movie.

I don’t know who I am does anyone know how can I find out?

Well said! Im new to the sub and it's been something I've been contemplating a lot about Becker's Philosophy given it's popularity. I just didn't know if others saw this too.

[deleted]

>Potential future AI.

Potential present AI

>Sure once we have super expert AI who demonstrates high degree of competenence in all fields, we can give more a priori weight to whatever AI says.

I know someone completing a half a million dollar project right now mostly just using it. They feed it and massage it, where's the line though between their work and the AI? Whose the expert there?

>Moreover, where do you think AI gets data from? Human.

We want to solve that limitation. Perhaps we are too eager to. That's why I think it's critical to actually debate these things out in advance of it.

> It's also not clear that intelligence always correlate with rightness.

I'll tell you what honestly worries after debating this out with a lot of people now. Some people really like the AI as God aspect of all of this. They like it when I frame AI as "God". The only refutation they make to it is that it hasn't happened yet. Then they often give some qualifying criteria for how far AI would have to advance before they worship it.

Depends on what you mean by me. does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable. Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)? I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes. In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not, you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning, which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Everything that follows the rules of the universe can happen, and the universe has the chance of resetting itself. Therefore, I will eventually live an elephant’s life.

Diogenes maybe lol

Well there's the pretty obvious reason you "just don't get" a lot of things.

Read more. It'll help. Best of luck out there.

How can we know the sun isn't conscious?