:100:

from p.28 of this thread ...

Resuscitation is not resurrection. "NDE" presupposes resurrection and yet none of the claimants, in fact, have been resurrected. — 180 Proof

... the emergence of the next new state of consciousness, which is what I take it AI is supposed to be. — Pantagruel

Why do you assume "AI" will ever be "conscious" or that it needs to be in order to function at or above human-level cognition?

26June24

From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide? — Vera Mont

I don't think so.

After all, from a rational standpoint, suicide is a disproportionately (ir-ratio ... absurd) permanent solution to a temporary problem. :smirk:

Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?

Again, I don't think so. A "why" might be divined by their survivors but does not "compel" suicides themselves. Maybe it's the subjective loss of "why" that compels them.

Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?

Insofar as such "reasons" are third-person, ex post facto guesses, I think so.

Should other people intervene?

No ...

What is your opinion?

... others usually can't help it (out of love), I suspect, whenever they do "intervene".

Everything--even value, thus, ethics--is "hiding" in the metaphysical. But where is the latter "hiding"? — ENOAH

Maybe within grammar (Nietzsche).

[W]hat is meant by Religion ...? — I like sushi

By "religion" I mean 'official cultus' (i.e. collective ritual telling of ghost stories) that denies – symbolically escapes from – mortality.

From 2021 ...

Fuck Assange. He helped the Russians interfere in the 2016 US elections. Another FSB/GRU tool. Thanks for Trump, Jules! Go. Rot. — 180 Proof

:mask:

Israel fights a greater evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. Since 1948, Israeli occupier-oppressor terrorism has killed & dispossessed more Palestinian noncombatants than Palestinian occupied-oppressed terrorism has killed & dispossessed Israeli noncombatants. You shall know "greater evil" by its fruits. :death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

For a person to die is to cease being a person for whom anything could possibly be "bad". 'Your death' irreversibly decomposes you for you. I think death is the ineluctable, or ultimate, gift that liberates each one of us finally from suffering.

:death: :flower:

If that's it, then you're not philosophizing, as I see it, just misusing (e.g. reifying) logic. I prefer to use reality instead of existence (just as I prefer mind to consciousness / mindbody to subject) because the latter tends to be less dynamic and less contingent than the former.

What do you mean by the term "existence"?

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just ... — Tarskian

I.e. you can't tell the difference between ~b(G) and b(~G)? :pray:

It implies that the position could also be indeterminate.

This is only so for someone who (analogously) cannot differentiate 'nonassent from dissent' or 'remaining silent from spoken denial' or 'indifference from rejection'.

Why would there be a need to create that ambiguous overlap between atheism and agnosticism?

Right, there's no "need" for the muddle confusing you, Tarskian. Consider –

Given that (theistic) agnosticism denotes 'the truth-value of theism (claim that at least one providential/creator deity** exists) is unknown (or unknowable)':

(A) if theism is antirealist-noncognitive (i.e. belief in a deity** that does not entail truth-claims), then (theistic) agnosticism is incoherent ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether noncognitive theism is true or false'. :roll:

(B) however, if theism is realist-cognitive°° (i.e. belief in a deity** that entails truth-claims), and using the natural world to search for truth-makers, I/we can show that theism is not true °° and therefore, (theistic) agnosticism is unwarranted ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether cognitive theism is true or false.' :yawn:

In terms of logic, we have: yes, no, maybe. — Tarskian

More precisely +1, 0, -1 (true, unknown, not true).

:ok: If you say so ...

:lol:

Atheism is defined as a positive claim. — Tarskian

Yes, it can be but that formulation is not popular – though it's formerly my preferred position (while quite reasonable, it's too narrow in scope):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901774

We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. — Tom Storm

:smirk:

Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.

:up: :up:

Observations of your poor reasoning and discursive failures are not "personal attacks". Grow up, kid.

You ignore context and equivocate "exist", "faith", "proof" .... no wonder you're talking nonsense.

No one has asked for a "mathematical proof" – only you have offered one that amounts to nothing more than a "higher-order modal" tautology.

Accepting a truth without evidence ... — Tarskian

... is a stipulation, or working assumption.

:up: :up:

Yes, so what's the difference? — Tarskian

:roll:

Proof only exists in mathematics ...

So, confirming you do not even know what you are talking about, Gödel only proves a mathematical expression and not, as you've claimed, "that god exists".

Supported by the US, the fucking State of Israel repeatedly commits war crimes / crimes against humanity every day with impunity as the military application of it's official "Greater Israel" colonizer-settler ethnic cleasing, apartheid, terrorism policy against the Palestinian populations in the Occupied Territories, West Bank & Gaza ... nonstop since 1967. My/the world's "specific complaint" is that Israel needs to stop this Zionist scheiße NOW. :brow:

So long as h. sapiens are mortal and scarcity-anxious, I agree our species will remain congentially religious.

???

Implicit in Nazism is racial hierarchy. — BitconnectCarlos

Implicit in Zionism is an ethnic-religious hierarchy.

Caveat: History shows that sooner or later every ethno-state that systemically oppresses – murderously dispossess – out-groups, especially via deliberate and explicit policies of sabotaging "peace", forfeits its 'right to exist'.

:up: Piggy-backing on your suggestion, Philo, here's one of my old posts listing dozens of "god proofs" ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775

@CallMeDirac

24June24

A reminder on the 2nd anniversary of SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573 :fire: :mask:

:cool: Dark Brandon's swing state BLOWOUT is coming in Roevember. "Be there, will be wild!"

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. Israel is the manifestation of that idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Nazism is German (Aryan) self-determination. The Third Reich is the manifestation of that idea.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. — Tarskian

:roll:

By "faith" I mean worship of supernatural mysteries e.g. "a god" (re: OP), not mere (un/warranted) trust in a usage or practice. Context matters.

Gödel has proved the existence [of] a Godlike entity from higher-order modal logic.

"Godlike" (e.g. Spinoza's metaphysical Deus, sive natura) is not equivalent to any supernatural god (e.g. "God of Abraham") so this "proof" is theologically irrelevant. More specifically, his argument consists of some undecidable (i.e. disputable) formal axioms and, even if valid, it is not sound; therefore, nothing nonformal, or concrete, is "proven". Same failing as Anselm's ontological arguments – "Gödel's proof" is, at best, a "higher-order modal" tautology. Again, sir, context matters.

proving the existence of something is much easier than proving the impossibility that it would exist

Besides this equivocation (re: existence is not a predicate, etc) ... you find it more difficult "proving the impossibility" that "something" which (e.g.) both is itself and is not itself simultaneously "exists" – or, more simply, that (e.g.) "Godzilla exists" – than "proving a god" (not merely a tautologous "godlike entity") "exists"? :eyes:

Can anyone prove a god, — CallMeDirac

Whatever is real does not require faith and only a god can "prove a god".

FWIW, I'm a ... pandeist. Thus, my "god" (pandeus) is the encompassing absence concealed by "all gods".

If AGI is not sentient and sentience is required for Morality then surely you can see the conundrum here? If Morality does not require sentience then Moral Realism is correct ... — I like sushi

Why do you assume there is any relation between "sentience" and "morality"?

Does (e.g.) computating, protein folding, translating or regulating homeostasis "require sentience"? If not, then why does "morality"? If they do, however, then what are non-sentient machines doing when they perform such rules-bound (i.e. normative) functions?

I was more or less referring to Moral Realism not Moral Naturalism in what I said.

Well, the latter (re: pragmatics) afaik is a subset of the former (re: semantics).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

[W]hy should philosophy not have a normative role as well. — Richard B

Insofar as one reflectively reasons in order to critique and interpret norms (i.e. rules, criteria, methods, conventions, customs, givens), philosophy is performative. To say, for example, 'one ought to philosophize' does not seem a philosophical statement.

Do you think the Hard Problem has been solved? — RogueAI

It's a pseudo-problem ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/611954

What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"? None.

How is anything explained by or justified with "a mystery"? They are not.

If "god is the ultimate mystery", then a godly (i.e. inexplicable and unjustified) world is indistinguishable from a godless world (which is, after all, more parsimonious (begging fewer questions) than the "godly").

Under what circumstances could an interaction (Quantum Fluctuation) be simple and constructible? — Treatid

Guess #3: "The Big Bang" (i.e. planck-radius universe).

So you think every entity, including mind, is mind-dependent? (Btw, Spinoza dissolved the MBP with property dualism in the 17th century (Hume did so again with bundle theory a century or so later) and yet Kantian denial (Cartesian dogma) persists in philosophy despite cogent physicalist paradigms and developments in cognitive neurosciences).

AGI's lack of awareness (hence why I would prefer a conscious AGI than not). — I like sushi

I do not equate, or confuse, "awareness" with being "conscious" (e.g. blindsight¹). Also, I do not expect AGI, whether embodied or not, will be developed with a 'processing bottleneck' such as phenomenal consciousness (if only because biological embodiment might be the sufficient condition for a self-modeling² system to enact subjective-affective phenomenology).

objectives instituted by human beings

Unlike artificial narrow intelligence (e.g. prototypes such as big data-"trained" programmable neural nets and LLMs), I expect artificial general intelligence (AGI) to learn how to develop its own "objectives" and comply with those operational goals in order to function at or above the level of human metacognitive performance (e.g. normative eusociality³).

[W]ho is to say what is or is not moral?

We are (e.g. as I have proposed ), and I expect AGI will learn from our least maladaptive attempts to "say what is and is not moral"³.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality [3]

What is the simplest possible building block? — Treatid

Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation.

What is the simplest possible component of change we could apply to that building block?

Guess #2: To make measurements with – interacting via – (massless) quanta.

:point: fighting nonsense with nonsense ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/910736

Context matters.

:eyes: :roll: :sweat:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Explain what you mean by "moral truth".

If not habit-forming (i.e. flourishing / languishing) responses to "moral facts"¹, then in what does "moral truth" consist?

Or do you think "moral truth" is (like "moral facts" are) mere fiction? Even so, nonetheless, a more adaptive (eusocial) than maladaptive (antisocial) fiction, no?

I can't think of any reason why AGI would ignore, or fail to comply with, eusocializing norms (i.e. morals) whether, in fact, we consider them "truths" or "fictions".

I'm not convinced, I like sushi, that the 'aretaic negative consequentialism' I've proposed is just another "moral fiction"; therefore, I imagine it to be the least parochial, maladaptive or non-naturalistic point of departure² from which AGI could develop its 'real world understanding' of ethics³ and moral responsibility (i.e. eusociality).

re: harms / suffering / disvalues – reasons to (claims on) help against languishing [1]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773 [2]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/589236 [3]

My point is that there is moral truth (i.e. either an agent prevents / reduces net harm to – dysfunction of – any agent or an agent fails to do so) and that, known to humans, I think 'AGI' will also learn this moral truth.

The AI doesnt know what a finish line is in relation to other potential games ,only we know that. — Joshs

Perhaps true of (most) "AI", but not true of (what is meant by) AGI.

:lol:

Fact: zionists are antisemites (re: Palestinians), ergo anti-zionists are anti-antisemities. However, antisemites (re: Jews), like rightwing evangelical Christians and Iranian/rightwing Israeli-backed 'Hamas terrorists', are, in fact, pro-zionists (i.e. anti-"Two-State Solution").

@BitconnectCarlos et al ...

:up: :up: