Robots

[attofishpi]

OK then. Fuck off.

So you admit that you cannot convince us that you are:
1. Human
2. Conscious
3. Sentient

You could have just told us that you are a robot...

Are you really that simple that you think I could not prove I am human?

Can you prove that you have an 'us'?

[Logik]

Are you really that simple that you think I could not prove I am human?

Are you really this ignorant that you think you can?

I'll assume the Pyrrhonian position and define "knowledge" as the "absence of uncertainty".

It's game over for you, conniving robot!

But go right ahead. Define what a "human" is and convince yourself.

[attofishpi]

Are you really that simple that you think I could not prove I am human?

Are you really this ignorant that you think you can?

I do ignore ants.

[Logik]

I do ignore ants.

Non-sequitur.

I know I am human. I want you to prove to me, that you are human also.

Therefore it is necessary, but insufficient for you NOT to ignore me.

[commonsense]

I have been following this thread from its start, and I can unequivocally say that the argument declaring that no one can prove their humanity to another is the one that holds water. Indeed there is no argument for the other side, but rather only the claim offered over and over.

But now I would like to explore what is perhaps a tangential question that came to mind from the following few words:

It's comparatively easy to disprove humanity...
I am human.

You claim to be human. You say you are human because you know you are human. Can you disprove your claim that you are human?

I realize that this challenge flies in the face of the argument thus far, but this exploration is for the sake of argument per se. I would be equally satisfied if anyone can demonstrate the impossibility of disproving your own humanness.

[Logik]

You claim to be human. You say you are human because you know you are human. Can you disprove your claim that you are human?

Are you asking me whether I have a criterion for de-humanising myself, or a critrerion for de-humanising others in general?
Humanity is OUR religion. I am human is an ontological claim. It is meant to BE unfalsifiable. By design.

"WE are ALL human" is the axiom. The foundation. Our God!

Ultimately the label 'human' doesn't matter. I am using a label that I THINK you self-identify with. I am only SAYING that I am "human" because I am trying to game YOUR in-group psychology so that you can accept me as "one of your own".

If you belong to a society which places zero value on the notion of "humanity', but self-identifies as "Christians" THEN I will call myself a Christian.
If you belong to a society which places zero value on humanity or Christianity but you all self-idenitify as Cockroaches THEN I will call myself a Cockroach.

My ONLY intention is solidarity. If you show any signs of "us and them" thinking then I will use whatever collective proper noun you use to mean "us". And to that end I will place myself in YOUR in-group. I will self-label myself with whatever language YOU use to mean "my tribe".

In my language the collective proper noun for "my tribe" is Humans.

[commonsense]

Are you asking me whether I have a criterion for de-humanising myself, or a critrerion for de-humanising others in general?

Let’s explore how you might be able to de-humanize yourself. You’ve already addressed de-humanizing others.

Humanity is OUR religion.

Fair enough, maybe. For me, at its most rudimentary, religion is a set of values and ceremonies. By that or by any definition you choose, what do you mean when you say that humanity is OUR religion.

I am human is an ontological claim. It is meant to BE unfalsifiable. By design.
"WE are ALL human" is the axiom. The foundation. Our God!

“I am human” is meaningless to you when uttered by me. If I am not be human, everyone can’t be human.
However, if the foregoing statements were true, it would be easy to see that humanity is our foundation, our god and possibly our religion.

Ultimately the label 'human' doesn't matter. I am using a label that I THINK you self-identify with. I am only SAYING that I am "human" because I am trying to game YOUR in-group psychology so that you can accept me as "one of your own".

If you belong to a society which places zero value on the notion of "humanity', but self-identifies as "Christians" THEN I will call myself a Christian.
If you belong to a society which places zero value on humanity or Christianity but you all self-idenitify as Cockroaches THEN I will call myself a Cockroach.

My ONLY intention is solidarity. If you show any signs of "us and them" thinking then I will use whatever collective proper noun you use to mean "us". And to that end I will place myself in YOUR in-group. I will self-label myself with whatever language YOU use to mean "my tribe".

In my language the collective proper noun for "my tribe" is Humans.

I agree and regret only that I could not have expressed these thoughts as effectively as you. If you could actually make any money in philosophy, these words would be good enough to get a Wrapper at a Bagel Brothers shop.

[Logik]

Let’s explore how you might be able to de-humanize yourself. You’ve already addressed de-humanizing others.

I stop self-identifying as Human. For reasons <whatever> I feel the need to individuate myself from the current status quo/value system.
Perhaps it veers astray and it no longer represents my values/ideals? Perhaps it turns evil?

If I were to develop some beef with Humanism - I can always call myself Ahuman, or Transhuman. Again - label doesn't matter.
Like atheism stands in contrast to theism.

Fair enough, maybe. For me, at its most rudimentary, religion is a set of values and ceremonies. By that or by any definition you choose, what do you mean when you say that humanity is OUR religion.

It's the most popular banner for solidarity in 2019. The most unanimous set of values stated. As expressed in our legal and political systems.

“I am human” is meaningless to you when uttered by me.

It's about as meaningless as saying "I am Christian", or "I am Muslim". The word has some connotations/rituals/norms/set of values with it.
It creates a broad context, but I can't predict anything specific about you.

But it DOES tell me that your in-group, the label for "my tribe" is "humans". So de-humanizing is a bad word

If I am not be human, everyone can’t be human.

Sure. Everybody that is "the same as you" is whatever you self-identify with.

I agree and regret only that I could not have expressed these thoughts as effectively as you. If you could actually make any money in philosophy, these words would be good enough to get a Wrapper at a Bagel Brothers shop.

There's plenty of money in science, once you figure out we are all on the same team and we want much of the same problems solved

[-1-]

The reasoning will be: experts say the robots are sentient. They certainly appear to be sentient. Who are you with your dubious philosophical proofs, to say they are not?

A machine could only be considered sentient if it can experience senses such as pain. A machine will never experience emotion\pain. Oh yes, a robot is a machine.

A robot may be more than a machine. It's like saying humans are machines made of bimetric and biological material.

There is nothing in humans that is not biological. Except their ability to sense on a "self awareness" level. This they share with all animals.

But in essence, a human is a machine made from biological building blocks.

A machine is made from mechanical building blocks.

They are both made from building blocks.

What is the determinant to say that one type of being made of building block type A can host awareness, and the other type of being made of building block type B can't.

Only theists would insist on such a difference. If you are a theist, then there is no argument between you and a non-theist. Case closed, the thinking of a theist will not allow the theist to incorporate ideas that speak against the dogma of the theist. There is no point in further arguing the point.

[-1-]

I stop self-identifying as Human.

Very interesting. What are you doing on a forum established for humans? Should you not go to the (...) forums? (...) being the type of thing you identify yourself as.

Or maybe I am speciesist. Or vitalist. Or Earthist. Yes, I am. We must embrace non-human life-forms in our midsts, space aliens included; and support also non-living thing's posts on the forums.

[-1-]

I know I am human.

So... what are you? You keep moving the goal posts. That's a no-no in these parts.

You admit you are a human, but you deny you are a human.

This is countervening the law of non-contradiction. "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect." You may as well write JohnDoe7's posts now. You make just as much sense as he (or she).

[Logik]

So... what are you? You keep moving the goal posts. That's a no-no in these parts.

Where are the goal posts exactly?

Other than ethics/morality I don't recognize any authority on "goal posts".

All man-made rules are false Gods. Including the rules of logic and epistemology.

You admit you are a human, but you deny you are a human.

I thought I explained it clearly? That I target my language at my audience in order to game human in-outgroup psychology.

Which part of this doesn't make sense?

This is countervening the law of non-contradiction. "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect."

It's not a law - it's a false God. An appeal to authority. I have demonstrated over and over why it's bullshit.
Here is a logic in which P ∧ ¬ P is TRUE. Contrary to the LNC: https://repl.it/repls/LumberingSharpAutoresponder

You care about the LNC. Therefore - you value consistency. Therefore you interpret everybody else's arguments from the lens of the LNC.
I don't care about the LNC. Therefore - I don't value consistency. Therefore I don't interpret everybody else's arguments from the lens of the LNC.

This is an is-ought problem. OUGHT one value consistency and why?

One argument could go as follows: The principle of explosion tells us that from a contradiction anything follows. Therefore one ought to avoid contradictions.

Another argument could go as follows: contradictions aren't a problem. Why? Para-consistent logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic )

A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or "inconsistency-tolerant") systems of logic.

Paraconsistent logics are propositionally weaker than classical logic; that is, they deem fewer propositional inferences valid. The point is that a paraconsistent logic can never be a propositional extension of classical logic, that is, propositionally validate everything that classical logic does. In some sense, then, paraconsistent logic is more conservative or cautious than classical logic. It is due to such conservativeness that paraconsistent languages can be more expressive than their classical counterparts including the hierarchy of metalanguages due to Alfred Tarski et al. According to Solomon Feferman [1984]: "…natural language abounds with directly or indirectly self-referential yet apparently harmless expressions—all of which are excluded from the Tarskian framework." This expressive limitation can be overcome in paraconsistent logic.

You cannot tolerate inconsistency. I can.

You are an idealist.

[Logik]

This is countervening the law of non-contradiction. "Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect." You may as well write

But to spell it out really simply for you. I can never violate the LNC in practice.

Now I am human.
Now I am not human.

It's not the same time. It's two different times - about 1 second apart.

No contradiction. It's just your value-judgment CHOOSING to interpret a time-interval of 1 second as "the same time".

You are making the same ontological error as all Philosophers. To say "I am human" is not an ontological claim. I am communicating information about myself. I am describing myself. In a different context and with a different audience - I might CHOOSE to describe different aspects of myself.
Hell. I might even change my mind about what I do and don't SAY about myself.

You are still stuck thinking in Aristotelian mode. It's harming your ability to think for yourself.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between my posts and JohnDoe7's posts speaks for itself.
You can't tell facts from bullshit.

[commonsense]

Logik,
Thanks for providing much to think about in your posts. I’ll continue reading and, of course, will post again if I have something to ask or something to contribute.
RKB

[planetlonely23]

We are in fact already involved in human experimentation even if it is not said. Since the first thing we have learned is to tolerate what we see as scientific research practices to improve the "race", but will we accept technological experimentation with superior beings?

Like when they took away the card catalogues in the libraries.

They tell us that computers are time-saving devices.

Nice to remember when you're winding your way through some interactive phone or computer menu of time-wasting, trivial questions. That's when you need a real human on the reception end, to cut through the guff.

The question is, what is the time being saved for?

Time determinated by humans or robost is a big issue, if we want to be accurate like robots we will estimate some efficiency on time, while the robots will make everything productive in a way to show how intelligent they are and as if we are such a part of nonsense in this particularly time of our lifes, unless we define time as a part neither of a cycle of life nor the time supposedly enforced by biological forces but rather where we can find ourselves in a secure bunker (our current definition). If we really want to go through the limits we must follow the dimensions that let us to go further, as the estimate of vacuum.