Robots

[Walker]

Take away socialist subsistence subsidies, and a third-world revolt by the uneducated but manually skilled is about the only thing that will upend the inevitability of this link times millions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iV_hB08Uns

[attofishpi]

You’re a bigger twat than I am, you twatty twat!

You are missing the problem of other minds. Solve it and I will cede this entire argument to you, you twatty twatter, you.

That was what I was digging for idiot. You are not asking about the matter of fact, you are asking about the consiousness.

So how do you prove your matter? That’s what I asked.

No, it's not. The problem of other minds is what you asked, and we both know that's a losing argument.

You said that robots do not have consciousness. If that is your proof of the difference between humans and robots, then prove that robots do not have consciousness (since that is the basis of your claim that you can prove that you are human).

Sure, I can prove that robots don't have consciousness the same way a light bulb doesn't have consciousness.

Resorting to vulgarity is a sign of frustration. I’d wager that you are frustrated because you cannot show how you know your matter is a fact.

I'm frustrated at inept comprehension. If my dead body was laid out for an autopsy, the proof that I was human would also be laid bare.

And don’t appeal to empirical evidence unless you can observe consciousness (again, your anchor of proof).

We both know that is a losing argument. The empirical evidence that I am human, by nature of my matter will be obvious. The fact that it is accepted that (living) humans have sentience is undeniable.

The argument I have been making if you have been paying attention, is that when we construct something, we tend to understand its ability. There is no requirement on my part to prove I am human; this line of questioning is redundant.

[commonsense]

That was what I was digging for idiot. You are not asking about the matter of fact, you are asking about the consiousness.

So how do you prove your matter? That’s what I asked.

No, it's not. The problem of other minds is what you asked, and we both know that's a losing argument.

You said that robots do not have consciousness. If that is your proof of the difference between humans and robots, then prove that robots do not have consciousness (since that is the basis of your claim that you can prove that you are human).

Sure, I can prove that robots don't have consciousness the same way a light bulb doesn't have consciousness.

Resorting to vulgarity is a sign of frustration. I’d wager that you are frustrated because you cannot show how you know your matter is a fact.

I'm frustrated at inept comprehension. If my dead body was laid out for an autopsy, the proof that I was human would also be laid bare.

And don’t appeal to empirical evidence unless you can observe consciousness (again, your anchor of proof).

We both know that is a losing argument. The empirical evidence that I am human, by nature of my matter will be obvious. The fact that it is accepted that (living) humans have sentience is undeniable.

The argument I have been making if you have been paying attention, is that when we construct something, we tend to understand its ability. There is no requirement on my part to prove I am human; this line of questioning is redundant.

I believe that our impasse stems from the notion that matters of fact can be proof of the immaterial. I take it that you subscribe firmly to this concept. My feeling is that this claim must be proved.

We are both idiots if we cannot recognize this element of the other’s position. It is both fundamental and irrefutable for each of us. We cannot agree unless one convinces the other to change position.

I’ve been asking you to prove this claim and you have been saying it doesn’t need to be proved. In view of this, we will never come to an agreement. Isn’t that true, you lovable idiot and friend?

[Logik]

I believe that our impasse stems from the notion that matters of fact can be proof of the immaterial. I take it that you subscribe firmly to this concept. My feeling is that this claim must be proved.

The notion of "proof" outside of the realm of mathematics/deduction is rather misguided. I know what a "proof" is in a formal, deductive system.
It means that IF you accept the premises (axioms) then you can deduce (e.g prove) the theorem also.

I have no idea what "proof" is when you say "Prove to me it's hot outside". You are not asking for proof - you are asking for evidence.

Thus the power-dynamic has been established.
Burden of 'proof' has been tacitly accepted (by me).
The arbiter of "proof" has been appointed (you).

And thus if you so wish, you can totally set me up for failure. Because the adjective "hot" is a subjective, it could be a million degrees Celsius outside and you could just say. OK, but why is a million degrees "hot" ?

We are both idiots if we cannot recognize this element of the other’s position. It is both fundamental and irrefutable for each of us. We cannot agree unless one convinces the other to change position.

No. There is another explanation. First - there is this theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem
In game theory, Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem which demonstrates that rational agents with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.

If two people agree to disagree, at least one of them doesn't want to agree. Or worse - at least one of them is sabotaging agreement.

Sabotaging agreement is a common strategy in philosophy.

I am human is an axiom. You can either accept or reject it; but you can't prove or disprove it.

[attofishpi]

So how do you prove your matter? That’s what I asked.

No, it's not. The problem of other minds is what you asked, and we both know that's a losing argument.

You said that robots do not have consciousness. If that is your proof of the difference between humans and robots, then prove that robots do not have consciousness (since that is the basis of your claim that you can prove that you are human).

Sure, I can prove that robots don't have consciousness the same way a light bulb doesn't have consciousness.

Resorting to vulgarity is a sign of frustration. I’d wager that you are frustrated because you cannot show how you know your matter is a fact.

I'm frustrated at inept comprehension. If my dead body was laid out for an autopsy, the proof that I was human would also be laid bare.

And don’t appeal to empirical evidence unless you can observe consciousness (again, your anchor of proof).

We both know that is a losing argument. The empirical evidence that I am human, by nature of my matter will be obvious. The fact that it is accepted that (living) humans have sentience is undeniable.

The argument I have been making if you have been paying attention, is that when we construct something, we tend to understand its ability. There is no requirement on my part to prove I am human; this line of questioning is redundant.

I believe that our impasse stems from the notion that matters of fact can be proof of the immaterial. I take it that you subscribe firmly to this concept. My feeling is that this claim must be proved.

I think you are misunderstanding my statement:- You are not asking about the matter of fact, you are asking about the conciousness.

My apologies to some extent for my wording, I am meaning literally that you are not asking me about the matter of my bodily makeup, but about the consciousness.
Case in point for the argument, the former will render me as human.

We are both idiots if we cannot recognize this element of the other’s position. It is both fundamental and irrefutable for each of us. We cannot agree unless one convinces the other to change position.

Sure, I hope my clarification above assists..

I’ve been asking you to prove this claim and you have been saying it doesn’t need to be proved. In view of this, we will never come to an agreement. Isn’t that true, you lovable idiot and friend?

Yes yes friend!
OK, so there may come a point in time, where robots from all exterior observation mimic human anatomy and intelligence, including the ability to mimic emotions etc..
At this point, I can accept that someone as yourself may require me to prove I am\was human. As I said before, as a human the matter of my body, whether dead or alive should suffice.

[Logik]

OK, so there may come a point in time, where robots from all exterior observation mimic human anatomy and intelligence, including the ability to mimic emotions etc..
At this point, I can accept that someone as yourself may require me to prove I am\was human. As I said before, as a human the matter of my body, whether dead or alive should suffice.

Of course, that's precisely what a stinking robot would say to avoid detection!

attofishpi, my spidey-senses are telling me that you are a robot, that mimics human anatomy, intelligence and emotion. I think you are trying to manipulate us into believing you are human. Even your fucking flesh/matter is synthetic!

Such a detailed human replicant [1] - you have gone to great lengths to deceive us! Almost slipped past me, but I am onto you. You sneaky fucking robot you!

Now prove to us you are human or we are going to have to "switch you off".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

[attofishpi]

OK, so there may come a point in time, where robots from all exterior observation mimic human anatomy and intelligence, including the ability to mimic emotions etc..
At this point, I can accept that someone as yourself may require me to prove I am\was human. As I said before, as a human the matter of my body, whether dead or alive should suffice.

Of course, that's precisely what a stinking robot would say to avoid detection!

attofishpi, my spidey-senses are telling me that you are a robot, that mimics human anatomy, intelligence and emotion. I think you are trying to manipulate us into believing you are human. Even your fucking flesh/matter is synthetic!

Such a detailed human replicant [1] - you have gone to great lengths to deceive us! Almost slipped past me, but I am onto you. You sneaky fucking robot you!

Now prove to us you are human or we are going to have to "switch you off".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

Sure, switch me off.

[attofishpi]

..now switch me back on again.

What have you got?

[Impenitent]

playing with switches in public is uncouth

-Imp

[Walker]

It’s got the moves but oh that face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9J1p-i7hn4

Pet robot, for animal lovers.
Kinda looks like a sheep or a goat, except for those backward-bending bird legs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHBcVlqpvZ8