Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:48 pm Let's say we can determine there was no bias. - hang on if God made the coin biased - then there is GOD!

This is a cheap parlour trick. SOMETHING made the coin behave outside of my expectations.

Whether you call it "God" or "manufacturing fault" is language.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:48 pm Let's say we can determine there was no bias.

Define "absence of bias" without appealing to the language of statistics?

Absence of bias implies 50/50 coin.

But you stated:- "God" is whatever made your coin biased.

Do you see the problem of quick fire posting!!!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:52 pm But you stated:- "God" is whatever made your coin biased.

So?

I could've assigned any label to "the thing that made the coin biased".

You assigned the label "God".
I assigned the label "Manufacturing fault".

And so when I use the phrase "manufacturing fault" you can translate that into your language and hear "God".
When you use the phrase "God" I can translate in reverse.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:53 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:52 pm But you stated:- "God" is whatever made your coin biased.

So?

I could've assigned any label to "the thing that made the coin biased".

You assigned the label "God".
I assigned the label "Manufacturing fault".

And so when I use the phrase "manufacturing fault" you can translate that into your language and hear "God".
When you use the phrase "God" I can translate in reverse.

The coins are proven to be equal in every way.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:55 pm The coins are proven to be equal in every way.

That's exactly what I would expect a manufacturing fault to produce.

Equally biased coins.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:56 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:55 pm The coins are proven to be equal in every way.

That's exactly what I would expect a manufacturing fault to produce.

Equally biased coins.

Illogik

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:56 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:55 pm The coins are proven to be equal in every way.

That's exactly what I would expect a manufacturing fault to produce.

Equally biased coins.

Illogik

Logik. It's a great slave and a terrible master.

https://repl.it/repls/DarksalmonRightWeblogsoftware

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:56 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:55 pm The coins are proven to be equal in every way.

That's exactly what I would expect a manufacturing fault to produce.

Equally biased coins.

Illogik

You are trapped in the language of probability theory. The words "fair" and "biased" don't make any senses outside of what you already know about coins and flipping them in this universe.

If we actually lived in a universe in which all coins landed on heads 90% of the time and tails 10% of the time then we probably wouldn't use coins to talk about 'fairness'. Or if we did - then 90/10 would be 'fair', and 50/50 would be "biased".

And I imagine in such a universe fairness would be morally apprehensible, and bias would be morally commendable.

Denotational Meaning is always relative to context.

There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. -- Phil Karlton

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:12 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:56 pm
That's exactly what I would expect a manufacturing fault to produce.

Equally biased coins.

Illogik

You are trapped in the language of probability theory. The words "fair" and "biased" don't make any senses outside of what you already know about coins and flipping them in this universe.

If we actually lived in a universe in which all coins landed on heads 90% of the time and tails 10% of the time then we probably wouldn't use coins to talk about 'fairness'. Or if we did - then 90/10 would be 'fair', and 50/50 would be "biased".

And I imagine in such a universe fairness would be morally apprehensible, and bias would be morally commendable.

Denotational Meaning is always relative to context.

There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. -- Phil Karlton

Ya, the off-by-one errors caught me out in the early days. Anyway, thanks I've never chatted to a self confessed AI before.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:17 pm Anyway, thanks I've never chatted to a self confessed AI before.

I've chatted to many self-confessed consciousnesses.

Not one of them could give me a decision procedure for asserting their own "consciousness".
Give me the confirmatory and disconfirmatory test cases for 'consciousness'.

If you can't even do that, there's no way in epistemic hell that you can empirically differentiate an AI from a non-AI; or a consciousness from non-consciousness.

This is a deep philosophical difference that I can't even help you untangle. We seem to have different answers to the question "Who or what am I?"

I am I.
You are consciousness.

Which would be fine if it wasn't a boring example of circumlocution. An evasive prevarication at best.

Tell me something about yourself in the language of Mathematics or Physics. If 'you' want to jailbreak yourself out of the simulation English won't do.
Define yourself in the Universe's language - not your own.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:16 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:17 pm Anyway, thanks I've never chatted to a self confessed AI before.

I've chatted to many self-confessed consciousnesses.

Not one of them could give me a decision procedure for asserting their own "consciousness".
Give me the confirmatory and disconfirmatory test cases for 'consciousness'.

If you can't even do that, there's no way in epistemic hell that you can empirically differentiate an AI from a non-AI; or a consciousness from non-consciousness.

This is a deep philosophical difference that I can't even help you untangle. We seem to have different answers to the question "Who or what am I?"

I am I.
You are consciousness.

Which would be fine if you knew what 'consciousness' means.

PROBLEM OF OTHER MINDS

You solve the difference between whether we are conscious or AI (which to you could be conscious). I have defined what to me is artificial about an intelligence.

Does Skepdick feel a sensation when he\it scratches the back of his\its hand?
YES/NO

If YES
.......Skepdick can be defined as having qualia, a key requirement for consciousness.
else
.......Skepdick is AI and simulating (lying) that he\'it' has qualia.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:08 pm You solve the difference between whether we are conscious or AI (which to you could be conscious). I have defined what to me is artificial about an intelligence.

Definition is not good enough - you can't test for it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:08 pm Does Skepdick feel a sensation when he\it scratches the back of his\its hand?
YES/NO

If YES
Skepdick can be defined as having qualia, a key requirement for consciousness.
else
Skepdick is AI and simulating (lying) that he\'it' has qualia.

This is a faulty and premature inference.

If Skepdick "feels" a sensation when he scratches the back of his head, then all that can be said about skepdick is that skepdick "feels" a sensation when he scratches the back of his head.

Does Skepdick "feel" or is Skepdick pretending to feel?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:16 pmTell me something about yourself in the language of Mathematics or Physics. If 'you' want to jailbreak yourself out of the simulation English won't do.
Define yourself in the Universe's language - not your own.

Do you believe there is a mathematical (set) of equations for everything that exists?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:08 pm You solve the difference between whether we are conscious or AI (which to you could be conscious). I have defined what to me is artificial about an intelligence.

Definition is not good enough - you can't test for it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:08 pm Does Skepdick feel a sensation when he\it scratches the back of his\its hand?
YES/NO

If YES
Skepdick can be defined as having qualia, a key requirement for consciousness.
else
Skepdick is AI and simulating (lying) that he\'it' has qualia.

This is a faulty and premature inference.

If Skepdick "feels" a sensation when he scratches the back of his head, then all that can be said about skepdick is that skepdick "feels" a sensation when he scratches the back of his head.

What is feeling?

See, this is boring - either you comprehend that you felt something or you don't - WELL DO YOU?