Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:49 am

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:40 am Time will tell

How does it feel to encounter someone you can't beat?

I don't know - I am yet to encounter such a system.

Reminder:

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

If I was outsmarted then you should already know what evidence to produce.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:43 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:39 am But what you've have claimed above ..this is all just more conceptual belief...meaningless story pretending to have meaning.

My "meaningless story" is called Bayesian inference. It's the foundation to probability theory and the foundation of science.
It is how scientists test hypotheses.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

So lets hear your opinions on how science is "just more conceptual belief" and let us hear your alternatives.

Everything is changing...one never steps into the same river twice. How about that for a tried and tested hypotheses....ooops! there goes another one of my hypotheses like water coloured paint written upon a flowing river.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:43 amSo naive. And I categorically state that I am God. Do you get what I mean by that

No, not naive, just awake.

.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:51 am If I was outsmarted then you should already know what evidence to produce.

If you were as smart as you claim you are then you shouldn't need me to produce any evidence?

You have already obtained all the evidence that you CAN obtain.
Whatever uncertainty remains is the product of the evidence that you CANNOT obtain.

Thus: All you have to do is to tell us is where your uncertainty lies and what evidence would convince you that YOU have made an error.

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

Your continual refusal to do so suggests that you can't?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:43 am

IF it is possible to replicate consciousness into a machine - the only way to do it is to try DO it. Either it will work or it will not work.

Armchair philosophy will not produce an answer.

The idea that you actually believe you can try to do it is just an idea....have you ever thought about that idea and what that idea actually is?

Lets hear it?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:59 am The idea that you actually believe you can try to do it is just an idea....have you ever thought about idea and what that idea actually is?

Lets hear it?

Self-driving cars. Not an idea. Actual working machines. Living proof.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:55 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:51 am If I was outsmarted then you should already know what evidence to produce.

All you have to tell us is what would convince you that YOU have made an error.

I'm playing internet mental diagnosis and my conclusions can be shown wrong in lots of ways. I don't care to help you, not even if you use words like "we" and "us".

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:00 am I'm playing internet mental diagnosis and my conclusions can be shown wrong in lots of ways. I don't care to help you, not even if you use words like "we" and "us".

I can point out an error. You think you are trying to help me.

If you can't figure our where your own uncertainty lies.
If you can't figure out what your own black swan is.
If you can't figure out how to convince yourself that you have made a mistake.

You can't even help yourself. You don't know how not to fool youself.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:00 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:59 am The idea that you actually believe you can try to do it is just an idea....have you ever thought about idea and what that idea actually is?

Lets hear it?

Self-driving cars. Not an idea. Actual working machines. Living proof.

Self driving cars are programmed to self drive...that does not prove the car has consciousness.

.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:01 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:00 am I'm playing internet mental diagnosis and my conclusions can be shown wrong in lots of ways. I don't care to help you, not even if you use words like "we" and "us".

I can point out an error. You think you are trying to help me.

If you can't figure our where your own uncertainty lies.
If you can't figure out what your own black swan is.
If you can't figure out how to convince yourself that you have made a mistake.

You can't even help yourself. You don't know how not to fool youself.

You've been begging me to help you for several comments now. If you're that smart figure it out where they are.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:03 am A self driving cars are programmed to self drive...that does not prove the car has consciousness.

It doesn't disprove that it doesn't have consciousness either.

What measurement would settle the matter for you?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:03 am You've been begging me to help you for several comments now. If you're that smart figure it out where they are.

The true mark of a sophist. Insincerity.

Your deflection has not gone unnoticed.

The issue is this: Can you be convinced that you are being outsmarted?

If the answer is "yes" - then you MUST know exactly where your uncertainty lies, no? Tell us then. What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What is your black swan?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:03 am You've been begging me to help you for several comments now. If you're that smart figure it out where they are.

The true mark of a sophist. Insincerity.

So I'm insincere because I don't tell you what things you may need to do to win at the game you're playing, in case it's possible for you to win.

Maybe you aren't all that good at your game after all?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:10 am So I'm insincere because I don't tell you what things you may need to do to win at the game you're playing, in case it's possible for you to win.

No. You are insincere because you expect me to read your mind, while you have convinced yourself that you can read mine.

You have already lost.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:12 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:10 am So I'm insincere because I don't tell you what things you may need to do to win at the game you're playing, in case it's possible for you to win.

No. You are insincere because you expect me to read your mind, while you have convinced yourself that you can read mine.

You have already lost.

You're the one playing the game, I'm not even taking you seriously. You just can't believe this, which is why you've been beating yourself from the start. Poor NPD-Aspie.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:05 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:03 am A self driving cars are programmed to self drive...that does not prove the car has consciousness.

It doesn't disprove that it doesn't have consciousness either.

What measurement would settle the matter for you?

Have you ever tried measuring the programmer?

.