Hello, /r9k/
I tried this on /x/, but no response. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I'd like to discuss this with people, anyway a topic to talk about:
It's about perspective, what makes you - you?
If technology ever reaches a point where the human body and mind can be 100% augmented, your memories reprogrammed into your brain, including physical mannerisms and your speech patterns, are you still really you?
At that point, when your mind and body is replaced 100% with machinery and electronics, what kind of conscious would that be? It's no longer organic. No longer human, technically. So is the real you now dead, and replaced by a machine, or is it our memories and thoughts that we created in our life that makes us who we are?
Say you do this, and from someone else's perspective of you, they don't notice any difference(They never knew you became a machine). The only people knowing this are you and the technicians doing this to you.
So with everyone's consensus that you are still you, and you are still creating memories, is it others' perspectives that therefore make you who you are, and not you being what you think you are?
>>25080337
This famed, hyped 'problem' is Buddhism-tier non-problem.
'You' is just a word that refers to a slice of particles, with the added distinction that it is dependent on the context. When you say 'that tree there', it is also just a word that refers to a slice of particles, with the added distinction that it is dependent on the context. Asking 'what makes you, you' is literally like 'what makes that tree there, that tree there'. The answer is, evolution of the English language.
Whoops.
Buddhists always create non-problems.
>>25080407
And correspondingly, the 'does structural in time change make x non-x' is also a Buddhist definition game. If you can, you can define 'the same' (as it is the definition of 'same' this is about now, not the definition of x) as meaning 'having the same circumatomic identity' -- consisting of the same atoms, even if in a different arrangement. Or, you can define it oppositely, as 'having the same arrangement identity' -- consisting of different atoms, even in the same arrangement. Choose whichever the fuck you want. It is irrelevant either way.
Whoops.
>>25080496
>If you can
*If you want
>even in the same arrangement
*except in the same arrangement
Of all the bullshit people complain about heading toward the singularity, this is near the top of the list of "who fucking cares".
>>25080407
It's not a problem, just a fun topic of discussion is all.
I don't think you get what I'm going from.
Even taking language out of it, we are capable of this sort of thought process - trees aren't that we know of.
If we were just objects without individual thought I'd agree with you, but humans are not. We are a slice of particles - with us being the only species able to realize this.
Us discussing our arrangement identity using atoms as a a structure of said identity, the only thing phsyically is what makes us who we are, is still not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking strictly about perspective.
>>25080337
Supporters of the Strong AI Hypothesis insisted that consciousness was a property of certain algorithms - a result of information being processed in certain ways, regardless of what machine, or organ, was used to perform the task. A computer model which manipulated data about itself and its "surroundings" in essentially the same way as an organic brain would have to possess essentially the same mental states. "Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition."
>>25081234
So basically, you're believing in some sort of magical human status because we're 'conscious'? 'Consciousness' doesn't exist, it's relevant to nothing. All that exists are certain arrangements of matter. An awake human being is that whose brains pull on his/her arms and legs in certain motions when light hits their eyes, just like a robot might move its appendages when that very light hits its camera. We are just dead machines.
>>25080337
my ugly face makes me, me
meme
heh, i am a meme
>>25081356
>"Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition
That's an awesome way to say what I tried to describe in >>25081392. Exactly.
>>25080337
Anon the human who you were at 8 years old is dead, and the current you will be dead in 20 years. Brain damage can actually create a new person but with your memories.
>>25081392
No, basically I'm believing purely in what someone is to themselves, and what others see as themselves.
If we were robots are only capable of moving with light in the eyes, we'd of programmed it to. Human thought and manipulation to construct, not destroy is what caused that. The robot doesn't know any different.
If we are merely just an arrangement of matter, and being conscious means nothing, then what created us to have those responses? I'm not arguing some bullshit spirit or anything, I get we are all atoms, all that fun shit.
What I'm arguing, once again, is perspective. point of view. That fun shit. We all have our own ways of understanding the material world around us. All of us are similar any many, yet in minor ways we are different. Hence the personality types, etc. If a conscious didn't exist, then we wouldn't have personality types.
Just as the information of matter cannot be destroyed, the language is still a form of information.
You could also apply this Ship of Theseus-esque problem to everyday life and how our atoms change. Are we just a process then? Damn brain you scary
>>25082215
What philosophers do you guys know that deal with the "self" well? Anybody know any good books on consciousness?
>>25082375
yea, I think about this a lot too. One atom at a time, you're being killed. In five years, the average human body is completely replaced. What about those atoms are "you"?
>>25080337
I don't think there ever is a "You".
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.terasemmovementfoundation.com/
>food for thread
>>25082428
I have never read any philosophy, just talked about bullshit like this with friends, so I dunno.
>>25082506
Perhaps God, explained through Science(!) is that due to matter which cannot be created nor destroyed(or at least the "information" can't be destroyed), then we share the same atoms as everything else in this universe, throughout infinity.
So we don't move through time, as humans and our perspective, but our atoms simply move through us. No one is original as a result.
...Meh this starts to sound boring
>>25082215
>If we were robots are only capable of moving with light in the eyes, we'd [have] programmed it to.
What?
Our behaviour isn't self-decided; it is determined by nuture/narture on one level and by evolution on another.
>The robot doesn't know any different.
What do you mean, 'know'? See anon's >>25081356. 'Knowing' is just containing a representation of facts, a database of definitions that are used in decision-making. A human being will put food in its digestive tract because it 'knows' that 'food' + 'ingestive trait' = 'survival'. A robot will seek the nearest source of energy in the same way, thus 'constructing' its survival. Or it can 'construct' a makeshift weapon to defend itself, e.g. a hammer or a blade, if it has been programmed sufficiently. The only difference is that humans have been programmed by evolution itself, and robots by the proxy of us -- we are the 'first-order' robots and robots 'second-order' robots, so to say.
>what created us to have those responses
Evolution on one level, involuntary learning on another.
>If a conscious didn't exist, then we wouldn't have personality types.
This is a matter of definition. Consciousness doesn't exist in the sense that the universe is just an intricate dance of dead matter through time, some groupings of which (most people) see some other groupings of which (each other) as alive.
>>25082541
Just leave.
>>25082742
>The only difference is that humans have been programmed by evolution itself, and robots by the proxy of us
In other words, we are machines making machines. If singularity happens and takes to improving itself, it will be a machine-made machine that's making machines.
>>25082742
>Determined by nature/nuture on one level and evolution on another
That's kind of where I'm getting at - like a hive mind.
Human thought process had to start somewhere, from a single point or not. These behaviors are inherited through imitation of course, not genetics - so maybe not quite evolution.
I've entertained that thought, that we are no different than robots, they are human by proxy. However, robots don't have these nonexistent feelings. Feelings exist purely in the mind, and those feelings exist to pursue survival and the betterment of mankind.
However, robots have yet to get to the point that they can "strive for the betterment of robotkind". I believe it's possible, and when they do, perhaps we will be wiped out as we could then be inferior - they could reproduce, and then have a viscious cycle to where we are now.
>>25082742
>Matter of definition
I understand where you're coming from, semantics. Consciousness, personalities, and so forth only exist because we have the ability to communicate this.
However,
>some groupings of which most people see other groupings as alive
So it brings us back to perspective. You see things as a lump of atoms just twaddling about doing stupid shit. Someone else sees it as something with a conscious, or with a soul, or aura, or chi or what ever pseudo-religious bullshit the hippie sees.
With that, there are things we cannot perceive, so how do we know? The dimensions beyond human perception, the colors the human eye cannot see. Why do some humans wish to kill themselves, yet lesser animals seem to have only one goal? The simpler the mind the more it wishes to survive.
So if we don't have a conscious, as it doesn't exist except in our mind, then why even go on living? Now that there's no such thing as life and death, since we're all "dead" and just clumps of matter? We are purely insignificant.
>>25082776
Maybe that's what we are now? Before us was Earth that was way different than we know - we can't be too sure. Neanderthals were making organic robots, which then made us. We are making our version of robots. Those robots will make more. and it will continue into infinity.
Because no matter what, matter will always exist, and since we are just purely matter, we cannot be destroyed. The only thing that can, is something that does not exist, human thought.
>>25082996
>Human thought process had to start somewhere, from a single point or not
Not necessarily. You really don't know your shit.
>>25080337
You would probably enjoy the book Blindsight. It primarily discusses consciousness and self-awareness, promoting the notion that self-awareness is actually unnatural and a hindrance to evolution.
>>25080337
I think that the individual "you" is just an illusion.
It could be that every time you go to sleep or fall unconcious, its a different "you" that wakes up, but you don't notice because you still have the memories from before you were unconscious, so it forms a continuous experience. This could even happen every single moment. You'd have no way of knowing, because we don't really know what conciousness is, all we have are memories.
Ultimately we're going to die, and go to sleep and never wake up and break the continuum of memories. But then when you're born you wake up having never gone to sleep. So it could be said that "you" are everyone. Your conciousness is just an expression of the universe, something that it does, like a wave is something that an ocean does.
>>25083087
Then where does it come from? We don't genetically inherit our mannerisms, we imitate them. Some things like temper, depression, etc can be genetic (such as Vitamin B deficiencies, etc.) but overall many things are imitated.
So instead of not necessarily, why don't you explain it?
Also I never said I knew my shit, if I did I wouldn't have started this thread. I'm just here for a little discussion.
who cares in the end, just live your life mang
op sounds like synths from fallout 4, and should be purged because that shit isn't right
>>25083087
Also to back myself up, since we evolved from lesser beings, at some point in evolution, we developed the capacity to have this sort of thought and self awareness, so yes it had to start from somewhere.
>>25082996
>[...] robots don't have these nonexistent feelings. Feelings exist purely in the mind [...].
This leads nowhere. Your interests orbit something that's impossible to relate to anything. 'There exist subjective feelings.' This is like the retarded question of 'which pain is worse, of having a leg broken or having a finger bitten off' or something. This is meaningless. Only matter can be discussed, namely, the increase of certain chemicals as a result of the fracture/the bite.
>robots have yet to get to the point that they can "strive for the betterment of robotkind"
'Can' is defined by probability, and probability depends on exactness of factors involved in your reasoning. To someone who considers no factors at all, free will exists and 'everyone "can" do anything as soon as they want to'. To a scientist, whether they '"can" get a job' is a strict estimate of probability incorporating the various makeup of their brain, their upbringing, their education, their current emotional state, what they'd read and eaten yesterday, and so on.
>With that, there are things we cannot perceive, so how do we know? The dimensions beyond human perception, the colors the human eye cannot see
Too vague to address.
>Why do some humans wish to kill themselves, yet lesser animals seem to have only one goal?
Evolution is trial and error; it will result in reactions that are counter-reproductive (e.g. suicidal) in certain contexts (some social situations).
>So if we don't have a conscious, as it doesn't exist except in our mind, then why even go on living?
This presupposes purpose. 'Why' is the question of reason, not of purpose.
>>25083126
See >>25080496 and stop reading Watts' garbage.
>>25083390
>Evolution is trial and error; it will result in reactions that are...
*in organisms that exhibit reactions..
>>25083126
And you're right, because as mentioned earlier, "you" are merely a thought, and not an actual - physical thing.
The sleep/fall unconscious then waking up to a different "you" is an interesting thought, but I can't see it as more than fun thinking(like most of this thread, anyway).
For example, I like to think that if what you stated were true, then everyone would be an important individual and everything would have to revolve around that person - but it doesn't.
So this takes us to hive mind. Because you not only have your memories basing "you" on who "you" are, but you also have others' memories to go off of.
Due to perspective, the memories can be different. Where one person may see themselves as weak minded, stupid, ignorant, and lazy - everyone else in the world that knows that person may see them as experimental, intelligent, beyond their intellect, and depressed.
It could fall along the lines of, say, infinite immortality. For example, say someone is playing russian roulette, and they pull the trigger. In one reality the bullet kills them, and so they die. End of story. In another reality - the bullet was supposed to exit the barrel - but never did. So the player is stuck pulling that trigger for eternity.
>>25083518
>And you're right, because as mentioned earlier, "you" are merely a thought, and not an actual - physical thing.
I like to think that "you" are the observer of the thoughts rather than the thoughts themselves.
Some thoughts are bad and its best to ignore them.
>tfw no gf
>>25083456
u watt m8?
>>25081392
>'Consciousness' doesn't exist
Clearly it does
>>25083390
It has a lot to relate to. Yes, chemicals in the brain cause certain reactions to certain things. Pain, hunger, etc.
That's because it's how our brain processes these chemicals, and reacts to them, right?
So with robots, we could program it to feel sick once sensors detect rust somewhere on it's components.
It only does this because we told it that this is bad for it. It doesn't have genetics like humans do. It operates like a human, thinks like a human, acts like a human, but it doesn't have DNA like a human, and it never will.
So with Vitamin B being what can regulate depression, evolution told us that a lack of Vitamin B is bad for our body, therefore we are depressed. However, when we're depressed, we can actually feel depressed. You know just as well as any human what "feelings" are. Butterflies in the stomach, the weight you feel when you're nervous, all that shit.
That's not us being told how to feel, that's our bodies reaction to it. There's nothing other than nerve endings really regulating that, right? Or are those feelings we actually feel not a result of chemistry, but an act and will of the mind?(Honest questions, not theoretical)
A robot would not be capable of that, even if we told it we feel that, or told it how that feels, it wouldn't know. It can't know. It's not a living, organic thing. Humans could be wiped out and robots alive, but the robots would communicate that feeling but be incapable of actually feeling it.
>>25083636
>I like to think that "you" are the observer of the thoughts rather than the thoughts themselves.
This is pure religion. 'Yes, there are neurological thoughts, but I'm going to magically invoke a supermaterial, vague entity of "the observer" that's implied to be comfortingly exempt from the neurological determinism.'
>>25083942
In other words, you're just grasping at concepts so as to avoid identification with your fragile body, so to avoid thinking of yourself in terms of a mere subject of environmental changes, that is at the whim of them. Instead you flee into the pleasant delusion that 'no matter what I might think, there is an "observer" that "can" come to control those thoughts'.
>>25083731
No. Again and again, no neuroscientist will ever talk of 'consciousness'. It is bunk. (Cheers, Imhotep, wherever you are.)
>>25083942
This is true, scientifically. However, bringing up perspective, not everyone can really see things the exact same way you do. Some people are incapable of processing certain things presented to them.
Something as simple as a discussion about time, some people just can't perceive that an hour or minute exists. I mean, sure with conditioning(evolution in the short term, obviously) they may be able to - but that's only if they want to.
So to them, science is what their religion brings up, as bullshit as it is.
>>25084047
Just because a neuroscientist doesn't say the word, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>25084060
>sure with conditioning(evolution in the short term, obviously) they may be able to
You try too hard to sound smart.
>>25083928
>It only does this because we told it that this is bad for it. It doesn't have genetics like humans do. It operates like a human, thinks like a human, acts like a human, but it doesn't have DNA like a human, and it never will.
But the analogy of DNA being the 'blueprint for human beings' is very common. DNA is the rules whereby from a kernel, the single cell, develops a human being. A robot's equivalent of a DNA would be the corporate rules whereby from the necessity to product one one is assembled. A set of n (n = 2) human beings entails another one when certain conditions (sex) are met. A set of n (n =, say, 10,1000) robots grouped together entails (products) another one when certain conditions (having been programmed so that they find increase of their numbers desirable in the current circumstances) are met.
(Continued.)
>>25083390
'Can' is just language, and means nothing, as you had stated earlier, right? Probability is mostly just a statistic which when manipulated right you can get it to say anything you want - so in truth it's bullshit, no?
To the average person, whether or not they "can" get a job is an estimate on the person interviewing, and the peoples in charge at that said job, and everything that you've just mentioned.
So in order for robots to strive for the betterment of themselves, they will have to be told to. It won't be bred into them like animals.
>Vague
I'll expand a bit then - with there being more beyond what we can see and perceive, we therefore cannot understand them. With that being said, we don't really understand that conscious exists, we don't know it therefore it doesn't.
With that, perhaps it is something much like the colors we cannot perceive, or the dimensions that are not there - and the people pushing away from that idea are only pushing away because a general consensus of people that are deemed as smart enough to decide this, all agree because one smart person decided it and therefore everyone is agreeing with him and to disagree. So through evolution, everyone disagreeing with that will then make it not exist because no one has that consensus.
>>25083928
>[...] when we're depressed, we can actually feel depressed. You know just as well as any human what "feelings" are. Butterflies in the stomach, the weight you feel when you're nervous, all that shit. [...] A robot would not be capable of that, even if we told it we feel that, or told it how that feels, it wouldn't know. It can't know. It's not a living, organic thing. Humans could be wiped out and robots alive, but the robots would communicate that feeling but be incapable of actually feeling it.
No. You're still inside the subjective delusion. Outside of their chemical substrate, the only sense in which feelings can be said to exist is motivation. Again, see >>25081356. I explained it just yesterday. A robot 'feels' bad as soon as it chooses to avoid something, e.g. a longer path to somewhere, e.g. the repair depot, where a shorter, straighter one can be found. A robot 'feels' love as soon as it chooses to actively seek something, e.g. another robot to exchange information with according to its programming. Just the way a human 'feels' bad at the prospect of not curing his/her cold and 'feels' love at the thought of having a snack. Again, feelings are just properties of decision-making: when the result of the evaluation function f(potential future outcome x) is positive, 0-1, it is 'love'. When it it is negative, -1-0, it is 'hate'. Humans and robots 'feel' exactly the same way. When I write a dumb PHP script that chooses the best post in a 4chan thread according to the number of long words in it, this script 'hates' and 'loves' too -- as soon as it rates posts from best to worst. This is literally the very love and hate that humans 'feel'.
are you >>25084134
and you >>25084349
the same person?
Anyway, >>25084134
I'm not trying to sound smart, I'm trying to explain my point the best I can.
>>25084397
>'Can' is just language, and means nothing, as you had stated earlier, right? Probability is mostly just a statistic which when manipulated right you can get it to say anything you want - so in truth it's bullshit, no?
If you're going to misparaphrase me, it is better for me to leave the thread. No offence, really no, but I just can't risk you going around saying things like that.
>>25084433
>are you >>25084134
>and you >>25084349 (You)
>the same person?
>>25084095
It means exactly that. If a concept is useless, not present in falsifiable claims, usd in no models, it doesn't exist. Consciousness doesn't exist: short-term memory, attention, excitation, brain functions responsible for logic and abstraction, those do. 'Consciousness' in itself doesn't, and claims such as 'your conciousness is just an expression of the universe' mean nil.
>>25084349
Let me remind the obvious fact (I suppose Dawkins explained that in his meme book; I don't know) that evolution pertains to inanimate objects just as well: when robots' next generations have bigger memory of this or that or improved motor functions, this is natural selection; the criterion for fitness (survival) is sellability, and mutations are producents saying 'how about we prototype this or that'.
>>25084418
>A robot 'feels' bad as soon as it chooses to avoid something
Or it chooses to avoid the longer path to somewhere because it is more efficient, and is told to be more efficient. Or, because it only has so much time before an essential resource runs out, so it has to get from point A to point B faster.
It won't feel bad, feeling bad would imply guilt or sorrow. It avoids something only because it's told to. Some people feel bad for no reason other than chemical imbalance. This robot is not feeling bad at all, because it doesn't have an actual concept of any of those feelings.
A robot actively seeking something may not be love, but it could be anger.
You really need to hang out with females more often, because that's not how feelings work. You aren't told how to feel.
I could tell you that you are a piece of shit. Some people won't care, some people will. Some people get mad, some people get sad. Some will use that as a motivation to not be called a piece of shit so they will go out and make themselves not a piece of shit to what that stranger thinks is a piece of shit.
Humans and robots do not feel exactly the same way. A robot doesn't feel the warmth of blood in their cheeks when they get embarrassed, a robot doesn't do the pee pee dance when a fuel compartment is full. It just ruptures and continues on. You can tell a robot that "If fuel tank is exceeding 100% capacity, do dance.bat and yell peepee.ps1" but it doesn't actually feel it's bladder getting full. It just knows it.
>>25084449
>Risk you going around saying things like that?
Things like what? I'm not misparaphrasing, I'm asking if that's what you meant.
>>25083942
Put your fedora down.
There's nothing religious about it. I'm not making any supernatural claims, and I'm also not saying that there's anything going on in the mind that can't eventually be explained by science. But our understanding of the brain is still very rudimentary so a lot of it is open to interpretation at this point.
All I'm saying is that from my perspective I see or hear thoughts in my mind as separate objects, and I look out at the world through my eyes. This is conciousness, I don't know what it is, but its hard to examine the because it is the thing doing the examining, like a knife can't cut itself.
But I can examine thoughts because they are treated as objects. I can be detached from thoughts that arise rather than believing and identifying with every single thought that my diseased brain throws up. I can choose which thoughts to dwell on and which to just let go, which is useful, because some things aren't good to dwell on.
>>25084648
>Or it chooses to avoid the longer path to somewhere because it is more efficient, and is told to be more efficient. Or, because it only has so much time before an essential resource runs out, so it has to get from point A to point B faster.
Correct.
>A robot actively seeking something may not be love, but it could be anger.
Doesn't matter. There are only two kinds of feelings, positive and negative, attraction and avoidance. 'Shame' or 'disgust' or 'anger' are just composites of those.
>I could tell you that you are a piece of shit. Some people won't care, some people will. Some people get mad, some people get sad.
Yes, just like no robot would feel the same way because of inevitable minor miswirings and different environmental exposure.
>[A robot] avoids something only because it's told to.
Just like people. Our judgement systems are affected by what other people tell us, by our varying states (when our organs tell us we're hungry or thirsty or full), and so on, determining how we feel with respect to the prospect of another helping.
>A robot doesn't feel the warmth of blood in their cheeks when they get embarrassed, a robot doesn't do the pee pee dance when a fuel compartment is full. It just ruptures and continues on. You can tell a robot that "If fuel tank is exceeding 100% capacity, do dance.bat and yell peepee.ps1" but it doesn't actually feel it's bladder getting full.
They do exactly that. You are still clinging to the delusion that humans have some magical spark that makes them different. You are afraid of the leap of associating those, of understanding that you literally ARE pic related. I suppose you are just religious; anthropocentrism is a mark of it, more or less explicit.
>>25084802
>its hard to examine the because it is the thing doing the examining, like a knife can't cut itself.
I told you, quit Watts' garbage. It literally damages your brain.
This 'you can't define yourself' cherished crap of his is as glaringly nonsensical as it is anti-intellectual (Watts never wasted an opportunity to say that something cannot be done). A brain can trivially understand itself. It can have self-referential thoughts: 'I am aware of this very thought here.' Just like a program can parse its own source code, for that matter. So what? All this means is that, e.g., your 'meditation' has led your brain into self-absorption, routinely forming thoughts about its own thoughts as opposed to focusing on the environment. And for that matter, you cannot 'choose' what to focus on. Thoughts and eventual decisions to focus on the environment are predetermined as well, and largely impaired by 'meditation' -- so it is the exact opposite of what 'meditators' claim as a matter of fact.
>our understanding of the brain is still very rudimentary
This makes no sense.
>>25084820
>Doesn't matter
It does matter, love and anger are two different things, not 1's and 0's. Love can turn into anger, and vice versa. There's also the time when people aren't sure how they feel. When people aren't sure, it doesn't fluctuate between 1 and 0.
Some people see anger as a positive thing, solely on how they're expressing it. Some people enjoy it. So to them anger is a 1. Positive. Same with pain, those freaks that enjoy pain and want it even though pain to a robot will always be bad, because it knows no other way around it. Though it cannot feel it.
>Just like people
How many women do you have in your life? Women make the dumbest decisions, not by what people tell them but because most women can't comprehend certain things and pick the wrong thing. Sometimes for attention, or what have you. Men do the same as well.
When our organs are hungry, we can feel pain to the point it contracts muscles. Thirst being a miserable feeling in the mouth when it's dry. Full being to the point you're puking that your body can't function properly.
A robot wouldn't act that way. It would just spit it out and continue on - it won't taste the vomit. It won't taste the acid in it's stomach.
We avoid things sometimes because we are simply lazy, or greedy even if we know it's best for us. Ever do a hard drug before?
I doubt robots can feel what greed is, or laziness. It would take a person's greed to or laziness to project that idea onto the robot. And it's just that - an idea. Not a feeling.
>magical spark
I don't believe we have a magical spark that makes us different. I am not pic related. I am not text converted to code to act one way or another.
All humans are capable of making decisions how ever they see fit, hence free will. Robots do not, cannot, and will not have free will.
And in the sense of this topic, I'm not religious nor anthropocentristic. Other animals could be capable of this and we don't realize it.
>>25084968
>Just like a program can parse its own source code, for that matter.
(Or even inspect its own structures in the OS memory.)
>>25080407
>This linguistic reductionism
christ you're actually retarded.
>>25084992
>Some people see anger as a positive thing, solely on how they're expressing it. Some people enjoy it. So to them anger is a 1. Positive. Same with pain, those freaks that enjoy pain and want it [...]
You're literally saying 'if a cat is a dog, then it is a dog'. Of course judgements (a.k.a., though not really correctly, as morality) are individual-specific. No one denies that.
>>25084992
>Women make the dumbest decisions, not by what people tell them but because most women can't comprehend certain things and pick the wrong thing. Sometimes for attention, or what have you. Men do the same as well. [...] We avoid things sometimes because we are simply lazy, or greedy even if we know it's best for us.
Again, every single decision is rational because it is inherently the most positively evaluated outcome of all present alternatives. Humans are intrinsically utilitarian and cannot be illogical. When a woman acts at a whim, the whim is rational and logical by the very fact of having been acted upon.
>All humans are capable of making decisions how ever they see fit, hence free will. Robots do not, cannot, and will not have free will.
'Seeing fit' is a structure. var howMuchISeeFitToCallYouAnIdiot = (function(post) { return isThePostRetarded(post); }(>>25084992);
You're just repeating yourself.
>>25084820
Also, I think you believe all of what you're saying to be true, so black and white, because you yourself are black and white and cannot comprehend how other people can think different. Empathy.
Do you have any capability of actual empathy? Not understanding - empathy.
You only perceive things the way you are taught. So you don't actually know what other people see, or think, or feel, or say in their minds.
Someone else may be able to process things beyond your understanding, so if that's the case are you not stuck with this mindset that you yourself are the center of the universe, because everything you say is 100% factual? It's factual based on the same things that you're saying dictate these feelings.
>>25085180
It is too soon that religious people choose to insult.
>>25085218
It is too soon that a robot chooses to call someone else religious
Also, are you going to refute yourself or just talk down because you have no way to argue with what I just said?
>>25085171
>Humans are intrinsically utilitarian and cannot be illogical.
In other words, again I feel the example is necessary: if you suddenly choose 'I'm gonna be as illogical as possible, whoodfgaksdlsudifiocbvl *kicks you* *pulls pants down*', this too is purely logical behaviour because it is the (within your given structure) optimal solution of the (your present) problem of proving what you have been determined by nature and nurture to try to logically prove (here: to erroneously imply that it is possible to be illogical).
>>25085287
Refute what? You just made a couple of sweeping accusations of not understanding, religiously implying incommunicability of knowledge on the way ('you only perceive things your way, other people have their own thinking').
>>25085180
And as for empathy, everyone has it. Empathy literally just influencability of one's priorities. Cf. allism/autism. If a brain alters its priorities having been cried at, 'THOU SHALT NOT', it is empathetic -- insofar as it resists, it is not.
>>25080337
I am just me, I like to think like I am a collection of molecules or cells working together. No robot or synthetic object could replace me even if it was a perfect copy because the moment the robot would be aware, it would promptly self destruct.
>>25085402
And you're making accusations of religion and only that. "If anon doesn't get what I say then they must be religious! Haha!"
Other people do have their own thinking, if they didn't you wouldn't think the way you would right now.
You are right in your own way, just as anyone else would be.
We aren't special snowflakes, no. You only perceive things in black and white though, and you clearly don't really feel emotions the way the average person does. What are you, like 15? Maybe 18?
Go outside and live a little, and see how the world works. You'll change your mind on this 1's and 0's crap pretty quick.
>>25085539
But if a robot replaced you, exactly as you were, it would think the exact same thing and you may not even realize you're a robot, so you'd keep telling yourself that when you are a robot, but you don't know it.
>>25080337
OP just got out of his grade 10 philosophy class
>>25085548
>You are right in your own way, just as anyone else would be.
Populism. Denial of (in)correctness relieving people from the anxiety at the prospect of being (in the past, in the future) incorrect: 'there is no such thing as (in)correctness, worry not'.
>>25085548
>What are you, like 15? Maybe 18?
27, incidentally, people in the range you gave are likely most rational.
>>25085592
>Populism. Denial of (in)correctness relieving people from the anxiety at the prospect of being (in the past, in the future) incorrect: 'there is no such thing as (in)correctness, worry not'.
In itself resulting from laziness and cowardice, fear of the popular ire implying the otherwise would incur.
>>25085574
What a great and constructive post
>>25085574
I've actually never had a philosophy class. I'm just coming down from LSD.
>>25085625
my post is better then the incoherent babbling of OP
>>25085675
cool starry bra.jpg
There are far more interesting things to ponder then what you posed.
theory of self is gay as fuck and sucha selfish thing to think about when we recede in this universe
>>25085561
This is [1] and it is irrelevant.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
As you can read, it just poses stupid questions such as 'if the copy's physical structure has been rebuild, are certain possessions still that copy's, or can they still only be said to be the original's'. Which are a waste of time because they depend on definitions, namely whether ownership is defined as having been the very atoms that have touched something, or as there being agreement in everyone's brains that the object belongs to someone. This is a waste of time because it can be either way; there are more pressing empirical and mathematical and other questions to solve.
>>25085675
>I'm just coming down from LSD.
How did I not guess it. Thread becomes another reminder never to take 'psychedelics'.
>>25084968
>A brain can trivially understand itself.
A brain can't understand itself at all. You're on r9k, a pit of self-loathing, misery, and learned helplessness.
>It can have self-referential thoughts: 'I am aware of this very thought here.'
Self referential thoughts aren't the same as the observer that I'm talking about. The fact that you put quotes around it implies that its being said by some kind of voice in your head, and there's something deeper that listens to that voice, which is the observer. Whatever it is, it isn't a thought, just like sensory input or feelings aren't the same as thoughts. I'm not making any supernatural claims again, its just I can tell the difference between a thought about thoughts, and an observer of thoughts.
>And for that matter, you cannot 'choose' what to focus on. Thoughts and eventual decisions to focus on the environment are predetermined as well, and largely impaired by 'meditation' -- so it is the exact opposite of what 'meditators' claim as a matter of fact.
Oh are you one of those faggots who doesn't believe in free will? I wish I'd know that before I started responding...
I'm going to demonstrate how one can choose not to dwell on certain thoughts by choosing not to continue posting in this thread.
>>25085805
>I'm going to demonstrate how one can choose not to dwell on certain thoughts by choosing not to continue posting in this thread.
clap
Also.
>>25085805
>The fact that you put quotes around it implies that its being said by some kind of voice in your head, and there's something deeper that listens to that voice, which is the observer. Whatever it is, it isn't a thought, just like sensory input or feelings aren't the same as thoughts. I'm not making any supernatural claims again, its just I can tell the difference between a thought about thoughts, and an observer of thoughts.
There is something magical but TOTALLY NOT supernatural that I'm not sure what does, can't define neurologically, refuse to relate causally to behaviour, but it's still there. It is there and it's meaningful because I say so.
And it's totally different from those primitive notions of soul!
>>25085897
>>25085805
In other words, talk about the brain or get lost, 'meditating' moron.
>>25085930
Dude, go get laid
>>25085930
>>25085897
>>25085805
(In reality, that 'observing' shit is probably just some parts of your brain consuming and diminishing your attention, your mindfulness (as opposed to 'mindfulness') as a result of 'meditation' by focusing on feeling; I have no idea which parts exactly might be responsible, but I have tentatively been comparing it to being consumed by thirst or hunger, except it is pleasant -- or perhaps a cannabis haze. You just experience this pleasant, non-verbal singsong of impressions of mild, vague self-awareness, and you confuse this sensation for some sort of improvement whereas it just means less focus on the environment.)
Your cells all die and regrow multiple times throughout your life anyway, not even going to touch the topic of sleeping and waking being the death and rebirth of consciousness every few hours.
>>25086017
Translation:
'Observe how far you are from observing in a detached, objective manner the reality of this discussion: how you are emotionally entangled in it, how you fail to be mindful of your thought processes, how you let yourself be carried away by anger and... *yawn*
>>25085737
>incoherent babbling
I mean, I can talk about antique firearms all day, considering I own about 20 of them.
Or, trucks. Or fine bourbon. Or farming.
Plus it's not theory of self, it's just a hypothesis that's fun to think about and nothing more. I've never said once that what I've been saying is fact.
There certainly are far more interesting things to ponder, so why don't you initiate something more interesting, if you'd be so kind?
>>25086081
Translation:
I'm a virgin and I'm pretending that I'm smarter than everyone to make up for that fact and use that as a reason for why I can't get the #1 thing evolution dictates a man wants
>>25086198
Translation:
'If I am excessive enough at my heartfelt insults, people will confuse them for being ironic.'
>>25086127
To be insane is closer to the truth then anything else.
To become over stimulated in a world we are desensitized too.
They call those who are over stimulated crazy.I stay noided.
>>25086229
Translation:
I don't know how people work, OP is a fag, yadda yadda
>>25086299
Translation:
'Ur dum.'
