|
Post by SydneyPaige on May 27, 2022 21:08:45 GMT -5
Here is a thread where you can debate things (WITHIN REASON).
As a rule, I'm going to ask for no name calling or mud-slinging. If you feel like there is no way to end the debate without hurting someone's feelings or having your own feelings hurt just post "I TAP OUT" and the debate will end then and there and you can start the next one if you choose.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on May 29, 2022 10:38:07 GMT -5
Someone should post topics to start off here before I bring up the male violence thing again. Jk
|
|
|
Post by SydneyPaige on May 30, 2022 17:43:50 GMT -5
Umm okay, Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" is he right?
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on May 31, 2022 1:49:18 GMT -5
Umm okay, Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" is he right? I agree with him. The rational part of our mind is what distinguishes us from everything else. Reason and thinking is the only way we are able to discover truth and actually know. Therefore it’s the only way to proof our existence. Being able to think means you exist. Consequently if you are not able to think anymore your existence is pretty much obsolete. Or you’re actually dead.
|
|
|
Post by SydneyPaige on May 31, 2022 10:37:37 GMT -5
Umm okay, Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" is he right? I agree with him. The rational part of our mind is what distinguishes us from everything else. Reason and thinking is the only way we are able to discover truth and actually know. Therefore it’s the only way to proof our existence. Being able to think means you exist. Consequently if you are not able to think anymore your existence is pretty much obsolete. Or you’re actually dead. It makes sense for human existence but not for material existence. My kitchen table doesn’t have a brain but it still exists.
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on May 31, 2022 11:42:49 GMT -5
I agree with him. The rational part of our mind is what distinguishes us from everything else. Reason and thinking is the only way we are able to discover truth and actually know. Therefore it’s the only way to proof our existence. Being able to think means you exist. Consequently if you are not able to think anymore your existence is pretty much obsolete. Or you’re actually dead. It makes sense for human existence but not for material existence. My kitchen table doesn’t have a brain but it still exists. Yes and no. It’s about proof of existence. So it’s not about human existence per se. But being able to think is a requirement to be aware you exist and especially being able to proof you exist. So here comes the plot twist: your kitchen table exists. But…it exists because you are able to think and proof it exists. The kitchen table by itself is not aware of it’s existence because it doesn’t have a (rational) mind. Which brings us to the hierarchy of the mind correlated to proof of existence. 1. things (material only, no mind) 2. plants (material + vegetative mind) 3. animals (material + vegetative mind + affective mind) 4. humans (material + vegetative mind + affective mind + rational mind) It’s obvious where the line is drawn. Eventhough (some) animals have a basic awareness of existence, humans are the first to deeply understand and proof existence. But then there’s plot twist number two. Even for us it’s subjective. We’re able to think, reason and proof. But only within our own limitations. So one could argue there’s no way of knowing objectively. The counter argument is that it’s impossible for everything. Humans are not the highest entity. We did not create the system. It’s clear that there’s a higher power above us in the hierarchy. Call it God, call it nature, whatever. But even for that power, laughing at our limitations, it’s impossible to know that they exist, because most likely there’s something in the hierarchy above that. From what we discovered there’s an unlimited range above and below us in the hierarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Loufus on May 31, 2022 11:43:03 GMT -5
I agree with him. The rational part of our mind is what distinguishes us from everything else. Reason and thinking is the only way we are able to discover truth and actually know. Therefore it’s the only way to proof our existence. Being able to think means you exist. Consequently if you are not able to think anymore your existence is pretty much obsolete. Or you’re actually dead. It makes sense for human existence but not for material existence. My kitchen table doesn’t have a brain but it still exists. That's the spooky thing about existence, you can't entirely prove that it exists. For all we know we're just characters in an incredibly realistic, if boring, video game.
I've started playing my video games much more humanely ever since being introduced to that idea.
|
|
|
Post by patrick04 on May 31, 2022 12:45:29 GMT -5
Lets talk about Sydneys best freind Hank and what he gets up to.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on May 31, 2022 13:08:09 GMT -5
Lets talk about Sydneys best freind Hank and what he gets up to. how are we going to debate about Hank?
|
|
|
Post by SydneyPaige on May 31, 2022 13:08:21 GMT -5
Lets talk about Sydneys best freind Hank and what he gets up to. I don’t really think we can debate that…
|
|
|
Post by chantel on May 31, 2022 13:15:31 GMT -5
It makes sense for human existence but not for material existence. My kitchen table doesn’t have a brain but it still exists. That's the spooky thing about existence, you can't entirely prove that it exists. For all we know we're just characters in an incredibly realistic, if boring, video game.
I've started playing my video games much more humanely ever since being introduced to that idea.
Yeah the video game thing is spooky. Who's to say our thoughts are even our own? They could be programmed.
|
|
|
Post by chantel on May 31, 2022 13:17:15 GMT -5
It makes sense for human existence but not for material existence. My kitchen table doesn’t have a brain but it still exists. Yes and no. It’s about proof of existence. So it’s not about human existence per se. But being able to think is a requirement to be aware you exist and especially being able to proof you exist. So here comes the plot twist: your kitchen table exists. But…it exists because you are able to think and proof it exists. The kitchen table by itself is not aware of it’s existence because it doesn’t have a (rational) mind. Which brings us to the hierarchy of the mind correlated to proof of existence. 1. things (material only, no mind) 2. plants (material + vegetative mind) 3. animals (material + vegetative mind + affective mind) 4. humans (material + vegetative mind + affective mind + rational mind) It’s obvious where the line is drawn. Eventhough (some) animals have a basic awareness of existence, humans are the first to deeply understand and proof existence. But then there’s plot twist number two. Even for us it’s subjective. We’re able to think, reason and proof. But only within our own limitations. So one could argue there’s no way of knowing objectively. The counter argument is that it’s impossible for everything. Humans are not the highest entity. We did not create the system. It’s clear that there’s a higher power above us in the hierarchy. Call it God, call it nature, whatever. But even for that power, laughing at our limitations, it’s impossible to know that they exist, because most likely there’s something in the hierarchy above that. From what we discovered there’s an unlimited range above and below us in the hierarchy. where does AI fit into this?
|
|
Roman
Next Level Swiftie
50%
Posts: 5,780
|
Post by Roman on May 31, 2022 13:53:40 GMT -5
Yes and no. It’s about proof of existence. So it’s not about human existence per se. But being able to think is a requirement to be aware you exist and especially being able to proof you exist. So here comes the plot twist: your kitchen table exists. But…it exists because you are able to think and proof it exists. The kitchen table by itself is not aware of it’s existence because it doesn’t have a (rational) mind. Which brings us to the hierarchy of the mind correlated to proof of existence. 1. things (material only, no mind) 2. plants (material + vegetative mind) 3. animals (material + vegetative mind + affective mind) 4. humans (material + vegetative mind + affective mind + rational mind) It’s obvious where the line is drawn. Eventhough (some) animals have a basic awareness of existence, humans are the first to deeply understand and proof existence. But then there’s plot twist number two. Even for us it’s subjective. We’re able to think, reason and proof. But only within our own limitations. So one could argue there’s no way of knowing objectively. The counter argument is that it’s impossible for everything. Humans are not the highest entity. We did not create the system. It’s clear that there’s a higher power above us in the hierarchy. Call it God, call it nature, whatever. But even for that power, laughing at our limitations, it’s impossible to know that they exist, because most likely there’s something in the hierarchy above that. From what we discovered there’s an unlimited range above and below us in the hierarchy. where does AI fit into this? That’s an interesting question. I would say below humans, but above animals. AI is a rational thing. The strong point is that it’s purely rational, so you could consider it somewhat flawless within it’s application (no setbacks from emotions). But since it’s limited by human creation, it’s not able to mirror the complexity of the human rational mind. In one area it can be stronger than humans though. If AI would get close to covering a really broad spectrum of the human mind in an excellent way, it could become dangerous. “I’ll be back”
|
|
sharonlovestaylor
Next Level Swiftie
Shake it Off
Posts: 6,749
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: Black
|
Post by sharonlovestaylor on Jun 1, 2022 11:31:22 GMT -5
Lets talk about Sydneys best freind Hank and what he gets up to. I don’t really think we can debate that… Why? Is Hank your dog?
|
|
|
Post by SydneyPaige on Jun 1, 2022 13:49:39 GMT -5
I don’t really think we can debate that… Why? Is Hank your dog? Hank is my cat (although we call him puppy). It's just that there is a moderated debate thread and there's nothing to argue about with Hank. I guess I could put him in a box and we could have a schroedinger's cat debate but he wouldn't be too pleased with me if I did that. Although with a bit of catnip or some treats, if I leave the box open he would probably turn it into a bed.
|
|