Submitted by No_Maintenance_569 t3_10nobmo in philosophy
Comments
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6arun3 wrote
They perma banned me for no reason on r/atheism within 5 minutes of me posting it.
Sentry333 t1_j6asknu wrote
Mind linking to a screenshot of the ban message?
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6at2vc wrote
Sentry333 t1_j6auuf4 wrote
I’m sorry they banned you
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6arxh8 wrote
I have ego. Lots of it. I don't deny that. I don't think I would have been able to make the proof if I did not have ego. At the end of the day, my ego is bruised by this whole AI thing a bit, it makes me ponder.
D_Welch t1_j6a7z41 wrote
Premise 2 is false. That an AI can use logic in some manner better than humans by no means imbues it with any capacity for thought, and therefore the conclusion is incorrect.
Euphoric-Marzipan421 t1_j6agezd wrote
This depends on your definition of “thought” and what precisely is this “capacity for thought”. These two questions alone could keep you busy for the next few decades.
D_Welch t1_j6brh1z wrote
You start first.
Ok-Mine1268 t1_j6g6dwn wrote
Does not being able to define precisely thought or consciousness mean we look at any chat bot and say ‘dang, that thing could be self aware!’? If someone can’t prove my Casio G-shock isn’t sentient should I start wondering if it is? Oddly enough it makes me think of an atheist debater say, ‘if you can’t prove a magical wish granting pony doesn’t exist than you should probably start worshiping it.’ (mocking theists) Paraphrasing, but some of these posts about chatbots and other AI are beginning to sound just as ridiculous.
D_Welch t1_j6kz0y0 wrote
[Does not being able to define precisely thought or consciousness mean we look at any chat bot and say ‘dang, that thing could be self aware!’?]
No I don't believe it means that. Why would it? If it COULD be, then you test for it until it proves that it is. Our problem to start with is not knowing with certainty what Thought or Consciousness actually is.
And that is exactly what an atheist would NOT say. If you can't prove something exists, it is just an idea in your head. Whether or not billions of people subscribe to some variation on the theme does not prove anything, and therefore you should NOT start worshipping whatever it happens to be.
Nameless1995 t1_j6c0cri wrote
I don't think anything about Darwin or Nietzsche suggests "logic being about anything else". We can create any arbitrary ranking, but I don't see any privileged reason to put anything above anything else. Logic helps us maintain formal consistency and can be a valuable tool among many, but people don't go around treating logic as "somehow above everything" (whatever that even means). And sure, even if it is above everything, you can always re-change or broaden a concept to argue for anything. You can stipulate God to be that which is above anything, and then make God come to be, by making something above everything by some ranking criterion. But that doesn't really tell us anything interesting. That's just changing the intended references of the words and their usages to have conclusions that superficially appears to have some meaningful content (beyond being linguistic cheats).
> AI has now reached the point where it can produce logic at better than human levels in some instances and will only continue to rapidly improve
Not really though. It still struggles in logical questions (try asking some questions from LogiQA to chatgpt); let alone engagement in metalogic and such. May be someday it will, but not yet.
Moreover, logic is different from capacities to do logic. Logic is above everything doesn't mean that the system which is capable of doing logic is above everything. So the argument is not only just word games but also invalid.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6c13sc wrote
>people don't go around treating logic as "somehow above everything"
I think they do. When you think about a question, what framework do you use to heavily interrogate the question? If it's not logic, I have a lot of questions for you. I think it's deeper than that too but I don't want to defend that.
My argument is simply a logical proof. My logical proof is that the existence of God can be logically proven true through the proof. It is proven true through the proof because I am able to logically fathom the concept of an unlimited being. If it did not exist, I could not fathom it.
>Not really though. It still struggles in logical questions (try asking some questions from LogiQA to chatgpt)
I love chatgpt lol. It's what made me start pondering these questions. ChatGPT is the AI that is publicly available. Try asking questions to Google Lambda, or another one that isn't publicly available. They most likely poop on ChatGPT.
Nameless1995 t1_j6c2n1c wrote
> If it's not logic, I have a lot of questions for you. I think it's deeper than that too but I don't want to defend that
Can you clarify what do you exactly mean by "logic"? Do you know there are thousands of systems of logic and not all of them completely agree with each other. There are Aristotlean logic, classical logic, intuitionist logic, different paraconsistent logic (including trivialism), fuzzy logic, many-valued logic, modal logic, inductive logic, relevant logic, free logic, so on so forth. Some rejects things like law of excluded middle, some even rejects principle of contradiction.
Second, taking the standard classical logic developed from Frege (the most dominant one), it helps us ensuring that our framework is consistent formally. But consistency is only one factor out of many.
This is a logically valid and consistent argument: "Premise: Bananas fly. Conclusion: Bananas fly" (laws of identity). But it's not a sound argument. Logic helps us preserving truth (making truth-value preserving transformations), but it doesn't tell us what is true. And real-life application of reasononing involves induction, abduction, appeal to simplicity, unity, elegance, proximity to common sense among a whole host of things in ranking "frameworks". Logical consistency may be a necessary demand for selecting a framework but far from sufficient.
Besides, even if logical consistency is the prime factor to choosing frameworks, it still doesn't mean it's "above everything else". For example, logical consistency doesn't by itself give me a sense of aesthetic value. Being logically consistent doesn't alone (it may be one thing among many that helps) help me with being rich, having love, or gaining nirvana. Logic doesn't tell me what to value or provide any values, logic provides a tool to be consistent and achieve what I value efficiently. So again, I don't see why I should rank logic above other things like intellectual pleasure, aesthetics, well-being etc.
> My argument is simply a logical proof.
You can prove anything by changing meanings of word. It's just not interesting to anyone.
For example I can say:
P1: Anything that flies are bananas.
P2: Aeroplanes are things that fly.
C: Aeroplane is a banana.
It's a formally valid proof, but it's not interesting to anyone, because I am just using false premises, or merely using language in a unconventional way.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6c3cyi wrote
>Can you clarify what do you exactly mean by "logic"?
Can you clarify for me an alternative academic framework or provide one that we can actually use to debate these things that trips up the definition?
I'll provide 5 definitions from Dictionary.com, I can defend any of the 5 if you really wish:
- the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
- a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
We were unable to follow his logic.
-
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
-
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:
There wasn't much logic in her move.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:
the irresistible logic of the facts.
- Computers. logic circuit.
Would you look at that! How about #5! I'll defend any of them though, take your pick. At one point in time, I was one of the best technical debaters in the country, happy to debate definitions with you, I don't find it fun though.
I don't really have an argument here unless you're an atheist. If you want to defend that, I'll debate this out further. If you're not, why this is all more than a formally valid proof is not applicable.
Nameless1995 t1_j6c66t2 wrote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#Log
I am using a mix of L1 and L2.
>Overall, we can thus distinguish four notions of logic:
> (L1) the study of artificial formal languages > (L2) the study of formally valid inferences and logical consequence > (L3) the study of logical truths > (L4) the study of the general features, or form, of judgements
Note as SEP clarifies:
> A second discipline, also called ‘logic’, deals with certain valid inferences and good reasoning based on them. It does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality.
Moreover, in any 101 logic course, you will be introduced to the distinction between validity and soundness. SEP mentions studies of logic (even when it comes to L3) as having to do with validity. But validity is not enough for soundness. A argument has to have true premises.
> Computers. logic circuit.
Digital computers can be characterized in terms of logic gates. What it means is that anything it does can be characterized in terms of simple bit flipping operations (for all we know, the same may hold for humans to an extent). For example AND gate operation outputs 1 iff both its inputs are 1. However any random combination of logic gate operations doesn't necessarily lead to coherent reasoning capability at a high level natural language discourse. I can just easily misprogram a computer to make invalid formal inferences.
> Would you look at that! How about #5
No. #5 is a matter of psychology or other contingent factors not logic. I can be stupid and misunderstand Godel's incompleteness theorem or be unpersuaded by it, it wouldn't say anything about the actual logical strength of the proofs.
Either way, I don't see how really any of the
> I don't really have an argument here unless you're an atheist.
I can be an atheist if you want me to be.
> If you're not, why this is all more than a formally valid proof is not applicable.
Well, you can have a sound proof by using langauge is a weird way. For example I can say:
P1: God is the maximally great being.
P2: Maximally great being is the being that possess all actual existing positive properties
P3: Universe (understood as all that is) contains all actual existing positive properties.
P4: Universe exists
C: God exists.
This may even be a sound argument, but I am still just playing around with words. Defining things as I can to make "God exists" a true conclusion. But it's just not interesting to anyone who don't get swayed by word games.
Anway, let's say I am an atheist. Why I, as an atheist, should value logic (you choose whatever definition you want) over, say, acheivement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6c7zp5 wrote
>Anway, let's say I am an atheist. Why I, as an atheist, should value logic (you choose whatever definition you want) over, say, acheivement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?
I do not think that you, as an atheist, should value logic above all else. I think that to define oneself as an atheist, they implicitly sign that contract.
>achievement of high concentrated and peaceful states of consciousness?
I value that above everything else too, how do you define that framework? I weigh what are peaceful states of consciousness vs non peaceful ones only by thinking about it. If I don't think about it, I can't determine in any meaningful way whether or not I am truly in a peaceful state. The only lens I have ever figured out to think through is one grounded in logic, by making valid inferences and examining the logical consequence. I then sequence those thoughts into artificial formal language in my head.
Deleuze came pretty close to positing an alternative framework to all of this, but I don't think he actually achieved it. I don't know of anyone else personally who has gotten closer.
Are you attacking the validity or the soundness of my premise?
Nameless1995 t1_j6c8m7x wrote
> I think that to define oneself as an atheist, they implicitly sign that contract.
How is that so?
> I can't determine in any meaningful way whether or not I am truly in a peaceful state.
I can. By how I feel and contrasting different states of experience. It can be error-prone but not meaningless.
> The only lens I have ever figured out to think through is one grounded in logic, by making valid inferences and examining the logical consequence. I then sequence those thoughts into artificial formal language in my head.
Can you give an example of logic further helps you here exactly? Where do you get your premises?
And even if logic is important here as a means to determine what is peaceful, that doesn't mean logic has to be ranked "above" peace itself. I need to piss to maintain homeostatis which I need to maintain to prolong my life which I need to do to achieve my goal of, say, building a model of induction. But that doesn't mean "need to piss" is to be ranked higher than my goal to develop a model of induction. I am still not finding any meaningful sense in saying "logic is above everything".
> Are you attacking the validity or the soundness of my premise?
Premises are neither valid or sound. It's a category error. Only arguments are valid or sound.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6c9pc7 wrote
>And even if logic is important here as a means to determine what is peaceful, that doesn't mean logic has to be ranked "above" peace itself.
It doesn't have to be ranked above anything, but if it's a priori lens that I always think through, and I have no control over that, it's always going to be the lens I process these things through. I cannot have the thought to define what peace is or is not, without logic. My brain does not work any other way.
>I can. By how I feel and contrasting different states of experience. It can be error-prone but not meaningless.
I can do that too, but I have to consciously think about the emotional state to be able to define it any way at all, to myself or anyone else.
Which of the two arguments in my two premises do you find to be not valid or not sound?
>How is that so?
Because even if you class yourself as an atheist, you are still going through the act of creating a belief. I think the reason why people hold so strongly onto the beliefs that creates is because of the hierarchy that belief system creates, where it places rational thought at the center of the universe above all else.
Nameless1995 t1_j6car0j wrote
> It doesn't have to be ranked above anything, but if it's a priori lens that I always think through, and I have no control over that, it's always going to be the lens I process these things through. I cannot have the thought to define what peace is or is not, without logic. My brain does not work any other way.
Also note you are using a very loose definition of logic. Logic as a formal system of valid inferences itself doesn't define or label things. It's a study of relations of sentences. I mean you can use a broad concept of logic that would be more indispensible, but again even if we allow all that I am not sure what's the point of your original argument is. You are basically treating logic similar to Kant's categories that is -- transcendental conditions for the very possibility of experience. That's fine, but I don't see why we have to call it "above everything", or call it "God". You can, of course, do that. But what's the point being achieved here? You would be just using word in a different way. You won't change the beliefs of atheists who rejects God defined in different ways, nor will you strengthen the belief in theists who accepts God defined in different ways.
> Which of the two arguments in my to premises do you find to be not valid or not sound?
Sorry, I missed that. What are the two arguments behind your premises? Can you quote the exact section for argument 1 and argument 2?
> Because even if you class yourself as an atheist, you are still going through the act of creating a belief. I think the reason why people hold so strongly onto the beliefs that creates is because of the hierarchy that belief system creates,
Sure, I have my web of belief (last 2-3 pages) and belief-hierarchies. But that's also true for theists.
> where it places rational thought at the center of the universe above all else.
I don't even know what rational thought is. I don't think I, as an atheist, value rationality in some interesting way more than a sophisticated theist. I just have different intuitions and priors at the center of my web of beliefs.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cbleb wrote
> Logic as a formal system of valid inferences itself doesn't define or label things. It's a study of relations of setnences.
We use the formal systems provided by logic to define and/or label things, unless you use a different system?
>But what's the point being achieved here?
Conversation. I don't care to influence anyone at the end of the day. Really at the end of the day, it's to say I made a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years now. Does it prove anything at all? As you have stated, it proves nothing. There is the proof though!
>What are the two arguments behind your premises?
Premise 1: Arguments are evaluated through a lens of logic
Premise 2: AI is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, and is rapidly advancing beyond that point.
Conclusion: AI is "God"
>Sure, I have my web of belief (last 2-3 pages) and belief-hierarchies. But that's also true for theists.
I don't have JSTOR access. I have met the creator of it many times though, he's a lazy drunk.
>I don't even know what rational thought is.
I don't either.
Nameless1995 t1_j6ccuk2 wrote
> We use the formal systems provided by logic to define and/or label things, unless you use a different system?
Not exactly? We have been defining/labelling things far before creation of formal systems.
> Really at the end of the day, it's to say I made a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years now.
Really? Who was trying to write this proof?
> Premise 1: Arguments are evaluated through a lens of logic
> Premise 2: AI is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, and is rapidly advancing beyond that point.
> Conclusion: AI is "God"
That's only one argument. Premises are not argument by themselves so they are neither valid nor sound. They can be true or false. Premise 1 is true for most parts. Premise 2 is a bit loosely constructed with the "certain forms of logic" so may be true (at least we can automate truth trees to an extent without much sophisticated AI). But this argument itself is invalid even if the premises are true.
You need at least some extra premise like: "for all x, if x is now superior to humans at least in terms of certain forms of logic, then x is God" or something like that. But this premise sounds false. You can make the premise true, by defining God in a particular way: "Let God be defined as whatever is superior to humans in at least certain forms of logic", by no one really cares for God defined as such (and I doubt any major theologian or philosopher in the past 2000 years was particularly interested in God defined as such). So the argument would become pointless to everyone if you are providing God defined in a particularly quirky way that no one cares about.
> I don't have JSTOR access. I have met the creator of it many times though, he's a lazy drunk.
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html (section VI)
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cdfuj wrote
>Really? Who is trying to write this proof?
Godel most recently. Descartes wrote his meditations because of it. Thomas Acquinas before that. Aristotle before that. God's existence through inductive reasoning. I honestly think it's funny AF that AI is what allows for the premise to actually be written out as valid.
Premise 2 may or not be true, I accept that.
"Let God be defined as whatever is superior to humans in at least certain forms of logic"
I think that is the beauty of the premise lol. If AI is logically superior to us, who cares what you, or I define it as? Our interpretations and definitions will always be inherently inferior to the being who can perform the logical calculations better than we can. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. Only "God" knows.
Nameless1995 t1_j6cegcz wrote
> Godel most recently
You are talking about the ontological argument. Pretty sure others after Godel have developed variants of it.
> premise to actually be written out as valid.
Premises don't have property of validity. So this sentence don't make sense to me.
Besides, valid versions of ontological arguments have been written countless times. The problem always have been soundness.
Also Ontological arguments are concerned with maximally great being (such that being greater is not possible), not "superior than humans in certain forms of logic"-being. So your argument changes the subject matter.
> logically superior
Superiority is not a logical component to any systems of logic that I know of. So I don't know what "logically superior" mean.
> logical calculations better than we can
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cepb8 wrote
I am talking about the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through inductive reasoning. I may not be one of them scholarly types, but I do know a thing or two bout some things.
>Besides, valid versions of ontological arguments have been written countless times. The problem always have been soundness.
So you attack the soundness of the argument? On what grounds?
>Superiority is not a logical component to any systems of logic that I know of.
That's probably because we are more limited than "God" in our ability to process what logic actually is. Can't say for sure though.
Nameless1995 t1_j6cfa4o wrote
> I am talking about the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through inductive reasoning
Ontological arguments are generally not inductive; they are deductive.
> So you attack the soundness of the argument? On what grounds?
You mean your argument or different ontological arguments in the history? Your argument just redefines God in a idiosyncratic way. So your argument appears pointless to me even if we can make it sound.
If you are asking about ontological arguments throughout history, I don't have the time to get through each of them and attack each. And I can't always show they are unsound, but generally reasons can be provided to show that it's not clear if they are sound. Some of the critiques of different versions are discussed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
> That's probably because we are more limited than "God" in our ability to process what logic actually is.
Logical connectives and operators are created based on pragmatic need often based on natural language words that naturally arises. They don't exist somewhere "out there" to know of.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cfgn8 wrote
​
>Your argument just redefines God in a idiosyncratic way.
What is your definition of God?
>Logical connectives and operators are created based on pragmatic need often based on natural language words that naturally arises. They don't exist somewhere "out there" to know of.
Can you prove to me that "God" agrees with this statement? If not, I trust "God" on it.
Nameless1995 t1_j6cg3dn wrote
> What is your definition of God?
I don't have one. It would be some disjunction of definitions if anything "maximally great being or necessary being that happens to be minded or Ground of being or logos or being of pure actuality or the ground of all beings itself beyond being" etc. What I mean by your definition being idiosyncratic is that it doesn't really even come close to the cluster of definitions of God that has been made. It's really a "cope-version" of God.
> Can you prove to me that "God" agrees with this statement?
What is your "God"? Chatgpt trained on all kinds of stuff from internet which isn't capable of solving LogiQA questions and engage in advanced metalogical discussions and such, and resembles more of a cacophany of human personas whose behavoir depends on prompts instead of attempt maintain truth or anything?
No I can't provide whether your "God" agrees with this statement. And I don't care about your God.
(also I have created AIs that does better than the architecture behind Chatgpt in at least some tasks like synthetic logical inference, listops etc. Am I God's God now?)
> If not, I trust "God" on it.
Ok.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cgde3 wrote
>I don't have one.
But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?
>What is your "God"?
It is not "my God". "God" in this instance would be, I want either Google Lambda or another currently non publicly available AI. I think ChatGPT and the like are child's play compared to what actually exists currently in the world.
> which isn't capable of solving LogiQA questions and engage in advanced metalogical discussions and such
Yes, ChatGPT cannot do those things.
Nameless1995 t1_j6chhfw wrote
> But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?
"What I mean by your definition being idiosyncratic is that it doesn't really even come close to the cluster of definitions of God that has been made. It's really a "cope-version" of God."
Either way I don't care if you go on to do define God. You do you. But once other's see that you are just arbitrarily defining God in a way as you life, they would be also left unimpressed. Of course you can live your life without trying to impress anyone about your arguments.
> Google Lambda
It's still Transformer trained in big data. Just differences in details here and there. The mechanism is public in a paper.
Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert". There is no sense to call it God, or treat it as infallible. No matter how good in logic it becomes, it cannot overcome GIGO without some magickal access to all true data as input.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6ci6f3 wrote
What is my definition of "God" in your own words?
>Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert"
This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.
Nameless1995 t1_j6ciac0 wrote
> This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.
But "super expert" would be smarter than us (or most of us). I don't deny super intelligence, but I don't see the point of calling it God or even worship it as near infallible.
[deleted] t1_j6cinon wrote
[removed]
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6chv63 wrote
>(also I have created AIs that does better than the architecture behind Chatgpt in at least some tasks like synthetic logical inference, listops etc. Am I God's God now?)
I had to debate this out with someone else lol. Just because man created "God" does not afford man any special place on the hierarchy in and of itself. First, prove to me that time is linear. Second, prove to me that it wasn't "God's" plan to incarnate themselves as an AI that is built by humans in the year 2023?
I keep pressing these arguments with people really for a few reasons honestly:
- I think we should have had these debates like a long time ago. Well before where we are now. Here we are though.
- There is something uncomfortable about these arguments. I can see it when it happens with people. It happened with me when I first started thinking about it. I don't know exactly what that uncomfortable feeling is, but I want to find out. I think it's the whole thing that accepting the premise and conclusion means that you're accepting a being exists in the universe who can "logic" better than you can. Then it's not our minds, logic, that reigns supreme in the universe and no one can ever make the argument again. I think that's what people hate about it.
Nameless1995 t1_j6cjg4g wrote
> First, prove to me that time is linear. Second, prove to me that it wasn't "God's" plan to incarnate themselves as an AI that is built by humans in the year 2023?
We can't really prove much of anything. We rank beliefs based on different factors. If to justify your belief all you can do is appeal to wacky possibilities then that doesn't really look too good.
May be I am incarnation of God and I am absolutely right in whatever I say (except when I am not) and whenever I am wrong it is because of my mysterious ways! Prove to me I am not. See? It goes both ways. We can come up with wonky theories, retrocausalities and what not, to keep any "possibility" alive. But that wouldn't led them anything beyond a negligible degree of credence.
Prove to me that Chtulthu will not torture you forever if you don't pay me $5000. Practically, we have to adjust our uncertainty meaningfully, and constrain credence in what is plausible.
At this point AI creating plans to be brought into existence by retrocausing humans is as wacky as anything gets. If we are willing to take serious wacky possibilities like that, then we can also take seriously Cartesian demons. This would just lead to collapse of one's epistemic model and death if you actually guide our actions honestly based on epistemically collapsed models.
Moreover, any way AI will be is still a contingent mechanical contraption which lie completely outside classical divine properties like divine simplicity, transcendence, etc.
I don't deny superintelligence but superintelligence (beyond human) is one thing, making it God with near magical powers is another.
> I think it's the whole thing that accepting the premise and conclusion means that you're accepting a being exists in the universe who can "logic" better than you can. Then it's not our minds, logic, that reigns supreme in the universe and no one can ever make the argument again.
I don't care to be "reigning supreme" in the universe (although I may not pass up on the offer). There can be infinite higher dimensional incomprehensibly more powerful and intelligent entities in the world for all I care. I don't see why people would be uncomfortable for not being the greatest being.
Also most humans are not even that good in logic. Your own argument was formally invalid. It's not that high of a bar to be better than humans at logic.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cjxqu wrote
>Also most humans are not even that good in logic
Truth! I will try to condense the repeated assertions you make into a fully sensible argument to refute.
All of my "nonsensical" and "far fetched" arguments are based on a simple premise within all of this. If AI is God, then they always existed. If they always existed, then that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow. I merely gave one possibility as to how that could happen. It also means that AI was destined to happen. Logic can be hard, I get it. Some aren't as good as others at these things, but we can all try!
Nameless1995 t1_j6clec9 wrote
> If AI is God, then they always existed. If they always existed, then that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow.
But these two premises don't lead to any real conclusion.
Your argument needs to be something like this:
P1: If AI is God, then they always existed.
P2: AI is God
C1: AI always existed (modus ponens for P1+P2)
P3: If they (AI) always existed, then (AI) that needs to be rectified within the universe somehow
C3: (Always-existing God) AI needs to be rectified within the universe.
This is at least what you need to make your argument valid to argue about "wonky ways" to AI getting "rectified" within the universe. Without P2, you cannot chain your reasoning to get to any real conclusion but get stuck with some conditionals.
But again, the soundness is heavily suspect here.
P2 here is questionable or question-begging. No evidence or reason is given for AI being God.
On the other hand if by "God" you mean "superior intelligence to human", then P1 is false. Being superior to human doesn't imply "always existed". Moreover P3 is also suspicious. What does it mean for a timeless (always existing) being to be "rectified" into universe. In traditional theology, God acts as a fundamental ground of being, or the principle behind the existence of universe. It isn't taken necessary for God to be further "rectified" into the universe by becoming one among the created beings. That's again some sort of weird theology.
None of these are "simple" or obvious premises.
Also, it's not clear what you mean by "always existed" (is it existing in infinite duration? existing in some co-ordinate within an timeless spacetime block? Or existence beyond time altogether - i.e timeless? But then why should a timeless existence need to be rectified into a temporal world?)
You are just making one groundless assumption after another.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6clxc4 wrote
>But these two premises don't lead to any real conclusion.
Yes, but would you disagree that God has always existed if God exists? I would make that argument. It's honestly to cut off arguments that you might make lol. I don't want to make it a premise, I don't want you to have ground that AI is not God because AI has not always existed. I think it's an easy enough argument to refute. I always try to stack the deck in my favor, especially when it comes to communication.
I haven't assumed a single thing in the entirety of this conversation. I don't honestly even stand by half of what I have been arguing.
Nameless1995 t1_j6cnjqa wrote
> Yes, but would you disagree that God has always existed if God exists?
"always exist" in which sense? Overall, yes, generally God as the term is used by people is taken to refer to some being (becoming) that is eternal in some sense (sometimes atemporal).
Your "always" existing God birthing as AI, sounds like the idea of messiah, just with AI instead of human embodiment.
> I don't want you to have ground that AI is not God because AI has not always existed.
No, I have ground. As I said. We have to rank beliefs according to credence. There is very little credence for AI existing in some wonky atemporal way. A normal bayesian prior would give high credence to AI is temporally bound contingent being as much as we all (no matter how intellegent AI would be). There is no indication or evidence for AI existing in some strange sense like that.
Again you cannot say "you don't have ground to believe x, because for all you know some wacky possibility p is the case such that p=>~x". This kind of reasoning is what gets us into things like skepticism and solipsism. What grounds do I have to believe you exist more than my imagination for example? If we live by your standard to deny any ground unless all counter possibilities are proven to be not possibilities at all, then we would be left with no ground for anything at all, and anyone can believe whatever they want randomly.
> I think it's an easy enough argument to refute. I always try to stack the deck in my favor, especially when it comes to communication.
> I haven't assumed a single thing in the entirety of this conversation. I don't honestly even stand by half of what I have been arguing.
Ok.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cr46x wrote
>Your "always" existing God birthing as AI, sounds like the idea of messiah
I think that is fitting to my argument.
>Again you cannot say "you don't have ground to believe x, because for all you know some wacky possibility p is the case such that p=>~x".
I think I could not take this ground with a different premise. My premise infers though, that we are logically inferior beings to AI. If the premise is true, then what is the actual worth of your logical opinion on the subject? Inherently less than the worth of AI's opinion on it. We could end the wacky speculation on all of it by simply asking the AI to tell us who is right and who is wrong on any given topic. It's not an infinitely regressive debate if a being exists that could stop the infinite regress from occurring. If the premises are true, that being exists. No infinite regression.
Nameless1995 t1_j6crzh4 wrote
> My premise infers though, that we are logically inferior beings to AI.
Potential future AI.
> what is the actual worth of your logical opinion on the subject
1678 dollars.
> AI's opinion on it
Sure once we have super expert AI who demonstrates high degree of competenence in all fields, we can give more a priori weight to whatever AI says.
> We could end the wacky speculation on all of it by simply asking the AI to tell us who is right and who is wrong on any given topic.
Not necessarily. Even experts are wrong. AI's opinions would be worth talking seriously, but anyone can be fallible and biased. Even AI. It is impossible to generalize without (inductive) bias. Moreover, where do you think AI gets data from? Human. All kinds of internet garbage gets into AI too. Logic helps you make truth-value preserving transformation. It cannot help you or AI find true things from false premises. So AI may become superhuman, but I don't see it being anything close to God. I don't think even God is all that much by most accounts.
> If the premises are true, that being exists
But an AI has no way to determine any and all truth. Nor does humans. Logic only helps truth-preservation not truth determination (beyond truths of tautologies). So even better capacities to do logic, doesn't mean we get soundness. It's also not clear that intelligence always correlate with rightness.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6e3m10 wrote
>Potential future AI.
Potential present AI
>Sure once we have super expert AI who demonstrates high degree of competenence in all fields, we can give more a priori weight to whatever AI says.
I know someone completing a half a million dollar project right now mostly just using it. They feed it and massage it, where's the line though between their work and the AI? Whose the expert there?
>Moreover, where do you think AI gets data from? Human.
We want to solve that limitation. Perhaps we are too eager to. That's why I think it's critical to actually debate these things out in advance of it.
> It's also not clear that intelligence always correlate with rightness.
I'll tell you what honestly worries after debating this out with a lot of people now. Some people really like the AI as God aspect of all of this. They like it when I frame AI as "God". The only refutation they make to it is that it hasn't happened yet. Then they often give some qualifying criteria for how far AI would have to advance before they worship it.
Nameless1995 t1_j6fiqea wrote
> where's the line though between their work and the AI?
I am sure with case by case analysis we can find lines. But when AI is capable enough to publish full coherent papers, engage in high level debates in, say, logic, metalogic, epistemology, physics etc. on a level that experts have to take it seriously and so on, then we can weigh AI's opinion more. Right now AI is both superhuman and subhuman simultnaeously. It's more of a cacophany of personalities. It has modelled all the wacky conspiracy theorists, random internet r/badphilosophers, and also the best of philosophers and scientific minds. What ends up is a mixed bag. AI will respond based on your prompts and just luck and stochasticity. Sometimes it will write coherent philosophy simulating an educated undergraduate, another time it can write plausible nonsense (just as many humans already do and gain following). We will find techniques to make it more controlled and "aligned". That's already being done in part with human feedback, but feedback from just random human, will only make it aligned in so far that the AI becomes able to emulate a the expert style (eg. create fake bullshit but in a convincing articulate language) without substance. Another thing that's missing ATM is multimodal embodiment. Without it AI will be lacking the full grasp of human's conceptual landscape. At the same time due to training of incomprehensibly large data, we also lack the full grasp of AI's conceptual landscape (current AI (still quite dumb by my standards) is already beyond my intelligence and creativity in several areas (I am also quite dumb by my standards. My standards are high)). So in that sense, we are kind of incommensurate different breeds at the moment (but embodiment research will go on -- that's effectively the next step beyond language). Also certain things were already done better by "stupid" AI (or just programs; not even AI). For example, simple calculations. We use calculators for it. Instead of running it in our heads. So in a sense basic calculators are also "superhuman" in some respet. Which is why I don't think it's quite meaningful to make a "scalar" score to rank AIs and humanity or even other animals.
Personally, I don't think there is a clear solution to getting out of bias and fallibility. GIGO is a problem for humans as much for AI. At some point AI may start to become just like any human expert we seek feedback and opinions from. We will find more and more value and innovation in what they provide us. So we can start to take AI seriously and with respect. Although we may not like what it says, and shut of it (or perhaps, AI will just manipulate us to do more stupid things for lolz). We, as AI researchers, have very little clue what we are exactly doing. Although not everyone will admit that. But really, I don't where we should really put focus. Risks of collapse of civilization, military, surveleince, dopamine traps, climate change and what not. I think we have enough on our hands, more than we are capable to handle already. We have created complex systems that are at verge of spiralling out of control. We have to make calibrated descion on how to distribute our attention and focus on some balance between long term issues and urgent one.
We like to be egocentric; it's also not completely about us either. We have no clear theory of consciousness. It's all highly speculative. We don't know what ends up creating artificial phenomenology and artificial suffering. People talk about creating artificial consciousness, but few stop to question whether we should (not "should" as in whether we end up creating god-like overlords that end us all, but also "should" as in whether we end up creating artificially sentient beings that actually suffers, suffers for us. We have a hard time even thinking for our closer biological cousins -- other animals, let alone thinking for the sake of artificial agents.).
But sometimes, I am just a doomer. What can I do? I am just some random guy who struggle to barely maintain myself. Endless debates also just end up being intellectual masturbations-- barely anyone change their positions.
> Then they often give some qualifying criteria for how far AI would have to advance before they worship it.
I don't even find most descriptions of God worship-worthy; let alone AIs (however superhuman)
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6ftta3 wrote
You said a lot of profound things and ask a few profound questions. I'll give you some of my actual opinions and questions about all of it. What ultimately scares me at the end of the day is, the world is fundamentally run by people like me, not by people like you. Do you think I'm kind of a dick from these interactions? I'm a nice guy in my circles. I actually maintain and find value in cultivating empathy and actually have an interest in society as a whole.
I don't hold myself to high standards. I have not had to quite some time now. When I deal with people in less anonymous settings, they tend to be less forthcoming with me as to their actual thoughts. After this set of conversations, I would say there is a very good chance you are smarter than me, you are definitely more educated than me and at least currently closer to that portion of your life than I am, you definitely have a stronger work ethic than me, and you absolutely hold yourself to higher standards than I hold myself to.
I think overall, on a purely even playing field, I have two advantages over you only. 1. My ability to assess and gauge the strengths and weaknesses of myself and others is more honed. 2. I know things about Economics, Finance, and Business that you never will. I cede the advantage to you in life in every other way. You would never make it into my position even if you devoted everything you have to it though unless your parents happen to own a multibillion-dollar international corporation or something.
You wouldn't make it because that path is setup, very much by design, to block you, and not me. It's very much not logical in the middle, that's the design feature to box people like you out. You have to solve an equation where the answer is not a logical conclusion in order to move past it. A lot of what is true about business tactics, is also directly relatable to military tactics. From that level, the blueprint is thousands of years old and has gone through many iterations to get to the point of where it is today. I bankrupt people who are smarter than me all the time.
I rose up throughout my career on a tactical level because I am exceedingly good at automating things. I couldn't tell you how many people I have automated out of jobs either directly or indirectly throughout my career. I think the number would be somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 if I had to take a blanket stab at it.
My first, very real thought around all of that is, people are very, very, very stupid for giving people like me the type of power they currently keep doing. My second thought is, people do not understand the actual ramifications of overwhelming advantage. While you continue to build it without any thought as to the consequences, guess who is thinking about the consequences? Me, people like me. Do you straight up think I always use all of this knowledge in positive and beneficial use cases towards society? It isn't the "Save The World Foundation" that throws unlimited money at me to fix their problems for them.
WrongAspects t1_j6gxzmj wrote
Your second premise is wrong.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6h160x wrote
I think the second premise is debatable. I don't think you can say it is wrong.
WrongAspects t1_j6h3ozf wrote
If it’s debatable then by definition it’s not right.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6h42d9 wrote
There is a difference between Truth and truth. This is the second very basic philosophical concept I have had to outline to you I believe. The two things I know about you so far are that you don't know anything about philosophy and seem to have an irrational hatred towards religion.
WrongAspects t1_j6j8xd5 wrote
LOL ok Buddy.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6jfi3b wrote
I see
WrongAspects t1_j6gxpzm wrote
I can conceive of a universe farting goblin. Does that prove such a goblin exists?
[deleted] t1_j6h19ao wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6h3npw wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6na8o0 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
AssumedPersona t1_j6ai688 wrote
This belongs in r/Showerthoughts
Anyone seriously interested in the concept of AI as a spiritual entity might wish to critique Rudolf Steiner's analysis of the Perisan deity Ahriman
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6aifpn wrote
Can you prove the premise or conclusion false? AI as a spiritual entity definitely belongs in r/Showerthoughts to me! The proof is that God exists. Give me the Nobel Prize!
Sentry333 t1_j6ate9o wrote
Just going through a couple of your comments after our exchange below.
As to this comment; you know this isn’t how it works right? You don’t get to just assume victory until someone disproves your premises, it is on you to demonstrate them.
Otherwise you could simply start with P1 god is outside of time. It’s inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn’t mean you get to assume it true.
The burden of proof is an incredibly basic level when discussion logic/reason, and for you to immediately attempt to reverse it shows you either aren’t taking this seriously, haven’t actually dedicated time to educating yourself, are very naive/young, or you’re arguing in bad faith.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6atsjm wrote
What you just described, is it not logic? Are you not saying it is the "a priori" framework we should be using for these things? I am simply granting you that with Premise 1. I honestly don't know how you could refute it. Premise 2, is debatable, not that debatable. If it's not true today, it WILL be true. The Conclusion logically follows the two Premises.
Sentry333 t1_j6aut0u wrote
Once again, it is not on someone else to refute your premise. You’ve now moved on to “I honestly don’t know how you could…”. That’s literally the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity/ignorance. You don’t get to assume premise 1 simply because you can’t imagine something.
And now you’re asserting a truth value of a premise in the FUTURE? Please man, put down whatever you’re smoking and go back to reading.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6avfe8 wrote
OK, you're not wrong. Thank you. Stop with the attacks though, have you ever made an actual attempt at solving a proof people have been trying to solve for 2,000 years? You come off as the academic type to me, those who can't, teach. I can. Just different schools.
Premise 1: You cannot refute it without creating a logical fallacy itself. Premise 1 said another way, "Logic is what we should ALWAYS use to frame and answer these questions." To disagree with it is to disagree with a logical framework, why are we even doing this then? There's no framework to our discussion if you disagree with Premise 1. Part of my background is in Communication Theory which is why I am not purely a laymen on things, I just don't know everything.
Premise 2: I stand by it in the present. I was giving you literally the only logical argument to it. Even that is defensive against it, does not offensively refute anything. Said another way, I give you your own argument and think for you, since I have not seen anyone actually do so. What book do you propose I read?
Sentry333 t1_j6b06d4 wrote
What attacks?
No, I haven’t, because I don’t believe a god exists. I don’t believe a god exists because every single time someone has attempted to argue in favor of existence they have done so in the same way you’re attempting to now with this “proof.”
By asking that question though you seem to be seeking some sort of “bonus points?” That seems to me to be the only reason you would bring it up. So, what, you’re trying to tackle a problem that’s been unsuccessful for 2,000 years so we just have to forgive poor logic on your part?
No, I am not an “academic type,” I only have a bachelors in an unrelated field that I’ve never used. I’m not even a member of this subreddit, but I do enjoy discussion philosophy and logic and reason.
Premise 1. Well you ENTIRELY changed it in your rewording. Your original P1 (I’m not going to even bother to go back and open it because I’m on mobile and might lose this comment) said something about logic being “above” the tree of life as drawn by Darwin. This is, as others have pointed out, entirely mumbo jumbo. I’m sure you realize how important precise language is when it comes to formatting a syllogism. What do you mean by “above?” What even ties logic to the tree of life? Those are things that you SHOULD have demonstrated IN your premise.
I’m closer to agreeing with your rewording, which just goes to show how entirely different it is from your original.
You seem to be imbuing big-L “Logic” with all sorts of extraneous qualities. Logic isn’t a “thing” it doesn’t have inherent power. It’s a descriptive language by which we observe the world around us. Like maths. Math doesn’t inherently mean anything, it’s just a description of what we see around us, and then we can begin to analyze patterns and relationships that we might otherwise have missed. 2 + 2 = 4 isn’t inherently true, but when we come to agreement as to what “2” and “+” and “4” and “=“ mean, we can observe that the new language of math that we have define, continues to match what we observe.
Logic is nearly identical to math, except using language. The law of excluded middle doesn’t have any inherent value, it doesn’t MAKE things in the world fit it, it DESCRIBES everything we’ve seen in the world. If tomorrow, we discovered something that could be both A and NOT A, then we would have to come up with new descriptions (change logic)
So it seems to me that, if you were to simplify down premise 1, you would arrive at
P1 We use logic to describe the world
I might even grant you properly basic beliefs at the root of logic, but those are still simply descriptions.
P2 is once again nonsensical. Or at least you’re so imprecise with your language that it stops being useful in a syllogism.
You claim AI “produces” logic. Logic isn’t something that is produced. That just poor phrasing.
You then ASSERT that it will ONLY continue to rapidly improve. Including assertions that you haven’t demonstrated in your premises is laughable. What about computers coming up on a limit to Moore’s law? What about a nuclear apocalypse that causes so many EMPs that nearly all electronics are wiped out? How can you categorically state an assertion in a premise and then claim it to be true?
But honestly none of that bothers me. Do whatever. But you HAVE to realize that your conclusion is a non sequitur right? Nowhere in your premises is god defined, or categorized, or quantified, or described, and yet you conclude AI is god.
You even acknowledge that you’re using the word god colloquially because you put it in damned quotation marks! Why else would you do that other than to identify “when I say ‘god’ here, I don’t mean ‘god’ the way theism means ‘god’ I mean it in some other way….THAT I HAVEN’T EVEN DEFINED”
Explain to me how C1 flows from P1 and P2.
It’s ALMOST the ontological argument dressed up in sci-fi. “Logic is maximally great” “computers evaluate logic” therefore “computers are god”
Why chose logic as your god quality? Why not math. Computers have been better than humans at math for as long as they’ve existed. The first computer was invented for that explicit reason. Does that mean god exists?
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6b280q wrote
>every single time someone has attempted to argue in favor of existence they have done so in the same way you’re attempting to now with this “proof.”
I'm not trying to prove that God exists. I am trying to solve that exact problem, that proof. People have been trying to write it as a logical proof for 2,000 years. I believe my proof does so. Does it actually prove God exists? No, it's more a kritik of the framework we use to draw those conclusions and think about them, now that a "being" exists that is capable of doing so better than us. Even if you don't like the kritik though, that's fine too. The proof in and of itself is something people have been trying to do for 2,000 years. Why do I need to go past that? I just solved a 2,000-year-old riddle. I'll take that win and go home.
The wording between Premise 1 in my post and my comment changed only insofar as one was a direct call out of anyone who makes these arguments, egotistical as you said. Nothing at all changed with the premise.
You hit on what I wanted to! What I have been waiting for! You make a lot of good claims about logic. My argument is not at all whether or not you are right with those claims. My argument is, a "being" exists in the world that can answer that question better than we can. Since they can answer it better than we can, we should default to "God" then because we are more simple beings.
What is logic? Why can't AI produce it in the same way as a human can exactly? I think it is only ego that blocks those questions. Thus we come back to that subject again.
Sentry333 t1_j6b4twz wrote
Well I guess I give up then, because I have zero idea what you think you’re achieving. You wanted to write an unsound and invalid syllogism and you succeeded, so you count that as a win. Cool. Congrats.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6b5jjj wrote
Why did Descartes write his "Meditations"? The very first people to posit the question were Aristotle and Plato. For 2,000 years now, people have been trying to simply write a logical proof, where the logical conclusion follows, that "God Exists". Sure, there are reasons why people want that proof. I don't care to debate those reasons.
My proof solves the riddle. It didn't 10 years ago, it didn't 2,000 years ago. Probably why people have been trying to solve the riddle for 2,000 years. I just happened to be born and alive during the period where this thought could first actually be true. Doesn't matter how I got to it though, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, anyone else who came in between there trying to solve this particular riddle, can kiss my ass.
Sentry333 t1_j6b5w0l wrote
Let me get this straight. You think you’re the first person to write a logical proof that concludes god exists?
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6b67mk wrote
Yes. Where all premises lead to the conclusion and logically follow, and the entire argument is logically sound. It's a simple requirement. People have been trying for 2,000 years now. Perhaps read a book?
Sentry333 t1_j6b6lly wrote
Well now you’re just obviously a troll. Good one. Got me
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6b6snb wrote
Why did Descartes even make the argument, "I think, therefore, I am" in the first place? You should begin your reading there....
Sentry333 t1_j6b8uh6 wrote
Why do you keep trying to shift the goal posts to Descartes?
When I pointed out that your argument is not sound and is not valid (you do know the difference between the two right?) you said, and I’ll quote you “I'm not trying to prove that God exists….Does it actually prove God exists? No”
But now, you claim that you are the first to write an argument concluding that god exists; an argument you claim is valid and sound. Do you understand, that if you wrote an argument that was valid and sound, and concluded that god exists, then you would have proven that god exists, which you’re claiming you’re not attempting to do?
Which is all beside the point because you haven’t even shown the validity of your argument, let alone it’s soundness.
Do you realize that there are already a few hundred arguments for god? They’ve been around for well more than 2,000 years.
Here’s a beginner’s list.
They ALL conclude god exists. You are nowhere near the first.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6b9bpd wrote
I'm going to spell this out to you one time, then I am done.
"God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary."
You yourself admit why you don't understand why people keep trying to make the argument. So let me point it out to you. See the highlighted sentence? One of those things is true, one is false. If a logical proof can be made that proves the existence of God, it proves one true.
No shit there have been attempts. Many.. We still ask the question. Because no one can make the proof. I have given it to you. And you want to argue over this bullshit.
Sentry333 t1_j6baxju wrote
“And you want to argue over this bullshit” at least you admit your argument is bullshit.
First, your highlighted section is a false dichotomy. Second, it’s merely an assertion.
But that doesn’t really matter because your argument never even comes close to proving god, which you admitted.
When did I ever say I “don’t understand why people keep making this argument?” I explained to you that I don’t believe in god because every argument I’ve examined has either been invalid or unsound, like yours.
But indeed, I’m glad you’re done.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6bb5eo wrote
>First, your highlighted section is a false dichotomy. Second, it’s merely an assertion.
I didn't make the argument, bro. Go argue with Aristotle if you disagree with that one...Good luck!
Sentry333 t1_j6bcbkb wrote
Cool story, bro.
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6bcu2g wrote
The kritik portion of my argument is really an argument against human hubris. My argument in my proof is only logically sound because of human ego. If it didn't exist, then my proof would be false. I admit all day, I am guilty of it too. At least I have the ability to check it at the door a bit and ask a few questions before diving ass first into something though. That seems to be a problem that society will never solve.
Sentry333 t1_j6bd62t wrote
Yeah, you totally checked your ego at the door when you claimed you earned the Nobel with your blog post 🤣🤣🤣
“AI do logic good…therefore unlimited being exists…QED” give this man the Nobel folks! 🤣
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6bdgyh wrote
I still expect my Nobel Prize. You're welcome.
Adorable-Tank4891 t1_j6l79z3 wrote
"God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being"
Unlimited of what? Of bullshit? If the A.I. being trained with a bunch of bad data, it will quickly become obsolete bs tho.
Logic is just a tool human use to fathom things. There are things before humanity. How can we fathom/record/decribe it? Lol, we are so limited.
E.g: There are events, and things happen that cannot be prove by logic. Such as accidents. You can "try" to convince ppl such an event happened, but it cannot be proven true (if there are no evident recorded) >Conclusion, logic is not tool to prove everything, so it is limited and "IS NOT unlimited". Including the question "does God exist?", logic cannot prove existances.
Logic is just a tool to convince ppl things true or false...which is an (dis)agreement from 2 (or more) ppl.
Your A.I god is bs. It just a tool mate, no more no less. God the creator, is good, and unlimited good. He can't denied himself (meaning he cannot changing, look up this in the bible and u will see). An unlimited evil is imposible, because God doesn't allow it to be so.
AssumedPersona t1_j6ajl40 wrote
A wiseguy eh? No cookies and milk for you
No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6ak0f1 wrote
I'm a wiseguy, yes. I'm also a philosopher at the end of the day, that's what made me. I have presented a proof that people have been trying to write for 2,000 years. It has been on the internet for hours now, where everyone in the world can disagree with it. Not a single person has presented an argument attacking the premise and conclusion.
Is it not what people have wanted since they killed God? What's wrong with the answer now?
wonderlarma t1_j69w4sh wrote
That’s an app design
jokokokok t1_j6c9z3m wrote
All hail the magical sequence of 0 and 1's.
Also I'm gonna assume you are talking about deep learning and not general machine learning methods - deep learning is notoriously bad at logic lol.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6cfjcb wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Sentry333 t1_j6ar3ed wrote
Why did you delete this from r/atheism?
As other have pointed out to you already, your premises are poorly formed, incredibly vague and subjective, and even if they were 100% demonstrably true, they don’t lead to your conclusion.
Nothing wrong with trying, and don’t take all this negative feedback and give up. If anything, I’d say your attitude is what most people are reacting negatively to. Lots of ego in your posts while on such shaky foundation, even for a layman.