I see

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.

I think the second premise is debatable. I don't think you can say it is wrong.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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!

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.

>(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:

1. I think we should have had these debates like a long time ago. Well before where we are now. Here we are though.
2. 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.

>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.

​

>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.

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.

>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.

> 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.

>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.

>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?

>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:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. 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.

5. 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.

>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.

I still expect my Nobel Prize. You're welcome.

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.

>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!

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.

Why did Descartes even make the argument, "I think, therefore, I am" in the first place? You should begin your reading there....

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?