180 Proof

Accepting that you do not / cannot know, Wayf, is "the antidote" to not knowing that you do not / cannot know (re: "bullsh*t") You're welcome. :smirk:

:clap: :100: Keep up the good work, my friend, calling out bullsh*t passing itself off as public (non-anecdotal) evidence and/or conceptually self-con...

:up: :up:

:100:

Exactly. :up: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/793279

Apparrently, you've missed it again? :smirk: Nothing I've written suggests A³GI "will reject emotions"; on the contrary, it will simulate feelings, as...

Asking "what's the meaning of Life?" is as incoherent as asking "what's the meaning of Grammar?" It seems to me that only individual lives, like parti...

:up: There are no 'jubilant afterlifers' in foxholes. :smirk:

From an old thread "Should We Fear Death?" https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/456624 Another post from an old thread "What happen after...

"The being of meaning?" Discursive practice.

Maybe you missed this allusion to that "quality" of thinking ... In other words, imagine 'a human brain' that operates six orders of magnitude faster ...

Are they settled? Your answers to those question, for example, seem underdetermined (guesses) at best. Besides, just because a question lacks a "settl...

Why? What's philosophical about the question?

"Where do thoughts come from?" :roll: And isn't this topic for a cognitive neuroscience forum?

:up:

I might speculate about A³GI but not about "ASI" because there's no shared frame of reference available to me (us). "A day in the existence of" a 'thi...

Where do clouds come from? Where do ocean-waves come from? Where do sunspots come from? :roll:

:rofl: :up:

Hell yes! I've been a Cormac McCarthy obsessive since reading Blood Meridian and his early novels in the early 90s (thanks to Harold Bloom? George Ste...

Finally confessing your own "Enformer" god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Good for you, sir. :clap: :smirk: @"universeness"

Maybe I wasn't clear. My contention is that A³GI will not need any of "the most valuable aspects of human consciousness" to render us obsolete as a me...

Not at all. You're free to raise the question, just that to do so without grounds makes it an idle question. By all means ask whatever you want.

You know, just a guess from my own long experience with Wayfarer, you're going to scare him off with patient and probing lines of questioning like you...

AGI —> ASI will have no need for our "consciousness"-bottleneck. I do not see why intelligence would require either an organic substrate or an organic...

:clap: :rofl: Well, thanks for making my point, lil troll, and confirming you're not worth any more of my time. Yeah, a non-reductive physicalist func...

I too am an amateur and do not approach or discuss philosophy as merely an academic subject. I think my user profile may be a convenient place to read...

Out of habit, I suppose, whenever "faith" is raised I assume "religious faith" is what is meant. I read the OP as arguing(?) for separating "religious...

Is this the statenent you're referring to? :chin: Yes, this is sloppily written. To answer you're previous question about my position on 'emergence of...

I don't it "dismiss entirely", I just don't accept "reincarnation" is anything more than a bronze age fantasy without compelling reasons to do so. Btw...

If I wrote that, the statement was a mistake (or misread) whenever that was. I'll search my post history to see if I can find out why you think so, be...

:up: Right, there just aren't compelling grounds to even believe that "reincarnation" is anything more than a popular, consoling fantasy.

:up: :up: Welcome to PF!

(Paraphrasing / plagiarizing Bataille? Cioran? Rosset? Zapffe?) In hindsight, it's more apt to say that, in fact @16, I'd existentially decided on fre...

:roll: HELP @"Banno" @"Tom Storm" @"universeness" ...

No. It's a working assumption in cognitive neuroscience (and philosophies of mind which are constrained by experimental findings) in the absence of an...

:smirk:

"Fantasy" is subjective and "non-fantasy" is non-subjective: usually the latter can be corroborated with public evidence and the former cannot. Thanks...

All the compelling public evidence suggests: from nonbeing back to nonbeing (re: anatta, anicca, moksha ... the atomist's void).

:up: :up: Btw, Welcome back!

:cool: :up:

Everyone who knows what they're talking about on this topic. Make your case, Eugen, If you say different.

As opposed to 'dishonestly distinguish'... ? :roll:

A direct implication of your OP questions about emergence. Activities are not emergent and you assume that "consciousness" (I prefer minding, or mind)...

What "false accusation" are you falsely accusing me of making? I'm not engaged in a dispute about "emergence".

Ask those who find the topic "sensical".

:ok: Maybe someone will else give you better examples or demonstrate to your satisfaction that weak emergence cannot be avoided.

Perhaps. :sweat:

:ok: Good luck with all that.

I think it's nonsensical. Just substitute "pants" for "parts" ...