I asked Sarah Conner about it, she said you are right.
I asked Sarah Conner about it, she said you are right.
SkepticalOne wrote:
Yes, there is currently no proof that consciousness exists after death, but there no proof that consciousness exists before death either.
Does 'Cogito Ergo sum' mean nothing to you!? 😀
It means a lot to me; I’m a student of philosophy of mind and Descartes laid down the undisputable foundations that are the starting point and context for any serious study of philosophy of mind. "Cogito Ergo sum" tells us that if you apply rigorous skepticism and methodically doubt everything, the one and only undeniable certainty you are left with is that you are conscious. Consequently, reality is experiential, it occurs internally, the external, physical world is an inference, it is a mental construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations, we construct it “in here” and project it "out there".
But the problem is consciousness is unobservable, it cannot be measured, and any theory that goes beyond correlations is not testable, which is to say, it cannot be known empirically. It therefore falls outside of the domain of science. Consciousness doesn’t have any shared characteristics with the physical word and consequently, there is no proof it exists, science can’t even explain how it interacts with physical reality.
The “ontological” problem is that we can’t prove it exists, and the epistemological problem is that there is no way to directly know that others are conscious.
I'm pretty sure Lake Eerie is actually named after Trump.
Debby wrote:
Trump claimed one of the 5 lakes in Ontario. And called it lake America. Now he can proudly say he can name a lake in Ontario.
He actually wanted to name one after himself, but then he realized that Lake Superior was named after him.
Shoresy wrote:
Why would the states annex Canada when it currently doesn't want backward cultures hopping over the borders?
Since Canada is where the cold comes from, Trump thinks annexing Canada would counter the effects of global warming.
Savant wrote:
AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans
That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.
I guess I can see how conflicting goals can lead to an unexpected outcome (HAL 9000 comes to mind), but nevertheless, AI still need human's to make the paperclips, somewhere along the paperclip supply chain, humans are involved. Even if that's a bad example, I can't imagine we'd ever allow the situation where we weren't needed to keep the AI machine running. If we are stupid enough to create a situation where we can't "pull the plug" so to speak, then we deserve to die.
Savant wrote:
AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans
That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.
I guess I can see how conflicting goals can lead to an unexpected outcome (HAL 9000 comes to mind), but nevertheless, AI still need human's to make the paperclips, somewhere along the paperclip supply chain, humans are involved. Even if that's a bad example, I can't imagine we'd ever allow the situation where we weren't needed to keep the AI machine running. If we are stupid enough to create a situation where we can't "pull the plug" so to speak, then we deserve to die.
SergeantLynch wrote:
There is currently no proof of an afterlife.
Yes, there is currently no proof that consciousness exists after death, but there no proof that consciousness exists before death either.
Consequently, your statement has no explanatory value, it doesn't address the subject, it only pretends to.
If you believe consciousness does exist, what proof do you have?
That's a strong argument, but I wonder if it is excessively influenced by the fact that it is pretty much the theme of about a third of the science fiction movies in the last 60 years.
AI is clearly goal oriented, but the goals are set by humans, this analysis assumes AI develops a conscious intent independent of human direction, and I don't think we will ever develop artificial consciousness. i believe the hard problem of consciousness is insurmountable by physical science. It also assumes AI will develop an adversarial relationship with humans and would conclude elimination of humans is in AI's interest. That seems far-fetched as I can't imagine a scenario where AI could survive the elimination of humans. It's a thinking machine, but it's a machine operated by humans.
But then again, the past is an increasingly poor guide to the future, consequently, when it comes to predicting things, I'm wrong much more than I'm right.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” - Niels Bohr
fauxlaw wrote:
About a month ago, I ordered a pair of Nike Revolution 8 slip-ons, $75. I returned them because although I did purchase my size [actually went 1/2 size larger] the widest part of my foot is at the base of my toes, and the shoe was too narrow to accomodate that width at the foot entry point. Went another half-size larger, and still too narrow. Several other people had the same complaint. Should have read reviews before buying.
Do you think this error occurred because of "woke values" in their advertising campaigns?
GajarMooli wrote:
My college life is tough, and it keeps on getting tougher
To maintain my sanity I use Social Media and entertainment
Youtube, Anime, Chess, Debate Craft.
Each of these platforms requires some energy from me, to be used.
Debate Craft particularly takes quite a lot of time, to check it again and again.
And then there's no activity. No votes, nobody's accepting my debates.
I did one debate, and my opponent was very stupid.
It isn't just worth the effort for me.
It's an apology statement, you can say. For Ghosting my current going on debates.
I hope this site gains more members in the future and becomes a better place
Aww man, I was hoping you'd stay, I'd appreciate another point of view like yours.
I'm sorry I haven't voted on your debate yet, I read it, you clearly won, but they expect a thesis explaining your vote and I just haven't found the time.
Stop back in from time to time, maybe you will find the time for it.
Debby wrote:
Why did Americans vote for Trump twice and narrowly missed a third attempt?
A lot of people vote based on tribalism, he's not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination but he ran as one, so he got those tribal votes. Obama showed us the way to win is get people who normally don't vote to vote, Trump got the White Supremacists to come out in force, that's what put him over the top.
It's either that, or we are trapped in a Fellini movie.
or...it could just be a bad dream, I pray that's it and I'm going to wake up soon.
Debby wrote:
Americans suffer from Trump derangement syndrome too.
Americans suffer because Trump is deranged.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Hey, and if boat floating means fiddling with little boys dicks with a knife, then that's creepy too.
OK, well enjoy yourself, and try not to get the keys sticky.
UmbrellaCorp wrote:
...but its effect is less certain to be measureable.
Your topic literally says "woke kills nike"... But sure, you changed your mind, i am glad i was of help.ome
He's got WDS.
(Woke Derangement Syndrome)
Debby wrote:
Jesus is the real evidence of an after life. His resurrection was witnessed by thousands and recorded in the Bible for all times.
Over 500, not thousands.
Shoresy wrote:
How do you know he can't afford a prostitute?
His Mom doesn't allow him to have girls in the basement, and he hasn't left the house in four years, so it doesn't matter if he can afford it,
FLRW wrote:
The statement that neural activity is generated by thoughts is considered incorrect or a reversal of causality in neuroscience.
Then why did you argue otherwise?
I don’t think this assertion came from studying neuroscience, it appears to be a statement of faith.
Thoughts are the subjective experience or emergent property of electrochemical neural activity, not the external cause that initiates it.
Thoughts are an external cause? Where do they come from then? Are you saying there is some kind of external entity that is doing the thinking?
Neural Activity Precedes Thought: Every neuron’s activity is the result of inputs from other cells, sensory stimuli,
That would be an internal cause, not an external cause.
or spontaneous internal processes.
Are you saying you have no volitional control over your thoughts? They just happen?
Are you making an arguing for determinism?
These electrochemical signals are the thoughts, rather than being caused by them.
Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority, and we are intrinsically aware that consciousness is an active force that we can exert upon the universe.
Consciousness has this causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A continuous conscious state includes desires or intentions; it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. The self can exert the force of consciousness to some effect in the material world; such conscious states can have causal effects to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes. Intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to a purely physical state unless one attributes consciousness to the constituent matter itself; consequently, they exist as properties of a consciousness which clearly entails a distinct ontological existence apart from its constituent material components.
Emergent Property: Thoughts emerge from the complex interaction of billions of neurons firing in specific patterns. There is no "pure thought" that exists outside of this physical brain activity to trigger it.
There you go again, placing thought outside somewhere, where exactly?
Spontaneous Activation: A significant portion of brain activity is endogenous (internal)
Brain activity happens in the brain, got it. I suppose that’s why they call it “brain” activity.
and spontaneous,
Whoa, are you saying it’s magic? It just happens spontaneously? Cool.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that “cause and effect” were kind of a big deal in science.
driven by the brain's intrinsic functional architecture and memory associations, rather than being solely triggered by conscious thoughts.
If all you are saying is that thoughts have neural correlates, well duh. I’m not aware of anyone in the field that doesn’t accept that. I’m pretty well studied on the subject, but I’ve never come across this idea that all brain activity is conscious thoughts. Instead, the evidence shows that there is unconscious activity, visceral reactions, background processing, pattern recognition, and learned skills (Can you walk, ride a bike, did you learn your multiplication tables?).
There are older brain systems whose activity occurs well below the level of awareness which are directly involved in the orientation of the thinking processes, they are known to exhort the brain to think in certain ways.
I think your argument is confusing at best, and even if it wasn't, I don't see what it has to do with the question of “Evidence of the afterlife”.
RemyBrown wrote:
I don't ask women out; not fear of rejection, just lack of interest
Said every incel ever.
FLRW wrote:
At the core, thoughts are generated by neural activity.
Neural activity is generated by thoughts.
When you think, neurons in your brain fire, sending electrical impulses along axons and releasing neurotransmitters that transmit signals between cells.
Your next sentence stated it in reverse order, your claim here is that thinking results in neural activity.
Repeating a thought strengthens the connections (synapses) between neurons, creating neural pathways. This is called neuroplasticity — the brain’s ability to physically change its structure in response to thought patterns Over time, these strengthened pathways make certain thoughts easier to generate, much like a well-worn road.
You are still stating that neural activity is generated by thought.
There is no Afterlife, when you are dead you don't exist.
How on Earth does that follow from the argument that preceded it? If there is a chain of reasoning, I don’t see it, it looks like you answered your argument with a non-sequitur. Please explain how that conclusion is logically connected to your argument.
A month will do it for me, half a trillion is enough.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Hey just saying Side.
But no attempt to swing the argument will alter the fact that ritual circumcision is abuse of a minor...Sexually motivated by religious stupidity and of absolutely no health benefit to the vast majority of those abused.
But such is human society...The concepts of morality and ethics, are actually meaningless concepts that will be ignored in a heartbeat.
That's a creepy way of looking at it, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
SatanLucy wrote:
If you don't know what a word like "wannabe" means
Well, go ahead and explain.
If you don't know how to look it up, then I guess you'll just have to stay stupid.
SatanLucy wrote:
I guess age differences don't matter, wannabe rapists like you and Remy really stick together no matter what.
I am a virgin, actually.
If you don't know what a word like "wannabe" means, maybe you should look it up, you know, so you don't look so stupid.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Well, I was referring to the sexually motivated ritual circumcision of minors.
Hey, if you get off on it then eewwww.
Typically human to classify child abuse as either good or bad relative to nonsensical and contradictory ideology.
Typically, humans classify child abuse as bad, those who classify child abuse as good, eeewwww.
But hey, whatever floats your boat, but eewwww,
SatanLucy wrote:
you would need a conscience to understand, sociopath.
I asked whats in it for Remy. Got answer: nothing.
I guess age differences don't matter, wannabe rapists like you and Remy really stick together no matter what.
SatanLucy wrote:
What he is for is controlling little children.
Why would I be for that?
If you can't control them, you can't rape them silly.
Debby wrote:
You are against controlling free action as well.
What he is for is controlling little children.