AI Conscious?

Hume said:
You are just a sceptic. That accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

It's an absurdist level of skepticism. It is literally the thing that every freshman philosophy student goes through when they hit Empiricism and Hume. How can an empiricist know ANYTHING perfectly?
 
murph63 said:
Are you in any way familiar with MATHEMATICS? (That's the one with NUMBERS, not the letters)

In mathematics there are estimations which allow one to make solid decisions even when it isn't exactly 100% known perfectly. Take for instance something called an "infinite series" which, per the name, is infinite. It cannot be wholly solved. BUT many of these infinite series CONVERGE on a value.

Take Pi as another example. You can't possibly know pi to all its digits (it's infinite) so I guess you can never calculate the area of a circle. You can never calculate....well about 1/3 of any given equation in physics. You simply don't know anything about circles because you can't know pi perfectly

Look at CALCULUS (that's the class your smarter friends in high school took while you were over in shop algebra). There's a "Lim" function which provides a value for a function as it APPROACHES some input value.

There are also countless shortcuts or estimators in math which serve perfectly well to come to SOLID DISCRETE SOLUTIONS even when all the data is less than 100% known.

Even in INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (google that so you'll understand) scientists allow products to go out on the market as effective treatments for, say, illnesses, after they have tested it and "rejected the null hypothesis" that the drug didn't have any effect. Again, the data is NEVER perfect.

ALL OF THIS IS DENIED TO YOU because you are some sort of zealot for perfected knowledge.


Like I said, let me know when you make it past the Hume module in your online philosophy-for-morons class and we can further discuss.
Click to expand...
you're as full of shit as cypress.
 
murph63 said:
Are you in any way familiar with MATHEMATICS? (That's the one with NUMBERS, not the letters)

In mathematics there are estimations which allow one to make solid decisions even when it isn't exactly 100% known perfectly. Take for instance something called an "infinite series" which, per the name, is infinite. It cannot be wholly solved. BUT many of these infinite series CONVERGE on a value.

Take Pi as another example. You can't possibly know pi to all its digits (it's infinite) so I guess you can never calculate the area of a circle. You can never calculate....well about 1/3 of any given equation in physics. You simply don't know anything about circles because you can't know pi perfectly

Look at CALCULUS (that's the class your smarter friends in high school took while you were over in shop algebra). There's a "Lim" function which provides a value for a function as it APPROACHES some input value.

There are also countless shortcuts or estimators in math which serve perfectly well to come to SOLID DISCRETE SOLUTIONS even when all the data is less than 100% known.

Even in INFERENTIAL STATISTICS (google that so you'll understand) scientists allow products to go out on the market as effective treatments for, say, illnesses, after they have tested it and "rejected the null hypothesis" that the drug didn't have any effect. Again, the data is NEVER perfect.

ALL OF THIS IS DENIED TO YOU because you are some sort of zealot for perfected knowledge.


Like I said, let me know when you make it past the Hume module in your online philosophy-for-morons class and we can further discuss.
Click to expand...
Sorry (sorta) that I am causing you so much distress. Usually it is not this easy...most people I debate are adults and can handle the pressure with more aplomb.

Try to calm down, Son. We're just getting started...and you are a PhD, correct? No reason to explode quite yet.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Sorry (sorta) that I am causing you so much distress. Usually it is not this easy...most people I debate are adults and can handle the pressure with more aplomb.

Try to calm down, Son. We're just getting started...and you are a PhD, correct? No reason to explode quite yet.
Click to expand...
Need I remind you that you are the one typing in all bold.

I knew you didn’t understand all the math stuff
 
murph63 said:
Need I remind you that you are the one typing in all bold.

I knew you didn’t understand all the math stuff
Click to expand...
You needn't do anything...except what I set up for you to do. You are unfailingly accommodating...and I thank you for that.

I see you are still claiming to "know" stuff that you merely guess about.

Good. That is something upon which I rely.
 
Ross Dolan said:
You needn't do anything...except what I set up for you to do. You are unfailingly accommodating...and I thank you for that.

I see you are still claiming to "know" stuff that you merely guess about.

Good. That is something upon which I rely.
Click to expand...
Noted you dropped the screaming bold font.

When you learn more math I’ll talk to you as a near equal.
 
murph63 said:
Noted you dropped the screaming bold font.
Click to expand...

Oops.

My bad. Just the occasional fuck-up.

murph63 said:
When you learn more math I’ll talk to you as a near equal.
Click to expand...

Speak with me...do not speak with me. Whatever.

My guess...you will do exactly what I want you to do...as you have been so far. And so far, I have not demanded that you speak to me "as a near equal." I just do not think you are up to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top