Submitted by No_Maintenance_569 t3_10nobmo in philosophy
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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments