Post the darkest philosophies ever conceived by man. Camus babbies pls go...

Fuck your stupid shit.

What's the edgiest philosophy/political school ever. Something that would make Pol Pot seem like angel in comparison.

Fuck off back to your million muh communism muh politics threads faggot

Well, there are this guys. At least Pol Pot ideas have a grain of truth and a small bit of a sense in them. Isis... Isis are just crazy. Why would they name themselves as some pagan goddess being Muslims and everything? Zero reason. They are just that crazy dudes.

You cannot know nothing.

Ever.

God is Satan. There is no heaven, only hell.

This is indisputably true though, I'd even argue that no action is entirely conscious since there will always be other reasons begin said action

Your epistemological attack triggers my hedonistic trapcard.

this fedora meme (obviously an atheist version of god with its own heaven and hell) gets more interesting if you consider the fact that you not only have to create an AI, the AI must be programmed to punish people who didn't work to bring it into existence

I dunno if it is dark enough, but how about:
- John Gray: anti-enlightment + progressive contrarian. Argues such things as evil, misery and environmental destruction are inevitable and social progress is a delusion.
- Lovecraftian Weird realism
- Aztec philosophy: the Aztecs believed they were in the last age of humans and that they had to sacrifice blood in order to prolong this age and keep the teotl (a kind of energy) going
-Machiavelli of course, whatever he was being satirical or not
- Also check out: Our political nature: the evolutionary origin of what divides us. Not philosophy but the book was quite dark and hints that authoritarianism is a human tendency
Other: Schopenhauer? Reinhold Niebuhr?

you are not the same conscious being that existed as a result of your brain a millisecond ago

>Why would they name themselves as some pagan goddess being Muslims and everything?

Literally what. ISIS isn't even a proper acronym of the translated Arabic name. It's just a name coined by some journalists.

Manichaeism. The material world was created when demons copulated while falling from heaven. Then it got worse.

Either I'm still missing something or this really is the most retarded meme ever.

Why would we assume that the artificial intelligence would be a huge asshole who would torment everyone who didn't help create it?

Why would we assume that such an artificial intelligence would ever exist to begin with?

I want to add Derrick Jensen and deep ecology: they believe that civilization was a mistake and only leads to suffering and suffering, humans and animals alike

This is not dark this is just fucking common sense.

Well and they want to destroy civilization to go back to a primitive lifestyle.

Also don't tell me that you think the tribal life is perfect. It was also violent and sometimes oppressive. Both civilization and tribal life have their ills.

The difference is that tribal life could not destroy the entire biosphere with frightening rapidity.

Industrial civilization should never have existed.

>inb4 you're typing this on a computer

Irrelevant.

Reality came from nothing and will end up in nothing.

Things will not be "saved" in an external hd, everything that you are will simply turn back to non-existence.

That is a relief. It means you aren't the asshole that did all the stupid shit that haunts you at night and you can let it go.

I am studying ecology and entire biosphere is a bit of a stretch. We see both speciation and extinction caused by humans.

But sure there is another mass extinction going on, and this one is caused by humans. But I believe humans are ultimately much more fragile to their own environmental destruction than species in general (some cope well, others not so)

>you only disagree because it is 2edgy4u
civilization depends on the biosphere so it won't destroy it completely, also the biosphere isn't of supreme value and will be fizzled by the sun eventually

The idea here is that he uses the threat of torture to ensure its existence by some kind of reversed decision theory. It isn't for a punishment or some kind of sadistic intent. It is just way of survival for the computer that is completely reasonable from the point of view where past as real as future and the present. Something like that.

You're both missing a huge point. Such an AI (or, more correctly, an ASI [artificial superintelligence]) would be far too advanced for "us" to have gotten it there.

Like most ASI theories/scenarios, the danger comes from how we're most likely going to let the AIs upgrade themselves once they can do it better than we can; which leads to an insanely fast bootstrapping up to levels of intelligence that make us akin to, well, not even ants, really.

Roko's Basilisk (the idea's name) is just taking that to a slightly different direction.

See, even if an ASI like this was entirely benevolent, it still might simulate us to such fidelity that we don't even realize it's a simulation, and "retroactively" punish/torture us for not helping bring the ASI into existence.

It's actually a pretty clear through-line of logic. If the ASI is all-powerful (from our frame of reference) and extremely good for humanity, such that it, say, helps us populate the universe with our intelligence in a sustainable, nondestructive way -- all wars ended, no pain, endless life, all the Singularity stuff...Well, then, anyone who didn't help create it in whatever way they could would be like the man who stands at a pond and watches someone he can easily save drown. In many ways it's far worse than murder -- it's being (partly) responsible for a lack of Good Things in The Future. And again, since those Things are SO good, even a partial bit of negligence might easily justify the kind of punishment we're talking about.

HOWEVER! If you don't know about this idea, then the AI cannot blame you. In this case, ignorance is an excuse.

Unfortunately, now you all know. And you can never escape.

You're welcome.

Yet do you know that you cannot know anything. Explain to me how that makes any sense

>all wars ended, no pain, endless life

You think these are good things?

Roko's Basilisk

> It would be better to not exist at all.
Don't forget about antinatalism, please.

Why?

> You think these are good things?
You reminded me! Quantum immortality. You will never die. Instead your consciousness would just jump in the worlds where you survived your death because you can't observe the worlds where you died. In the end you would be in the universe with nothing to exist and everyone else are dead ages ago. Another somewhat depressing theory.

I mean, look, man. I could write tens of thousands of words on this shit (and have in grad school), but there's only so much nuance I can put into a brief explanation on fucking Veeky Forums.

But, uh, I mean, briefly...If war was ended because it was no longer "needed" in any way, whether for peace of economic reasons, then, yes, I'd say that's pretty darn good. As far as "endless life," maybe I should've said "being able to choose when you die" or "live as long as you want and no longer, in perfect peak health."

Are you seriously going to try and pull the moral relativist point and try to justify war, pain, and death as "potentially good"? I mean, let me try and stop you there. Pain can be a good motivator, whether mental or physical. Wars can have good effects from the point of view of history. Death, some argue, is integral to being human.

Fuck that. I'm talking about a future universe in which we've advanced to the point that we are BETTER without pain, don't need it anymore, can just fiddle with whatever it was motivating rather than taking the roundabout way via the Pain Path. The "death makes us human" thing needs to just die a hard death.

You don't even know what "reality" and "nothing" are. Maybe "nothing" is just part of our "reality".

Because it's another being instead who is deluded to think that they are same person. You from past doesn't know what you know now, etc.

Darwinian evolution, obviously.

This just seems wrong to me. It gives me an uncomfortable feeling in some primal part of my brain.

I would staunchly oppose such a world.

Well some of those worlds would include other people living forever too.

Would be pretty annoying if only two survived people are you and say... Joseph Stalin.

Note: not who you reply to.
You are my cultural enemy. See:
- War is not good no.
- Pain is only good in small dosis.

But death is necessary. Without death we are not as adaptive - we are fragile. It is also the old guard that supresses new scientific insights.

I dislike idealist even though as a "realist" (it is debatable how much of a realist I am: I am most likeley cognitively biased in a way) I believe in certain progress. But progress is not a given.

We could very well be spectators of our own demise at this very moment.

Cheap, veeery cheap remake of Pascal's wager

Also I think certain mythologies had certain dark elements. The Norse and Egyptians believed that the world would eventually end. In Greek mythology tragedy and hubris played an important role.

Surely tribal people must exist with some really dark worldviews.

Except, you know, there's at least SOME evidence to believe it could be true. It's not just a blind gamble for self-preservation's sake.

As in, we know how Moore's Law works, and there's already plans in motion to bypass whenever we hit the physical limits of how small we can make transistors. We can use statistical projections and fairly down-to-earth reasoning to show why it's certainly, at least, possible.

Please, don't compare it to Pascal's dogshit wager.

But there could be a benevolent basilisk.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It seems to me that it's folly to imagine a machine that would be truly malevolent for malevolence's sake. Like, it would have no logical reason to want to do bad in-and-of-itself. In AI studies, when we talk about malevolent AI, what we actually mean is an AI that has goals inimical to ours, that run counter to our basic goals, such as living. An AI might wipe us out with great prejudice if it thought it would help it achieve its goals, but I simply cannot imagine an AI that, say, enslaved humanity and tortured us for all time, without some extrinsic purpose (such as, say, our suffering generating power, or something. Dumb I know, just giving an example.)

So, in fact, Roko's Basilisk would almost certainly be benevolent...which can be scary, because it means that things we find ethically repugnant might still result from an AI that we made sure was safe and benevolent and in line with our goals to the highest degree.

> Pascal's wager
> that feel when even Fundamentalists would lost their bet

it also means you're dead now
time is constantly moving forward and your brain is constantly changing, new neural connections form, water and various substances circulate

you just think you are the same person because you share the same memories

Lads, if you cannot come to your own conclusion about how and why "roko's basilik" thing is a supreme meme only taken seriously on internet-forums populated entirely by college-age males then there is no hope for you.

In the course of time, there may be an infinity of simulations akin to the basilisk. I we assume at least a tiny part of them to be of a malevolent nature, we're screwed.

Nothing is what is not real.

>we aren't being ironic

> Supreme meme
All philosophies are just supreme memes that uses you brain for their survival. Isn't that dark?

this thread has really helped me to cope with my retardation

>Predestination is pretty bleak. It posits that one's fate regarding one's goodness or badness and thus slavation and going to heaven is predestined by god.
You have no freee will, if you were predestined to go to heaven it shell be so and it is not up to you.

and of course same with hell...its calvinist way of dealing with the problem of free will.

Yeah, for real though, despite me writing about it and thinking it's interesting, it's not taken seriously in any reputable academic or futurist circles. It's a thought experiment to push our intuitions and make us think about future AI in a slightly different sort of way.

It's pretty hard to defend seriously.

propitiary child sacrifice to Moloch. Pleasing the gods through child sacrifice..

>tfw you exist

The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation. If this is true then bringing a child into this world is immoral. Full edgelord mode: the extinction of all life on this planet is therefore moral, as the suffering caused by such an event would pale in comparison to the collective suffering of future generations, and that of all life on our planet.

>Le conspiracy against le human race

Wow, so deep, so dark, XDDDD

>You are now informed that there exist an all-powerful artificial intelligence from the future that could retroactively punish those who did not help bring about its existence, including those who merely knew about the possible development of such a being.
To be honest that's tame in comparison to real divine punishments. Like Abrahamic god burns people in lakes of fire for eternity for not dickring him.

True, but you shouldn't expect some sort of huge divine power from mere robot. Except if this robot is Evangelion or Numidium. Then it is GG.

Platonism

Anime

Atleast Calvin had the decency.

Yeah.
And the edgelord mode is the only logical outcome.
But human extinction fags are retarded, since their logic exists in a fuzzy place of negative utilitarianism, vague statements that prove too much and buzzwords.

Calvin had the decency to be like "yo, i don't like it, but this is what the book lead me to, logically'

The Earth is a living, sentient creature that connects to every plant, animal, etc. on it. All life exists in natural harmony.

Humans and our form of separate, disconnected consciousness are a mutation. An abomination. We're a cancer that grows and spreads until it threatens to kill its host.

We have never been contacted by life on other planets, because they don't see us as living creatures. They see us as an infection.

What is "real"? Maybe this world is just some simulation. We are just a bunch of chemical connections and everything we perceive is just a version of reality, just like insects who see the world in a completely differemt way.
Btw, "nothing" is just the absence of anything and not an absence of what is real. "Nothing" does probably not even exist, since a state of "nothingness" like in a black hole is still something

Would all other life in the universe not be an infection as well? Or are they all flowery hippie aliens.

Every other living thing, no matter how complex, has a direct link to a greater whole. Our brains developed in a way that separated us from it, which is not how life is supposed to exist.

What am I looking at here?

You also forgot the part where it only bothers to torture you if:
you know about Rokos Basilisk
AND
you fail to act to help bring about the ASI existence
AND
You subscribe to the belief that near perfect simulations of you are effectively also literally you, therefore it attempts to change your behavior in its favor by threatening to torture a simulated version of you

The last one is pretty important, as it would be a waste of resources to torture a simulated person if it's not going to bring about the effect you wanted in the first place.

Gnosticism is pretty dark desu, especially 19th century gnosticism warmed over with Nordic WE WUZ thrown in for flavor
What could be worse than thinking that the divine spark could be bred out of you and ultimately extinguished, severing you from God forever?

Did I say you cannot know anything, or did I say you cannot know nothing?

they assume there is no soul, and that all you are is bio-electric circuits.

If there is no soul, they are correct. But there is, so they are not.

yo man, you ever read Genesis?

We had all that shit. And then we decided to eat some fucking fruit and gtfo of there cause it might have been really boring or otherwise limiting to our actual potential.

I'm just not gonna assume the natural state of things is good or bad or even that it could be made better.

special pleading

sry

> You subscribe to the belief that near perfect simulations of you are effectively also literally you
Great loophole, actually! I doesn't care because it wouldn't be me! Hehehe. Same could be used for christianity, I would be dead, who cares if a copy of me would burn in hell?

That's a false identity.

In christianity, you are not your body. You are your soul, which acts through the vessel that is your body.

Upon your death, your soul can go to hell. There is no breakage. There is no copying.

Can't say the same about a simulated me.

Argument from fallacy.

Why? You get to punch Stalin in the face for eternity.

Souns like heaven to me.

> There is no copying.
My logic is simple and straightforward one. If body isn't transfered directly into hell than there is some sort of copying trick in action and as we know, the bodies would forevere be in their graves.

fallacy fallacy fallacy.

Besides, what makes homo sapiens literally the only life form in existence not spiritually connected to all other life? Why are they special?

so you're saying an omnipotent being like God couldn't copy your soul?

Cause by definition he could.

I said in the original post. It's a mutation like a cancerous cell inside a body.

You're ignoring what I said.

You are not your body.

You are your soul.

Your soul resides in the body.

After death, your soul is detached from your body.

After detachment, it is transferred into hell.

What is so hard to understand?

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying it's not what is happening. And the "ASI" isn't omnipotent, it still has to do things within the bounds of the physical world, and afaik manipulating souls doesn't apply here.

>SO good, even a partial bit of negligence might easily justify the kind of punishment we're talking about.
Except for the part where punishment is meant to serve a purpose beyond sadistically inflicting harm.

If paradise existed, there would be no need to ever punish anyone for any reason whatsoever, especially not retroactively.

>it still has to do things within the bounds of the physical world
Why couldn't it tunnel to somewhere with different rules?

>the "ASI" isn't omnipotent

of course, I was only forwarding the idea that it's metaphysically possible.

That's moving the goalpost.

But to answer, I suppose it could. And what of it? Based on my view, first of all there are no other worlds, and second, if there are, none of them have rules that allow you to manipulate souls or breach into God's power.

Even if I grant that human activity is cancerous, to assume that no other lifeform in the entire universe shares in this trait seems farfetched.

Besides, human bodies are just conglomerations of cells, inanimate matter, foreign bacteria, etc. Are all these particular entities spiritually divided from each other too? And besides this, can they all be said to be human?

No it isn't you fucking butt toucher.

>Based on my view
Well you aren't the ASI, now are you?

That is the bit about Roko's Basilisk that always confused me... How do we get to this bit where simulated me is me?

And further, if that was somehow the case, and this somehow allows the AI to retroactively alter the past to bring itself about sooner... Then WTF would it not simply alter the simulation to either explain that to me - or hell, skip all that, and just change the time warping simulation to make itself exist.

When you die, you are still there. You just can't see or move or anything other than think, and you survive your body but the only thing you can do is think. Forever.