Hi guys, just stopping by to say that i really don't think many of you have read this

Veeky Forums raids are like being raped by cocaine wielding supermodels - you may not have asked for it, but now you want more.

Any other recommendations? Just in general

Nietzsche is incredibly overrated. His "philosophy" is mostly opinion and he says everything he has to say in the most flowery and unnecessarily decadent language.

Try Spinoza if you are ready for some real philosophy. No poetry, no silly metaphors and wild fantasies. Just bare logic and reason.

>maybe this will be the next step of our ascension

maybe so...
but remember Nietzsche himself led a very lonely sad life

>unnecessarily decadent language
brainlet detected

Everybody say

>Ty Veeky Forums

>written after getting bootyblasted and rejected by Salomé

Lel hard pass for this salty book

That shit is Veeky Forums, yo.

It's not even that he's overrated, but he relies a lot on previous philosophers, so he's a really bad entry point for manlets who misread him, take him at face value and just use him as a means to make that inferiority complex into a superiority one.
It's become a cliche trope by now.

I can tell you haven't read the author I mentioned. He makes nietzche looks like a dumbass contrarian.

Meant to reply to

Are you fucking retarded? Do you think any philosophy except for perhaps logic, and even then, is more than opinion?

and by that I mean philosophical logic, which isn't even necessarily considered valid/truth/accurate/correct/right or whatever you want to describe it as.

There's fucking philosophical arguments debating whether or not truth even fucking exists. Are you a first-year philosophy minor taking a required Early-Modern course or what?

>flowery and unnecessarily decadent language

beautiful language requires logical good abstract thinking user

u must b bad at girls and meme lines

I would recommend everyone to read Nietzsche's work. Westworld is heavily inspired from his works and if you can follow his advices (and not descend into madness upon doing it) you will experience freedom like no other.

read Julius Evola Ride the Tiger for more information, especially you OP. if you are up to it that is

Attached: image.jpg (1125x1463, 1.36M)

youve never fucked a girl you pretensious bitch

they dont like you because they know the “violent” man you pretend to play is just an act

BE GENUINE IN YOUR LIFE GOD DAMNIT STOP PLAYING FOR THE AUDIENCE!!!!!!!!!

Attached: image.jpg (540x562, 220K)

Attached: 1449799577964 (1).jpg (500x746, 159K)

more than you ever know, good assessment my friend. you realize we are the very few people who dont actually like the thought of having to use “facebook” and “instawhore” and genuinely mean it

I demand more philosophy memes in the name of Sergey

there is a 99% chance that you did not understand shit

Nietzsche is the real mad man. He thinks Darwin is wrong about the theory of evolution.

For Darwin, evolution is reactive, we evolve in order to survive, and that's it.

For Nietzsche, evolution is proactive, we evolve because we seek power, to become god ourselves, survival is not the main goal but obviously needed to continue experiencing power (though the nature's method to store power is to pass our genes to our offspring).

For Nietzsche, power is all there is, there's no good and evil, only powerful/competent and incompetent creatures. Power gives you the most high than any drugs could ever give you.

Are you?

A good philosophical system uses logical proofs to justify the principals and claims it sets forth. An example is the geometric method, whereby we establish an axiom that is self-evident, then use the axiom to prove a postulate, and so on, securing the agreement of the reader in a step by step fashion and guiding him with clearly defined terms and rigorous cross examination.

Nietzche is obtuse where a philosopher should be clear. He is elusive where he should be transparent. He waxes poetic and goes off on tangents when he should be direct and to the point.

I do enjoy reading him but I don't think his philosophy is presented concisely, nor is it of much practical use. It is too open to interpretation. He's almost more an artist than he is a philosopher. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy reading him. But I get bored and a bit annoyed when every philosophy major I talk to says he's their favorite philosopher and everyone wants to suck his dick endlessly in threads like this.

there is a 100% chance you're a piece of shit faggot with no value who should kill yourself but nobody goes around telling you that

Most philosophies are about finding meaning and happiness which I find not so important and misleading at worst.
Happiness is bad, you should rage and adventurous in your every waking life. (Consider this as an analogy, not a logic)

Nietzsche's philosophies are more about creating powerful creatures (the overman) which I find fascinating and important.
Nietzsche and some philosophers use analogy instead of logic. Jesus too uses analogies.

What I'm trying to say is that there are things analogies can achieve where logic failed to accomplish. For example: The human brain is analogical, while the computer is logical.

> The human brain is analogical, while the computer is logical.
Also, this is why we still have not created artificial consciousness even though we now have computers million times faster than a human brain. It is because the human mind uses analogy instead of logic.

I heard there are books you should read before this, is that true or should I just jump into it?

Stop being a pussy and read the damn book

Attached: pksz0srrk4sy.jpg (1242x2208, 138K)

Attached: 1C6E188D-A0EE-4A63-9049-B846BD8EFB24.png (640x1136, 737K)

Dude just because they're 'logical' doesn't mean they're true or anything more than an opinion. It's not a fucking science. It's all opinion.

You're literally projecting what you're criticizing Nietzsche about in your writing. Cmon man.

>logic isn't truth it's just an opinion
>1+1=2 isn't true dude it's just your opinion

Attached: only pretending.png (1440x810, 1.36M)

nigga u such a brolosopher it hurts, there's more to philosophy than existentialism u fukin kunts
it's time for some epistemology and phenomenology my FRIEND

Genealogy of Morals is his best work

>Just bare logic and reason.
From BGE 5:
What goads us into regarding all philosophers with an equal measure of mistrust and mockery is not that we are struck repeatedly by how innocent they are – how often and easily they err and stray, in short, their childish childlikeness – but rather that there is not enough genuine honesty about them: even though they all make a huge, virtuous racket as soon as the problem of truthfulness is even remotely touched upon. They all act as if they had discovered and arrived at their genuine convictions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely insouciant dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest than the philosophers and also sillier – they talk about “inspiration” –): while what essentially happens is that they take a conjecture, a whim, an “inspiration” or, more typically, they take some fervent wish that they have sifted through and made properly abstract – and they defend it with rationalizations after the fact. They are all advocates who do not want to be seen as such; for the most part, in fact, they are sly spokesmen for prejudices that they christen as “truths” – and very far indeed from the courage of conscience that confesses to this fact [...] this spectacle provides no small amusement for discriminating spectators like us, who keep a close eye on the cunning tricks of the old moralists and preachers of morals. Or even that hocus pocus of a mathematical form
used by Spinoza to arm and outfit his philosophy (a term which, when all is said and done, really means “his love of wisdom”) and thus, from the very start, to strike terror into the heart of the attacker who would dare to cast a glance at the unconquerable maiden and Pallas Athena: –
>how much personal timidity and vulnerability this sick hermit’s masquerade reveals!

Attached: 43fs.jpg (615x462, 22K)

Only mathmaticians who got lost along the way like the former, and sjws like the latter. Show me anyone reading heidegger for any other reason than to help some minorities gain political power.

I don't believe in philosophy user. Philosophy is not the holy grail of life, computer science is.

I'm a computer scientist who specializes in AI who also needs to know about philosophy, psychology, cybernetics, etc. to gain more information/theories about how the mind works. What a time to be alive.

It's okay to read philosophy but don't ever think these philosophers were absolutely right and nothing else matters. We should have a scientific mind at all times.

Modern thinkers are evolving, they now realize the limitations of the past philosophies. They created newer and more advanced theories and preach what is completely opposite from what is preached from the past.

The best modern philosopher right now is Daniel Dennet. He is the next Bertrand Russell. Unlike traditional philosophers, Dan is a student of neuroscience, linguistics, artificial intelligence, computer science, and psychology. He's redefining and reforming the role of the philosopher.

Ur wasting ur time OP because Veeky Forums is infested with last men who want to get "comfy", and is a seething ball of resentment (due to ugly, unsuccessful,weak) to boot.

Imagine being this deluded.

I will do more research on this man later. Never heard of him before. I will say I did a quick google search and read an interview he did with the guardian and was really unimpressed with his responses and thoughts therein. I can extrapolate from that interview a few things about his weltanshauung, but I will keep an open mind while I listen to some of his speeches while I work.

brainlet

wrong. Will to power is mostly will to truth brainlet. Not literal power

t. rationalist autist
I bet you jerk off to sam harris too don'y you? On a serious note, whats your current research in AI like?

>Philosophy is not the holy grail of life, computer science is.
also just read this and HAHAHAHAHA fuck thanks for the laughs user you should joining some stand up collective

> On a serious note, whats your current research in AI like?
I'm on symbolic AI with a dream of creating artificial consciousness. The current fad in AI is non-symbolic AI, like neural networks, genetic programming, bayesian AI, etc. Non-symbolic AI uses 'logic' and too much mathematics, while symbolic AI uses 'analogy' and symbols.

I think in the future no one will have a use for the word Consciousness. Just like today we no longer have a use for the notion of an Élan vital, or life force, to explain the mysteries of life. We now understand the biochemical and physical processes involved in cellular activities which make life possible. Once you start to understand how goals, memories, self-models, self-reflection, self-conscious reflection, and other aspects of our inner life could work (as a machine), we can talk about these things individually. The best way forward is to stop using words like Consciousness, and other psychology words which have hundreds of years of meanings packed into them, and instead break them down and start to think about how such a machine might work. How could a machine have a goal, a model of itself, or the ability to reflect on its recent thoughts, etc.

Same.

Is that you Jordan Peterson?

One of the reasons why it's hard to create an artificial consciousness is the human mind understands a language/knowledge through analogy and not logic.

If a machine (a human brain or a computer) understands something in only one way, then the machine don't really understand it at all.

The secret of what anything means to us depends on how we've connected it to all other things we know (our brains does this by using analogies). Well-connected representations let you turn ideas around in your mind, to envision things from many perspectives until you find one that works for you. And that's what we mean by thinking!

At the present moment, only the human brain can do this. It's my job to replicate this to computers.

CAN somebody just give me a summary of the book in normal language. Whenever I try to read old literature I literally can’t understand a word of it, dead serious. I’m actually kind of convinced nobody can understand it and that’s why there’s so much dispute about what “philosophers” really meant when they wrote this or that.

Attached: E1E6EEA8-2D32-4630-B5CA-2C4DCD112E32.jpg (1199x679, 164K)

> symbolic AI
didn't that pretty much die with the lisp/AI-winter because it could never deliver on any of the promises (and many other reasons too). Whats the current research like? You got any interesting papers to that you can share? Im a former quant with an abstract mathematics background, no clue what you AI people are doing there (beyond obvious ML shit) hence why I'm asking.

> too much mathematics
its mathematics all the way down friend

> I think in the future no one will have
I'm not laughing about that mate, I'm laughing about your notion that CS is the be all end all here. Something about hammers and nails goes here.

Do you read at all? If so what?

Nope

And you are confused as to why you can't understand something wrote by a philologist who is widely considered an extremely difficult writer?

Non-symbolic AI like what DeepMind does is not the main goal of early AI pioneers, their main goal is artificial consciousness. Non-symbolic AI can become very good only at a specific task like playing chess or having a very accurate vision (ex: self-driving cars) but they can't really understand or reason what they're doing (being conscious).

Symbolic AI are the people who wanted to create a consciousness, machines that can think and reflect. But the early pioneers underestimated the complexity of this stuff.

We have a lot of advances in this field but it is still very hard to create a program that can do what even a 5-year old human does.

The only thing Nietzsche said that sticks with me is his call to "dance on the edge of human knowledge". Outside of that nihilism is cliche at this point and we need to move on.

weirdly enough I have a very easy time processing his work, and have a much harder time understanding other writers deemed to be easier than him

Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist brainlet.

How can you possibly prove a machine has Consciousness if you can't prove another person does? I worry that we'll create an AI that's just convincing enough that people accept it but not actually self-aware.

Lol at anyone here who thinks he was a nihilist. Either didn't read the books and/or have no reading comprehension.

youtube.com/watch?v=7AEMiz6rcxc

Sounds really Luciferian or something, way to twist words to sound good but, but when shit hits the fan you see their true face.

In the end you fuck other people up for your precious power, you don't give shit about them because they are not "worthy", yet it is coated with all rosy talk.

When not being outright evil means to be an asshole with no regard for others, well just see where that goes. Obtaining power without moral values is the reason why humans are such scum, and when you hold nothing sacred, nothing is off limits.

Attached: __remilia_scarlet_touhou_drawn_by_hiranko__35a447033b3b80d669afd4b9073a098f.jpg (1321x2087, 1.44M)

tbf this probably isnt a Veeky Forums thing, most Veeky Forums nietzsche fans have not read very much philosophy or literature in general outside of nietzsche

I don't think you should be too quick to throw out the idea of consciousness. I think that Plato's Theory of Forms is incredibly accurate and should be considered. Consider the AI you are trying to create just another shadow but something that will be inevitabely an even less perfect reflection than us.

Truth leads to literal power though.

Yes faggot he """bemoaned""" nihilism yet wrote book after book explaining nothing but how the death of God destroyed everything and that we won't be able to rebuild our metaphysics without violence and other heinous acts....he laid the framework for a bunch of fedora tippers to hold up secular humanism as the answer to our problems.

He gets blame for the movement he enabled.

>we won't be able to rebuild our metaphysics without violence and other heinous acts
War is the father of all things.

> We have a lot of advances in this field but it is still very hard to create a program that can do what even a 5-year old human does.
You gonna link to some of these advances or are you just larping at this point lol? Also, recreating the neuropsychology of a 5 year old would be a MASSIVE advance, not sure why the "even" is needed there.

> AI pioneers, their main goal is artificial consciousness
thats the main goal of most fantasist AI researchers. Not specific to AI pioneers like Feigenbaum, etc.

> Non-symbolic AI can become very good only at a specific task
Yeah you don't know what you are talking about... too bad.
Got nothing to do with symbolic vs. non-symbolic (its all fucking math in the end). Got everything to do with us trying to understand a meta-problem so to say. Kind of like that Electric Ant story by PKD.
Also, did you miss how alpha go learned to play chess via the same general approximation function that it used to learn go? What makes you think that jump from base functionality to higher functionality is not possible? And while we are at it, what makes you think any of us have any conscious thoughts at all?

Both approaches are limited in the same way (for example when clocks were the hot new things everybody thought brains worked like clocks lol, same thing here only millenia later), but at least one is actually being used while the other well... is dead... expert systems are a thing I guess lol. Link me to some current research in symbolic AI otherwise I'm gonna assume you are just larping and repeating some youtube tier claims.

Also this

yea I'm sure a board full of dumbasses looking to get rich quick, with no passion for anything in life other than trying for easy wealth, is gonna understand Nietzsche

Yea because these soyboy relativists are the types who will fight for our values and culture in that war

Attached: soyboys.jpg (261x193, 12K)

Peterson is a jew, the fact that hitler admired nietzsche for his stance against jewish religions like christianity would offput him immediately

Are you familiar with Hubert Dreyfus?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus's_views_on_artificial_intelligence
AI as the above user described is thirty years minimum from now. Personally I believe it is impossible to achieve in our lifetimes.

Implying soyboy relativists have enough willpower to project their barely formulated beliefs onto others.

nah peterson loves misinterpreting nietzsche to support his arguments
psychologist ≠ philosopher

>what makes you think any of us have any conscious thoughts at all?

I have conscious thoughts because I experience them, I cannot give any solid proof to outsiders, but that does not matter to me. Likewise I cannot know if you all have any conscious thoughts either, I just assume that you are like me.

What is the problem?

I really dislike some people saying that machines could feel pain and have consciousness too. Puppets don't feel pain, no matter how well they are made to move using rocks with logic gates. Any human can see that puppetry is a trick, but when the strings are not clearly seen and inside the machine it is now somehow different? What a farce.

Attached: 57223854_p0.png (1263x1151, 2.68M)

You are clearly unfamiliar with Nietzsche and just pick some quotes to support whatever dumb values you support.
>Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called "civilization" or "humanization" or "progress"; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus — the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body — that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great lapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth — the still-raging storm and stress of "national feeling" belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging —: this process will probably lead to results which its naïve propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of "modern ideas", would be least inclined to anticipate.
1/2

>The same novel conditions which will on average create a levelling and mediocritizing of man — a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man — are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labour with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before — thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants — in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.
2/2

>but it is still very hard to create a program that can do what even a 5-year old human does

you make it sound like this is elementary. If you can mimic a 5 year old you've created general artificial intelligence

Yes I am. Thats partially why I was so interested to see symbolic AI shit, its just so out of fashion right now after the disaster and embarrassment the whole field went through in the 80s that AI user seems like he traveled here from the past unaware of those historic failures. Hofstadter is another good one btw.

> thirty years minimum from now. Personally I believe it is impossible to achieve in our lifetimes
If you are talking AGI yeah I definitely agree. Very skeptical about that. Current AI hype seems more like a fad than anything tbqh...

A sufficiently advanced machine, without any conscious thoughts, could have written exactly what you have written above entirely on its own. Give it a little a think over.

Machine learning itself is incredibly useful for anomaly detection and stuff like that. The people assuming AI is going to run everything within their lifetimes are nuts though.

Pretty much. I believe a lot more machines are going to have voice assistants. In heavy industry or areas of restricted movement being able control some elements of the manufacturing process via voice control and having your hands free would be insanely useful. Personally I think that will be the next useful application of AI

Theres no need to read anything besides Nietzsche and perhaps Schopenhauer

> You gonna link to some of these advances or are you just larping at this point lol?
Look at the technology around you, those are pretty advances to me.

> Also, recreating the neuropsychology of a 5 year old would be a MASSIVE advance, not sure why the "even" is needed there.
It's a futile effort to recreate the whole human brain, we just need enough clues on how it's very useful functionalities like "connecting information and making sense of it" works.

This is where the "neat" scientists failed, they try to literally imitate the human brain. It's like learning how to the computer operates by studying the hardware, not the software. I'm a hacker, hackers use shortcuts than following what ought to be the "neat" solution, I don't study the brain, I study the mind. And the mind is what the brain does!

> We have a lot of advances in this field but it is still very hard to create a program that can do what even a 5-year old human does.
This is what I mean by that.
How strange that our most advanced systems can compete with human specialists yet are unable to do many things that seem easy to children like "general intelligence" which seems simple but is actually very complicated. (If you can create one, you just created singularity)

> Both approaches are limited in the same way
Yes that's right. I don't just select one approach. I believe there is value in pursuing and combining multiple approaches. There is no one best way to represent knowledge or to solve problems. The limitations of current machine intelligence largely stem from seeking unified theories or trying to repair the deficiencies of theoretically "neat" but conceptually impoverished ideological positions.

> Got nothing to do with symbolic vs. non-symbolic (its all fucking math in the end)
"Neat" scientists aka non-symbolic programmers are the people who believe that machine intelligence, at least, is best expressed in logical, even mathematical terms.’ Neat solutions have been highly successful in the 21st century and are now used throughout the technology industry. These solutions, however, have mostly been applied to specific problems with specific solutions, and the problem of general intelligence remains unsolved.

its called Religion

and people today have a sickness

it is called the worship of MONEY

> Yeah, pretty much what I am trying to say.

youre almost there

i would go even further than you and say

scientist ≠ priest
psychologist ≠ philosopher

Nietzsche was a famous philologist in his own lifetime and wasn't taken seriously as a philosopher until after his death. If you genuinely think you can understand Nietzsche without reading most of the philosophers who came before him, particularity the Greek ones he is famous for interpreting you are wrong.
Reading Schopenhauer without reading the Germans from the generation before him is also pretty much guaranteeing you will miss shit, even assuming a genius level intelligence.

Will to power was better