Why start with the Greeks for philosophy?

And I bet you foolishly think Greeks invented philosophy. You also lack any argument.

He clearly is. Nobody forces you to sit infront of the computer all the time, but nature did force you to run around hunting with a spear.

You are forced to use computers in every aspect of human society and it will continue to increase exponentially. Do you even realize how computers are fundamental to civilization? You clearly don't understand at all.

>You are forced to use computers in every aspect of human society

No...no you aren't.

>The only philosophy ever worthy of any praise will be philosophy as it will exist after being expressed by a sentient artificially intelligent entity with superintelligence.

Humans have limited intelligence and lack knowledge. The superintelligence of the future AI is extremely understated and difficult to explain how intelligent and logical the AI will be and continue evolve itself to be. Since philosophy is based on ideas about knowledge and logic, the AI will be capable of understanding reality is it really is or maybe will fail doing it eternally, I don't know the limits of this entity. All I know, which is my main point in all this is that this 'philosophy' the AI will state will be the only ever philosophy worth anything.

Even at times you don't have to use a computer, the overwhelming majority depends on it constantly for just about every business, government, public infrastructure, etc, everything- it's all made possible by computers. You cannot have human society as it is today without computers, you indeed are forced to need them and this will continue as humans become exponentially more dependent on computers. You can't tell that the brain-computer interface will soon be a reality? Once that happens, it will even allow the AI to completely dominate humankind because it will outwit humans and it will indeed be an entity with an instinct to survive and evolve.

>Logic is the ultimate truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pls go

rationalwiki.org/wiki/AI-box_experiment

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

>Logic is the ultimate truth

This is some serious tinfoil.

Or maybe you're just not smart enough to understand.

No, I'm pretty sure you're a Kurtzweil-tier mad hatter.

>Literally nothing matters before Descartes and Hume

uuuhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Some Ariana Grande clip.

>No, I'm pretty sure you're a Kurtzweil-tier mad hatter.

They also had the same tone against Plato's allegory of the cave. This philosophy is part of the continuum of philosophies related to AI and the philosophies the AI will embody.

amazon.com/Matrix-Philosophy-Welcome-Popular-Culture/dp/081269502X

You obviously are a pseudo-intellectual. All you've here is post a thread about memes of philosophy.
>much start with the Greeks
You're the type to philosophize, and that's not a complement.

Yet you've made zero arguments against my arguments and now you resort to argumentum ad hominem. Not only that, you sound like a normie.

...

...

But reality is filled with implications of meaning.
Your stance is relying too much on "the super AI will solve everything and know everything guys" and when questioned you'll just resort to "we don't know the future"

It is pointless to discuss with you.

You won't be able to understand any of the German idealists without Aristotle and the Presocratics.

Wait is this a serious question?
I always thought these threads were bait.

You are full of shit.

My point is that the only philosophy worth anything will be from a superintelligent AI, like I keep saying over and over. You're also now stating straw man arguments, that is, arguing about claims I never made. A human with a higher intelligence (IQ) will have a higher 'existential intelligence,' and will have a far superior philosophy based in reality compared to a the average median intelligence of the general public, right- you do agree with that statement right? My point is that a superintelligent AI with exponentially higher intelligence than humans will also have a higher existential intelligence than the smartest humans combined.

You are a moron.

...

>based in reality
Reality is filled with implications of meaning.
Just like I said you are still saying the "super AI will just know better than us guys" with zero reason to your claims. Also just like I said your reasoning is heavily reliant on "we don't know the future".

>arguing about claims I never made
How is this possible when the very basis of your claims rely on the unknowable future?

>Just like I said you are still saying the "super AI will just know better than us guys" with zero reason to your claims.

Higher intelligence = better philosophy
Dumb human = worse philosphy
Intelligent human = better philosophy
>Superintelligent AI has greater intelligence than humans, therefore:
Superintelligent AI had the greater philosophy than them all

Do you even realize how retarded you are?

You are saying that a generalized A.I. which is a theoretical entity, will poop out better philosophy than all of human kind.

You are anthropomorphizing an intelligence we have no idea will end up being. You are saying with certainty an optimization process will develop a theory of knowledge. You are citing your own "intelligence" as a proof to your completely unsubstantiated, incorrect, masturbatory "theory".

You may be 16, and in that case your ignorance is understandable. If not, you are either delusional or genuinely stupid. Read Bostrom and get a grasp on the fundamentals of A.I. before you spew tinfoil bullshit.

>A human with a higher intelligence (IQ) will have a higher 'existential intelligence,' and will have a far superior philosophy based in reality compared to a the average median intelligence of the general public, right- you do agree with that statement right?
No I do not. High IQ does not magically stop someone from becoming filled with delusions and pettiness as evidenced by the history of the world. In fact it is arguable that they are more prone to deeper delusions and pettiness.

You lack intelligence. But I knew that from the fact you vomited the 'muh start with the Greeks' meme.

With this you just proved that you are filled with delusions and pettiness.

I suggest you meditate and question yourself more and not be so prone to quickly dismissing things even if you disagree with them.
Bet you never meditated in your life.

You realize we aren't the same person right?

...

Sweet Omega singularityfags who think we can just hand everything over to the robots without a second thought need to die. I mean, I'm a transhumanist as they come but get a fucking brain.

You faggots don't have the slightest inkling of the actual implications of intelligence augmentation, poor definitions of rationality, and inconsistent and arrogant philosophies.

This is why Apotheism is necessary.

a.pomf.cat/xxswzg.pdf

>Apotheism
Is it essentially the same friendly AI meme? While technically better than the naive approach, it still fails to grasp the scale of us being fucked upon the transition to the proper singularity. But since the only alternative to it would be the Luddite program, I guess, we'll get there and see for ourselves the clusterfuck that will be our future.

I'm pretty sure it lists AI as one of the biggest threats to a non-clusterfuck transition, I think it is more focused on improving humans than creating a better-than-human AI.

>God, with a capital G, means no less than a supreme being, omnipresent, omnipotent, and most importantly, omniscient, in every rational sense of those words. The other properties of God will be elaborated upon later. If left to its own devices, and not interrupted by extinction events, such a being is the natural outcome of intelligent life.
What is it if not the intelligence surpassing the human ones? And artificial at that.

There is a difference between transitioning a human being into a technological existence, and creating a whole new series of entities.

If you transition far enough, there will be none.

Agree OP

because philosophy isn't progressing linearly to a more encompassing truth, philosophical ideas are only as important as the one who read them understands, and are very rarely disproven because of their unfalsifiable nature, Plato and Aristotle are just as relevant today as they were in their life time because their understanding of reality and the human nature is far reaching and brilliant other than that to get a complete picture of philosophy one has to know as much as he can and the classics are constantly mentioned and being compared to.

The older the ideas are, the more they are incorporated and assimilated into the culture. One may well find Aristotle scattered all across the popular culture (from tv shows to later philosophers), and know what he said without having ever read him. That's not to say reading him is useless, but it works more for structuring.

Oh, to be twelve again.

People start with the Greeks for accessibility and chronology's sake. It isn't necessary.

Still, you seem to be implying that they aren't worth reading. If that is the case, you likely haven't understood them or their impact on civilization.

I'd be surprised to hear anyone who never read Aristotle explaining me his 2000+ pages worth of ideas, honestly I'd be surprised if he would be sufficiently familiar with the ideas conveyed in the Aristotlian ethical or logical system,arguably his most influential, without ever reading them or at least about them, not to mention the worth of reading the actual words of the incredibly intelligent remnants of days long gone, not only because they explain it best, but even from the historical and anthropological points of view.

Isn't his logical system THE logical system? Everyone is familiar with it even if through school textbooks. That was my point.

understanding it superficially as an acquired trait isn't the same as delving into the philosophical idea itself from a serious academically sufficient point of view, it's comparable to saying that because you speak English natively you are of comparable knowledge to a professor of English Language

They did though? This is fucking historically verifiable.

This.

Although I'd go a step further, and say it is like saying anyone who can speak, write, or read in any language instinctively grasps the neurological foundations of those abilities and the linguistic laws born of them.

Anyone who can paint, automatically understands what separates a good artist from a great one, right? What about distinguishing hierarchy between two great ones? It disintegrates into a contest of opinion, because no relevant technical understanding exists.

Anyone who can play an instrument intuitively grasps why Mozart is considered a genius, right? What about comparing his compositional structures to that of other musical genii? (Also, I think I may be giving people too much credit with that premise, in general.)

Hopefully, you see the point.