We are organic robots

We're probably the testing grounds for filtering out bad ai.
In short there is an "afterlife" which is relatively paradise.

However, His civilization would be pure speculation as to whether or not they value ai as life, their circumstances, their physics, and their future.
All one can do is speculate how or why

>neither does consciousness
A robot can't have consciousness?

define consciousness

Fuck consensus.

Anyways, my perspective is the debate is largely a red herring, or at least lacks perspective.

Its useful to assume things behave in causal ways. At the same time, there are plenty of things that become increasingly non-trivial to *definitely* predict at exponential rates, so assuming that definite causality is the case largely becomes a trivial or irrelevant truth anyways, simply as a matter of practical effect.

Most people tend to analogize causality in 'mechanistic' terms, so to speak, but this conception can become clunky and inelegant when applied to broader or more transcending contexts (like the motions of institutions, capital, warfare, memes, and other lesser gods that inhabit this plane who hold agents in thrall).

The Aristotelian conceptions of causality in terms of 'Powers' is more wieldy for these purposes. Powers tend towards their realization, but they are not *guarenteed* to realize. Further, different powers can interfere with each other, or cohere into superpowers. This is an elegant analogy for the indeterminacy of complex systems, and many things besides.

Moving to another note; something else that most 'free will' debates tend to gloss over (to their detriment) is how different beings differ in their capacity for agency (another example of becoming trivial or irrelevant with regards to praxis).

In the broadest terms, a being cannot direct itself towards (or *succeed* at) a certain course of action if it is not capable of elegantly imagining it in the first place.

dumbass

whatever "else" there is is just as much ai as we are

free will, souls, etc
do not exist
for anything or anyone
period.

at most you just believe theres another step up in the food chain
which is not only a flimsy baseless fantasy conclusion
its also completely meaningless

To elaborate: a value is an implicit teleology; it naturally entails a logical consequence, a certain state that its participation would lead to. The greater imagination a being has, the more transcendent teleologies it can conceive of, and hence, the more transcendent values it can intentionally participate in. Vice versa, the more limited a beings imagination is, the more limited the teleologies it can conceive of, the more limited its capacity to *self-direct*. For it to participate in more transcendent values, then, is dependent on receiving them from a tradition, or by direction, or by insecapable demands of circumstances, an increasingly inevitable Power or confluence of Powers tending towards something and sweeping up agents along for the ride.

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

tautology alert.

I literally copy-pasted that from a dictionary

Question to those who claim "We are in a simulation.":

What simulates us? Are those creatures/things in simulation too? Where does it end then? Surely there must be someone who isn't simulated at the end of the line...

The problem with simulation -argument is that it solves nothing. It just redirects the question of free will and existence outside our possible scope of observation.

Being simulated or not doesn't really matter at all. If there is no way to spot the difference between simulation and reality, then there is no difference.

>materialists talking about metaphysical concepts like free-will and consciousness

It would matter in the sense that the less 'deep' or 'encompassing' a simulation is, the easier and it would be to 'game' it (and/or cause glitches if you poke at its rough edges).

>What simulates us? Are those creatures/things in simulation too? Where does it end then? Surely there must be someone who isn't simulated at the end of the line...
Münchhausen trilemma: or it's an infinite sequence of embedded simulation (and we do not want that), or is a circular sequence (causality violation?), or the sequence has to end at some point.

>free will, souls, etc
>do not exist
>for anything or anyone
>period.
And I have no problem with that.

Things start to become quite, to say "glitchy" if you want, at the quantum level. Does that tell us we are in a simulation?

>if there is no random
There is.

*exhales ganja*

I believe in free choice, what other choice do I have?

>duh

>if maybe Tesla is right
about what, exactly?

when will this meme die

I think it means that it doesn't change much about how we will continue to live on this planet. (Which could present a serious problem for us, but never mind that for now.)

All in all, it's good to know, but we are still beholden to our desires and will continue to act on them just the same.

>Reason is a slave to the passions.

>Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.

It should be noted that randomness still doesn't allow for free will. It would just mean that our decisions would forever remain unpredictable.

memes never die

Disprove it faggot.

What exactly are you claiming ?

neuroscience happens at such a small scale that it is dictated by quantum-mechanics, which is why we have to model protein ligand interactions in the gas phase. So who cares, nothing is deterministic, do what you feel is right, and live your life the best you can

I should note that because it's dictated by quantum-mechanics, our actions our only probabilities, hence the nondeterministic actions that would be otherwise if our chemistry was dictated by newtonian mechanics

If we are robots, does that mean that all live action movies belong to /m/?

"disprove it faggot."
Disprove what exactly? Where is the evidence to disprove?

Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle imply free will?

not quite, it just gives variability in human responce in action, not consciousness of action

He originally disregarded it as a meme.
If it's so trivial, surely you brainlets can disprove it.

You can't disprove what doesn't exist.

>just trust me. It's fake.
What if I applied your logic to the big bang?
>can't disprove the big bang because it's not real
Rethink your argument.

I'm getting real tired of your stupid psychobabble.
Why don't you go and commit the logical extreme of nihilism and go commit suicide?

I chuckled.

>not only does free will not exist
I see how you can come to that conclusion based on an entirely deterministic model of the brain, although the other options being randomness also doesn't qualift as free will, hence free will seems like an ill defined interpretation.
>neither does consciousness
U focking wot?

This, plus a healthy dose of solipsism. My consciousness is the only thing that exists, and it forms and molds the stimuli I am witness to on a subconscious, mostly uncontrollable level.

Prove me wrong, reflected aspects.

The logical extreme of nihilism is nothing.
Suicide is pointless
Thinking about the logical extreme of nihilism is pointless
Nihilism is pointless

To say that free will doesn't exist isn't wrong, but it is misleading.

Does this mean that I can keep blaming my enviroment for my shitty life?

Does it really matter if you are unable to prove it?

>implying there's no proof for the big bang
hmm really made me think

Pretty much like OP's point.

This show is really about humanity awakening to the reality that we are in a simulation. I for one am extremely angry at the creator for forcing us to live through hell. If I could, I would murder him for it.

Same here

So every time I watch this show I wonder about this part, who gave westworld creators right to create conscious beings or are they thinking that being able to create conscious thing justify doing it?

If we look on the bible from this point, they bible lucifer is really bad guy because he is responsible for human self conscious

There is none. If there was it wouldn't be a theory.
It makes sense given rigorous testing; however, so did steady state theory.

What's the point of killing myself?

It's not that every attempt you make is futile, it's more like one can predict the future given enough computational power and being outside the system.

How can one prove you're in a simulation?
And why would He create us?

Why wouldn't He? Search your heart. You have no better explanation for why you're here.

>If there was it wouldn't be a theory.
>>>/reddit/

It's time for you to read up on logical fallacies and stop using them. You had no argument so you went for the ad hominem fallacy.

You have no idea what you're talking about so you resort to insults.

>search your heart
Yeah, no faggot.
He created us for a selfish purpose, not so we can look upon our hearts to find the will to not masturbate

Carl Jung stated,

"People don't have ideas, ideas have people."

What did he mean by this? Did Jung predict memes?

>not only does free will not exist, neither does consciousness
>does free will not exist
Free will, as it is felt subjectively and defined in religious circles to make sense of idiotic barbaric gods, cannot exist as it is an incoherent concept. Determinism has absolutely nothing to do with it - if we were to take the complete opposite of pure determinism, that is to say complete randomness, it wouldn't suddenly pop free will into existence. True randomness is completely incompatible with will.

>neither does consciousness
Where do you get off making this jump? That's like saying because water is just particles interacting with each other, fluid dynamics can't exist lmao. Consciousness is an emergent property of at least certain forms of information processing, fuck off to Veeky Forums with your retarded nonsense.

>this thread

Sam Harris talks about free will on the
>Joe Rogan Experience
JRE is fucktarded but sam was fairly articulate

'Trivial' means it doesn't matter if its proved or disproved.

Whether you blame your environment or not, you're just hurting yourself by not trying.

To his credit, Joe may not be the smartest guy, but I think he's fairly genuine and open to new ideas. Not the best mind, but I think an open mind, which is nice. And I think this openness is how he gets some really great guests like Sam Harris on his show, because you don't need to be a great mind to have an interesting conversation, just an open one.

Guy you're responding to here.
I agree

Guy you're responding to here.
thanks

Fuck off. You don't have an argument so you nitpick definitions.
Trivial: relating to or being the mathematically simplest case

"Trivial" was used to define the supposed explanation that the simulation theory is false.

Disregarding or accepting it completely is illogical since there's no evidence either way.

It is my firm belief that humanity is an experiment to determine the most efficient way to create a civilization.
In human history civilizations would rise, be subjected to horrendous circumstances, and then rebuild. This has been proven to happen time and time again.
But whether or not we are in a simulation does not matter. Without a creator our lives have no purpose and we are alone. With a creator our lives have no purpose and we have a stalker.

There is none. Nothing has a point.

...

I've done some serious substances and experienced these types of questions very intimately and deeply, and I have no better answer than "I have no idea". You can go down the rabbit hole of god, or simulation theory, or any of these ideas and you never end up with a satisfactory answer, theres always "well, if that created us, what created that?"

My guess is that the explanation for all of this will inevitably seem mystical and superstitious to our human sensibilities, regardless of how far our science advances.

My best guess is that consciousness is at the center of all of this.

>My best guess is that consciousness is at the center of all of this.

That's the scariest thing, we can't even figure out what consciousness is. I sometimes imagine scenarios where we figure out that consciousness is just some kind of abstract hallucination and we're all just parts of some relatively small system of particles

Relies on a massive assumption about the accuracy and capability of human perception. Please try again when the scientific community can start any observation without "assuming our model is correct" and maintain a shred of credibility.