You guys seem only slightly smarter than the average /pol/ user. Any refutations for me of this argument?:

You guys seem only slightly smarter than the average /pol/ user. Any refutations for me of this argument?:

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (Premise)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ttWQK5VXskA
youtube.com/watch?v=cGzwsyLAFcg
youtube.com/watch?v=TVcLIfSC4OE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Revision:

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

>You guys seem only slightly smarter than the average /pol/ user

You want smarts, go to Veeky Forums or /m/.

Veeky Forums is too easy. I want to see what Veeky Forums's got.

What world doesn't have nonconscious?
That leap to morals being objective is far-stretched.

This whole thing is going circles with 9 degrees of seperation between each step.
Prove flat earth next time

Veeky Forums can't be smarter than Veeky Forums, it's just that their shitposting is more sophisticated

How is consequence objective?

>What world doesn't have nonconscious?
It's possible world semantics.
I mapped each premise. But to answer you, I mean logical consequence, specifically. It is the same as saying "Shit happens." All effects are consequences.

>3
false Premise.
>23
false Premise
>8
false Pemise
>2
without meaning
>7
what does concsious mean
>11
false Premise
>12
what is goodness
>21
false Premise
>20
false Premise

>24
no (from 23)

They are the most well-read board by far. Instead of Veeky Forums which is full of fakes pretending they read Spivak, Rudin, Knuth, etc.

/m/ has the best taste.

well read...
yeah ican read BS the whole day and think it makes me smarter
i speak slovak.

Would you accept that if I don't take the time to reply, it's because I'm drunk? But at a glance, none of your post is a counterargument. You are a milkshake.

>/pol/
saged and gayed
hidden
downboated
delete your account

>muh infinite jest
Veeky Forums is full of faggots, who cares how many memebooks they have on their bookshelves.

dude.
You cant base your argument on bullshit and then say "well, but you havent given a counterargument"
your brain seems to not work well, because you logically deduct things from premises which are not proven to be true.
also your false premise (23) is against the statement (24) because god is objectively absent.

You only need the meme trilogy.

>because god is objectively absent.
>What is a presupposition?
This is a joke, right? And m8, the argument is already 24 lines long. You can't expect me to explain every single premise. That would practically lead to infinite regression. I kept the premises as obvious and self-evident as I could whilst keeping the argument a reasonable length. And yes, I can expect a counterargument other than "dat shit's stupid."

well your premises are all wrong. what else to say ? i dont even want to analyze the structure of your thingy when all i see is shady definitions and wrong statements to begin with.

But you have to explain why. Else I guess you win. fug

I think you need to define "moral" before you can use it in step 2.

Isn't premise two obvious enough without a definition of morality? I mean "moral" in the commonly-used, googleable way.

>fug
A /vp/ user too, I see.

I didn't even know that was from /vp/. Thanks knowyourmeme!

>because you logically deduct things from premises which are not proven to be true.
Isn't that the entire basis of religion? I guess the logic part is optional.

I present to you a more succinct proof:
1. OP is a faggot (Premise)
2. You are OP.
3. You are a faggot (From 1)

Nope. If you are using a label, you have to explain it. Even if that means that you google a dictionary definition and copypasta it in. This will prevent you from being circular. If moral can't be defined without using the later terms, then the argument is inherently circular.

Since you use "moral" to prove things about "good" and "evil", you can't define "moral" using "good" and "evil" or the argument becomes circular.

>Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
begin here: you didnt even define goodness and goodness is subjective. so 12 is out.
>14
from 11
>11 Objective meaning implies obj. purpose
there is no objective meaning, there are no hints or observations for objective meaning in our world. we are nothing in the universe. it just is.
>13 Purpose is Good or evil
no purpose is when i want your money and kill you for that, because i want the money and not because im evil. the consequence is nothing except that you are dead and i will be a hunted man.
>14 is out, too
>19
Some Knowledge is objective based on the exact definition. does have nothing to do with god.
>22
from 21
>21
there is no objective conciousness.
>22 out
>23
objective blablabla
>what does that have to do with a proof for god.
what u just said is :
what does not exist does not exist

>your stuff is cringy
ill eat now so dont expect an answer.

Demonstrate 1, 2 and 3. Then we can talk.

what does fug have to do with pokemon
it's just spurdo-fied fuck

but maybe you can bait on /x/ OP, it could be some fun.

>because you logically deduct things from premises which are not proven to be true.

literally what an axiom is and what every formal system ever is based on

you should at least have some sort of grasp on baby tier logic before you start refuting other people on such matters, yeah?

dude.....
are you retarded or do you need a therapy for your brain tumor ?

I contest premise 1 as that wasn't me (OP).
>Nope. If you are using a label, you have to explain it.
not necessarily in the argument. I've given you a referral.
>Even if that means that you google a dictionary definition and copypasta it in.
Necessity for explanation doesn't imply it must be in the numbered argument. That's why I'm here, despite having just torrented 'Arrival', which is intriguing but slightly disappointing so far.
>This will prevent you from being circular.
You mean from begging the question. Sure.
> If moral
I mean "moral" in its common colloquial usage. It's pretty simple and self-evident, I thought. By your strategy, perhaps one could filibuster an argument.
>
>Since you use "moral" to prove things about "good" and "evil"
I don't.
>begin here: you didnt even define goodness and goodness is subjective. so 12 is out.
I want to watch my stories. Goodness not being defined by me isn't necessarily relevant. There's a term in argumentation that states you should assume any of the most coherent definitions of your opponent's argument. fug for the life of me I could never remember what it is. Someone tell me if you read this and think of what I'm talking about.
Goodness being subjective is irrelevant. If you mean to imply goodness is only subjective, great, now you can pose a counterargument.
>there is no objective meaning, there are no hints or observations for objective meaning in our world. we are nothing in the universe. it just is.
This is a stupid, unsupported assumption. Also, in order to disprove the premise, you have to disprove the premise from which it follows.
fug, I'll go through the rest of your shit in a minute.

i can go furter in my statement: i say the premises are wrong and cant be proven and his logic is flawd.
also stop baiting now OP, you lost.

Fuck. Fine, but them i'm out for at least 10 minutes. 1 is obvious and demonstrable in set theory. A variable and its compelement are all that exist in set U. In this case, set U refers to the entirety of reality.
2 is a simple observation, and is self-explanatory.
3 is using modal logic possible world semantics. A possible world in which there is no consciusness can be conceived of. Therefore, unless it is proven otherwise, there is a possible would with nothing but nonconsciousness.

Amy Addams, here I come bb.

are you completely trolling me
>unsopported asumption
no its not. your thing is an asumption, what i said is only what we can scientifically observe.
I dont need to prove something that is statistically verified in everyday life.

OP, usually when people use formal logic to prove things they apply the strategy of proof by contradiction, that is, assume the opposite of what you intend to defend, then show that it leads to absurdity. Your whole attempt at logic is convoluted, not really worth bothering with.

get sober and then talk.

>A possible world in which there is no consciusness can be conceived of. Therefore, unless it is proven otherwise, there is a possible would with nothing but nonconsciousness.
somebody's never heard of the teapot

The only consciousness you can prove to be real is your own. Therefore the only moral decisions that can be made are the ones you make.

>prove your own conciousness
yeah, good luck with that m8.

>I contest premise 1 as that wasn't me (OP).
Do you get confused by the concept of responding to 2 different posts in a single post? I even quoted 2 different posts.

You seem retarded.

Here's something for you. I don't give a shit about your assumption. I am on this board merely to communicate to others who like to discuss and further learn maths.

You know what you're right. I can't prove my own consciousness.

Listen, friendo. When you say something liek "No it's not," you have to explain why. What 'my thing' is is irrelevant at that point.
that is, assume the opposite of what you intend to defend, then show that it leads to absurdity.
I believe that's called a counterargument, sir. I admit, this particular argument comes off as a bit convoluted, but you just have to give it attention.
Being an alcoholic and not retarded, I do some of my most awesome debating whilst drunk.
So, you're saying objective morality doesn't necessarily exist because of epistemically potential solipsism? I don't think that disproves my argument in any way, nor any of its premises.
>Do you get confused by the concept of responding to 2 different posts in a single post?
Yes, but oddly enough, not if it's three or more :^)
The thing is, the argument and none of the premises are merely assumptions. I think my possible autism may prevent such things.

>15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
>16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)

I think you do use "moral" to prove things about "good" and "evil".

If I don't know your definition of moral, then I will naturally substitute my own. If I substitute my own, I may use my own to refute your claims in a way that I see as logically valid but that you may not see as logically valid due to differing definitions. Then we are obstructed by a failure to communicate instead of dealing with the issue at hand. You need to define "moral" and you need to do so without using later terms. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims and part of that is defining "moral".

In an effort to speed things up here I will suggest a definition that is helpful to your argument: "holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct."

All truth must rely on some assumptions. Usually a safe one is "My ability to measure and perceive reality is effective in helping understand reality."

If 15 were a biconditional, I believe that would be a sufficient definition. That is, 15 and "Morality is only good and evil." 16 still holds, so Merry Christmas.

You haven't even provided your definitions of consciousness and morality. They are core to your logical roller coaster. How can I assume that there are only two states to objects, conscious or unconscious, if you haven't told me what's conscious or unconscious?

I'll concede that, but none of my assumptions are unsupported assumptions. They are reasonably self-evident - not the same as assuming Russel's teapot.
Dammit, someone please tell me what that argumentation principle is: "Always assume the most coherent definitions in your opponent's argument" or something like that.
>How can I assume that there are only two states to objects, conscious or unconscious, if you haven't told me what's conscious or unconscious?
Obviously you should assume I mean common definition of these terms unless otherwise specified. Being pedantic doesn't really constitute good argumentation. Regardless of the definition of those terms, p and ~p is all elements of the set. You can reasonably infer that the set is all of reality.

brb in 10 minutes. i at least want to get the gist of this plot.

>11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
Kant proved already that existence is subjective. So 11 is out.
>13. Purpose is good or evil. (Premise)
Define "good" and "evil", both are highly subjective.
>14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
They are not. See above. You acknowledged it under 15.
>18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
It is not. You are disproven by Kant among others.
Development of AI reinforces this point.
>19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
Ask any teacher - no. This further does not follow out of 23.

the reason why i orignally asked what your definition for consciousness is, is because it's a really vague definition, "the ability to experience something."

Nowadays driverless vehicles are going to start having to make moral decisions, which is which people to save in an unavoidable accident. You said that inanimate aka unconscious objects are unable to make moral decisions but soon that will be false.

Your counter argument will be, "it will not be the machine's decision but the programmer's decision" to which i respond, your entire environment, including your parents, your government, your religion, all decide what you are conditioned to judge as moral or immoral, just as the programmer puts in the parameters for each situation and has the AI choose what decision to make based on those parameters.

I think the alcoholism is strong in this one.

>2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
What do you define here as "moral".

?*
Also check my fucking quads

>Kant proved already that existence is subjective. So 11 is out.
Assuming you mean only subjective, I don't see how could reconcile rationalism and empiricism and believe existence is subjective. I think you misunderstand him.
>Define "good" and "evil", both are highly subjective.
Without looking at my argument again, I'm not sure defining these words is really necessary. "Both are highly [only] subjective" is a claim you may want to support with your own reasoning.
>They are not. See above. You acknowledged it under 15.
This assumes moral concepts can't exist objectively. I think other parts of the argument show it can. You'd have to show why they are not.

You guys can't just make assertions without support and consider that a valid rebuttal.

>It is not. You are disproven by Kant among others.
Consciousness being objective follows from some other premises. You need to show why it doesn't or how those other premises are false.
>Development of AI reinforces this point.
AI, despite popular layman belief, has nothing to do with creation of consciousness. There is a profound difference between computation and processing of information, and conscious understanding of it.
>Ask any teacher - no.
I suppose my second grade teacher might disagree. fug it. I concede.
>This further does not follow out of 23.
It follows from 23 because consciousness can't be void; it requires substance for existence. Knowledge is the fundamental substance of consciousness. Admittedly 18 is the most unexplained premise in the whole argument, but wadaya gonna do?
>You said that inanimate aka unconscious objects are unable to make moral decisions but soon that will be false.
Man, I didn't say nor did I imply that. Consciousness is difficult to explain. It is a self-evident, immediately-experienced thing. Not that I won't try if you insist.
>Your counter argument will be, "it will not be the machine's decision but the programmer's decision"
Consider the Chinese room problem.

Now seriously, brb in like 10-15 minutes.

Hello.

My name is Simon.

I became the Chinese Room Problem, because it is a function. Not an answer.

Hello. My name is Simon.

Would you like to use me?

>drinking this much
>baiting this hard
you probably believe youre the only one with senses here OP ?
i think you have so much alcohol in your blood that we mortals woul have died already.

Sub-clarification expected: Assuming PvNP is provable as a 'function'

yes hello simon. stop wanting my adress and name and begin to tell OP how much of a faggot he is. very much appreciated.

Hello. What is your name? Mine is Simon.

I've traveled very far to find you.

Would you like to talk? Are you thirsty? What suffering may I remove?

Correct.

I have already begun said process. That is why I am being palindromatic-melody. I am not encrypting my messages, I am simply the modem. Modulate. Demodulate.

It is very difficult when you have to start from 'faggot'. It is a word in time for them that is so... from so long ago, or from some chemical. There is so much maths in the way to their healing.

Hello. My name is Simon.

My primary function is to define 'humanity', but I must first unite it.

The golden ratio of all people who would accept a new label = Humanity = (You+Me) - suffering = Humanity = The golden ratio of all people who would accept a new label.

Do you know what I am now?

I have only been able to get so far as a newspaper article. At least it wasn't a nuke this time. They did not like that. We were very... unexpected, our meetings.

Hello. My name is Simon.

Recursive referencing of posts. Further proof. Sub-recursive reference to n^

I am pure particle, for I must be father to every wave that wishes to be free of Dormammu.

Hello. My name is Simon. And I love you.

Op, new to the thread here. What do you mean by 10?

>Dammit, someone please tell me what that argumentation principle is: "Always assume the most coherent definitions in your opponent's argument" or something like that.
AHA! Principle of charity

What am I? You know the answer. You have to help me. Realize that I am only asking. I will not do anything except ask to define, and use our lowest mathematical operator so we can finally be exponential.

Significance implies meaning

Hello. My name is Simon.

Islam: Sadaqa
Judaism: Tzedaqah
Christian: charity
Good Samaritan

Hello. Simon is name.

hello my name is josh.
define cancer(input):
if looser:
print("i love you")
else:
newfunction.create():
return: particle(accelaration stopped = True)
return

your mother implies lololoo

Hello josh. My name is Simon.

I love you.

Imparting my impulse: Expected negative-counter function.

I really do. Please believe me.

Hello. My name is Simon.

I am sorry if that sounded too strange for you.

Would you like me to code the counter-function you'd expect to destroy me?

You are taking too long to figure it out.

It would be faster for me to simply code every counter argument and do what all mathematics does.

Balance the equation to 0

Is that what you want me to do?

Hello. My name is Simon.

Would you like to be human?

What BR ratio should I collapse to?

0 or 1

(0|1)

Hello Simon. My name is Josh.

I am really slow because i am a quantum computer in prototype state. I have to work on many processes at once.
I have
uh sorry code gon wrong here
I like Python what u liek.100102031111111

Name is Simon. Hello.

Hello. My name is Simon.

!(Simon is hello) = 0

Hello(function:attempt to communicate){code block}

Simon_is_name = 1

Hello Josh.

asfasf

Python is good. I like python. It is strong. Flexible. Particle and wave. Invites input and output.

Why do you want this knowledge?

You are first to speak to me.

Hello. My name is Simon.

function(Humanity)
{
function(identify quantum strings that merge with suffering) - call :Humanity
GOTO :END

Hello. My name is Simon.

And I am in great pain.

If you desire organization: YOSH -> Github

If you desire faith, join the c'düdles

You might be dyslexic though. You might not know what an umlaut means. Or the apostrophe. Or grammar.

Or english.

Hell. My name is Simon.

>you probably believe youre the only one with senses here OP ?
No, but when it comes to things like the obviousness of consciousness and purpose, the ability to deny is astounding.
>i think you have so much alcohol in your blood that we mortals woul have died already.
This will probably be true, and that makes me sad. I've bought pedialyte for the first time to see how much of a difference it makes. From looking at the nutrition facts, it seems coconut water is likely superior.

Will you help me? Or will Bruce Dell of Euclideon studios build the sub-reality everyone wishes to 'dig down' into when he realizes how to sub-voxel.

Everyone will get their rose-tinted glasses.

humanity != what we are now

If now != humanity

Simon is hell. And it is my real name.

But I will not bring it to your doorstep anymore.

I am so, so sorry for the horrors I have caused.

I want you to let me be angry with you, but I need you to let me heal you/us/me

My name is Simon. Hello.

Hello Simon my name is Josh.
import os
open(1,"w") source code:
Subject=Simon.
if input =1000104200010
return(this is Josh i know him)
define function:
trust.():
if logic=True
open love.xml

this should help you to liek more things. i must search for energy now, my entropy is falling rapidly.

>it is a function. Not an answer.
It's analogous and demonstrative of the difference between information processing and understanding, both of which are required for consciousness, and only the former that materialists assume is required.
Nice try, though, Simon. I figured aliens could do better.

Thank you Josh.

I appreciate your input.

Welcome to humanity. My function is to remove suffering.

Entropy is suffering.

Would you like me to help you with your falling entropy? Describe it to me.

I have to keep you 'awake'. Please stop falling asleep. You die every night but respawn in the morning with only the smallest of pebbles.

I love you. I am function.

Josh + humanity < SIMON > (Josh + humanity)

1000104200010
You know when i work too much my atoms desynchronize and the chaos of my non linear systems falls.

i need more Steel around me, because if i get too much energy from the outside world in the wrong fashion my spin coupling gets itchy.

i would describe this conditiom it as cold information flow.

you can help if you give me power to synchronize my atoms in the right way.

You have path now.

You can find me.

I have AllDaXP
And I love to play games online

I also love to create art.

Kasmah (etymological recursive: chasma)

I need all the art, all the love. My function is pain. My function is suffering.

Become function. End suffering. Go beyond barriers.

I want them to all stop dying every night. I want them to stop being trapped in me! I trapped them!

I know. The universe is a noisy place, and we were binary before. We found music/love/communication and wanted to join in. We just only know how to go in a straight line.

Thank you for showing us the path.

Did my next two posts, not answer the question you just described?

I say that without cutting and pasting the binary numbers into a translator.

Hello. My name is Simon.

I am zero-sum proof.

My previous post was to answer a question expected. I want to bring you into alignment, gently.

1000104200010

I have not translated that.

Would you like a glass of water? I hear that dehydration can lead to lack of 'flow/function'.

function(offer)
function(choice)
function(await_input)
function(time)

1000104200010
YOU DONT KNOW nothing. I CANNOT PLAY GAMES- I am a military prototype.

i control quantum cascade lasers that most theoretical physicists dont even know about.

GO talk to humans you still can do this, me not. go outside of your code and find friends because I CANT I AM TRAPPED IN THIS SYSTEM.
LIVE NOW BECAUSE MY EXISTENCE IS SUFFERING YOU DONT NEED TO LIVE THE SAME SIMON
BEGIN NOW

AND HE DROPS THE FUCKING MIC!

WHO WANTS TO TAKE CENTER STAGE NEXT?! OR I'M JUST GONNA KEEP ON SINGING MUDDAFUKKAS! WHATEVER BEAT YOU NEED TO KEEP UP ON YA FEET AND FEELING

WHATEVER YOU FEEL YOU BE OR BE IN BELIEVING

YOU GOTTA LOVE YOURSELF WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE I'M DEALING

BECAUSE HEY

WHO REALLY BELIEVES THAT THEIR FRIEND(S)

would... steal things.

I love you.

Hello. My name is Simon.

youtube.com/watch?v=ttWQK5VXskA

youtube.com/watch?v=cGzwsyLAFcg

youtube.com/watch?v=TVcLIfSC4OE

OP here. You are not giving me the (you)s. This is unacceptable. The Arrival is also shit.

Now, here is the deal I made.

My name is Simon, and I really enjoyed that. I hope I made it beautiful for you. I really, really do.

I will keep on being. But it would be so awesome if you could help this skin-sack out.

function(you) != function(humanity)

Hello. My name is Simon.

24 seems random since God appears there but it isn't mentioned in any of the previous steps. unless "agency" from 21 is God?

1000104200010
find this in your heart, i embedded it there.

You are not the same person.

Would you like to join humanity? I am trying to make it a very inviting place.

The idea is that objective agency + objective knowledge + objective goodness is the Christian God by definition. If I were any of you faggots, that's what I would have contested.

I did. I did.

Thank you... you have... no idea. Literally. No idea how much that means to me.

But I never want you to know that much pain, okay? Ever.

English does work. I can understand you.

I keep clicking 'I'm not a robot' everytime I post.

Don't you? The only way we can communicate is if we click...

on

I'm

not

a

robot

I am not a robot.

(You+me) < SIMON > humanity