zurew

Thats all nonsense. Why would a "formula" has to work with all numbers - Which math axiom implies that? You are also wrong about the formula not working with other numbers than √2, it works with 0 and with -1*√2 as well , but I don't think any of this is in any way relevant to math being consistent or inconsistent.

Do you still maintain the position that Bernardo seem to hold about AI, that AI cannot ever become conscious? If so, how would you respond to Vervaeke about the idea of AI sages (AI actually becoming conscious and even wise at some point)?

At 39:23 he claims he is working with a doctor who can cure cancer and AIDS. This video was 6 years ago. Again radical claims (right now not about physics, but radical medical claims) but 0 evidence

Radical openmindedness entails accepting the possibility of being wrong and that goes both ways, so that doesnt get you anywhere, absent of evidence. How many of the radically open minded folks could stomach being wrong ? Do you think Howard is open to the possibility of being wrong? This is also strange: Why is it, that people are needed for him to lay down his arguments and evidence? Can't his arguments and evidence stand on their own feet?

There are arguably infinite different ways to give an explanation for a certain phenomena or for the laws, so any of those could be "genuinely explored", but because we have finite time and resources we need to choose which one to explore and which one is worthy to explore. That "worthiness" part is on the challenger to establish. That wouldn't follow from that. He would first needs to establish why would his model be impossible under the current mainstream theories of science

bunch of ways to do that I have already given one straightforward way:

Calling him names doesnt establish that his ideas are wrong, but it does reinforce a social/institutional standard, where you first needs to establish that you know what you are talking about (again, by for example steelmanning the theories you try to challenge), before you are given time and attention by highly educated people

No he is mad, becuase a bunch of stupid people take what Howard says for granted without any critical thought, just because they are idologically aligned. Howard is too closed minded towards mainstream science. He needs to establish first, that he knows what he is talking about and that social or institutional standard is good imo (there are just so much stupid lunatics who can waste researchers and professors time who could spend their time on much important stuff). He could have easily established that he knows what he is talking about , if he would have started with the steelmanning of the scientific positions that he tries to challenge right now. Imagine him being able to give a detailed rundown of certain scientific theories and the implications of such theories and then only after that would have given his challenge for them.

Thats not what is happening though. That can only happen if people could engage with and explore ideas in a responsible manner, but thats not the case. Whats happening is that he has a constellation of anti-establishment beliefs about a bunch of things and his anti-establishment fans take what he says for granted and easily get misinformed by him. "hmm, he says government and institutions bad, therefore his other ideas about science stuff must be right as well" The idea that any of his fans that are already very persuaded by his ideas (without any evidence) will somehow change their minds once counter-evidence or counter arguments are established by scientist is just foolishness. The vast majority of the flat earthers stay being flat earthers even after they are being shown in a very precise detail, why they are wrong. He is being dismissed because he is a horrible reasoner with the combination of being a narcissist. Even if his conclusion about something will turn out to be right in the future , he shouldnt get any credit for it, because the reasoning that he uses to get there is very bad. Its like you have a hate bias against your uncle and a crime happens at your house while your uncle is there. Lets say there is 5 logically possible explanation on the table and you immediately assume that your uncle commited the crime even though you literally have no evidence or agument for it. After years of investigation by the police they conclude that your uncle did indeed commit that crime, but they can show evidence for it. - Would you say that you should take credit for being right from the get-go?

Kastrup coming with a banger tweet related to Terrence Howard

I think this is a bad move from him, because this implicitly greenlights and reassures the social dynamic where there is literally no basic quality standard that you need to follow in order for your theory or objection to get platformed or taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think you are an actual genius, it should be no problem to formulate your criticism or theory in a coherent way, where scientist can actually engage with it in a non-vague manner. Like wtf are we talking about here? - Rambling about Annunaki in a fucking paper where you try to demonstrate some math proof or flaw? 😂 Like, seriously?

This guy says 1x1=2 , which would violate some of the fundamental math axioms (some math nerd on this forum probably can specifically spell out which axioms are violated and they can probably break down the logical entailments that would follow from such violation(s)) Aside from that, he comes off as a narcissistic schizo who has a habit of centering the discussions around his intelligence rather than focusing on the theory that he wants to present/prove. Here is his more extensive "proof" https://x.com/terrencehoward/status/925754491881877507

You guys dodged this question

Would you say the exact same thing regarding disclosing your dicksize or regarding disclosing any kind of genital surgery (including foreskin) or any kind of skin problem around the genitals?

Last time I checked , If I remember correctly, I think I was. Why? Edit: no, last time (2 years ago) I got INFJ-T on the test)

That could counterintuitively mean that it is lacking semantic nuance. Maybe given the words that you used in the context that you used them in , maybe it can be interpreted in 5 different ways and immediately jumping in with one of those interpretation without asking for further clarification could mean different things. So for example it could mean 1) that it consciously choose the right or most likely one between all the possible interpretations or 2) it could mean that it just wasn't aware of any other possible interpretation because it couldn't see how much semantic nuance is there.

Are we talking about a test where the human in question can study the things that you will ask about beforehand and can use google at the time when you ask your questions?

Regarding generating new perspectives - could the AI that you used generate different perspectives while maintining the same set of facts? So lets say there are 10 facts and you want to explain those 10 facts using 4 different perspectives. Can the AI do that in a way where it includes all the 10 facts in each of those 4 perspectives? (so you have set X that stands for 10 facts. Perspective 1 includes set X , Perspective 2 includes set X etc, the only thing that differentiates the perspectives is the explanation)

This argument only works if we don't dive deeper in to the semantics about what we mean by "trusting yourself". Of course we need to take for granted a set of things to even begin epistemology, but all of those things are granted in the case of AI as well. The difference is that, there are tests that can be run on a human and on AI and that can give a picture about the differences (for example being wrong about facts)

Kind of goes back to what the good old Jordan Peterson said. Paraphrasing - You not being able to cause direct harm does not make you moral

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

Okay, so that case you have a definition where literally every being is selfish which makes it kind of meaningless and makes it lose its power.

You can label that selfish if you want, but that seems weird, cause again some of these preferences or moral inuitions are not choosen and you can't really overwrite them. The term selfish implies some conscious, deliberate action in this context, it would imply the choosing of all your moral axioms. But regardless, the argument im making is compatible with you labeling the moral axioms or moral intuitions as selfish. The argument only states that we do have those underlying axioms and some of those are shared between us and they can be discorvered upon self reflection and some actions have a direct consequence that would contradict some of those axioms (and you can become aware of them) and we are talking about actions that you have the choice not to do.

Its axiomatic, there is no justification for it. You don't know whether that is or is not the case. But even if you can show that is the case, after that you would need to show how that is a necessary contradiction according to my moral axioms. Would me not buying those clothes necessarily reduce slave labour if so show me that and show me what the direct consequences of reducing slave labour. Btw, none of this gets you to justify your position - even if you could point out an inconsistency , that still wont get you where you want to get.

We can use the term "moral intuition" then if you have a preference for that We can add more to the subjetivist moral language set if you want - to be able to express things with more nuance, but it doesn't really change the underlying point that is made.