this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
13 points (100.0% liked)
SneerClub
989 readers
3 users here now
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The 100% mathematical PROVABLY_CORRECT proof of existence of the supernatural is at least funny.
It fails to prove dualism, which it then calls the supernatural for no adequately explained reason:
Would a 5-lb-brain hominid bring new things under the sun ? How about a 15-ton-brain corvid ? How about an acausal robot god wrought from all the ditherings found across the net ? If it is still so why are you so concerned with phrenology ?
So far so good, not too contentious, you need consciousness to be deceived, though I will note that it doesn't prove consciousness, only use definitions tautologically.
No ? Not necessarily, that's overly egocentric. What about the Id ? What about collective consciousness ?
A bit contentious, and not a very rigorous definition.
Qualia != Perceptions, but this is not the worst sin in this "proof".
Does a perceiver without a body even exist ? I'm not really a monist myself, but this is clearly a leap.
Again does it exist untethered from the material ?
Hum no ? At best preternatural, and even then if you think the natural world follows Dualism, then the spiritual is still natural. I mean yes this arguing about definitions, but by god is this silly.
QED.