I get depressed .....

I get depressed ..... Jan 5, 2018 2:53:54 GMT goz likes this

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Jan 5, 2018 2:53:54 GMT

^tpfkar

Jan 5, 2018 2:41:42 GMT @miccee said:

Jan 5, 2018 1:44:34 GMT cupcakes said:

No, that's your standard dishonest presentation. The actual flow was:

mic: "There's nothing intrinsically positive about life, and the universe has no need for it."

And whilst I couldn't stop life, it's conceivable that a very powerful AI in the future could terminate life on this planet, if it was programmed to make decisions based on unadulterated pure logic and act in the best interests of the living inhabitants of the world."

goz: "That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently. The fight for survival is the most positive of all instincts from low order organisms to humans. You do talk such rot! Just like the accident of life, if an accident of nature ( ile an asteroid) kills life off, then so be it. The great lottery of the universe is just that, even though the laws of physics rule and things collide all the time let alone AI which at the moment is just science fiction. Human would be so stupid to develop an AI that is dangerous to their welfare."

Addressing the whole of your of your garbage doesn't mean she was assenting to your repeated pleads of "intrinsically positive about life", whatever it is you're trying to suggest with it.

Re: having babies w/o first getting their express permission to be born:
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."

Its entirely obvious that 'intrinsically positive' was the part being addressed by 'That is your biased opinion, to which evolution and natural selection say differently'. That quote would have no bearing on the rest of the post, which merely consisted of a hypothetical scenario of ai ending sentient life (therefore evolution and natural selection have no bearing on such a scenario). Flagrantly dishonest backtracking on your part. You are also implying that sentient life is intrinsically positive when you state that non existent people are in a worse position than existing people, even though there is no cognitive mechanism to appreciate that there is any choice being missed out on.

It's entirely obvious that "intrinsically positive", whatever it's supposed to mean, is your attempt to get somebody to say something that you try to work. "Positive" is subjective in all cases so your entire presentation was/is nonsensical even before meanderings into other peoples' conjectures and thought experiments about wwad.

Life is good == human value. You're the one who goes on and on about nonexistent being wronged (objectively!), and once you go there, then we can also project backwards from the existent based on actual evidence of wants, whether you like it or not that it highlights the utter ludicrousness of your "arguments". Nobody but you keep trying to push that "the nonexistent" are anything of any kind.

Neuroscience and Free Will Are Rethinking Their Divorce