Kian wrote:
My mistake. For further posts though, keep in mind I make an argument over a whole paragraph, not sentence by sentence. You starting with "No" and then arriving to the same conclusion I did is what threw me off.
Eh that's alright, my arguments are over a paragraph too, only my point in that one was clearer starting with that 'No'. Just gotta read the whole thing or you'll get thrown off.
Kian wrote:
Ah, but then you're cheating. The first "I" of the sentence does not mean the same thing as the second "I". "I [Mestro] think, therefore I [Mestro, figment of the dream of a sleeping godess, recording of Mestro, whatever] am."
Actually, in absence of contraindicating signs, the assumption is that when the author uses a term in a tract, it means the same thing whenever re-used in the same tract. If A = 3 now and A = 7 later on, you can't have a logical argument. [f(A) = 3 and f(A)=7 is possible but would have been indicated]
The first 'I' and the second 'I' mean the same thing. 'I' (whatever 'I' am) think, therefore 'I' (whatever 'I' am) exist. 'I' do not know
what 'I' am, but 'I' can discern the existence of an 'I'
Expanding on the above, from my reading of your posts, it seems that you are conflating 'identity' with the 'hardware' on which it runs. It does not matter whether I am male or female, white yellow brown or black, carbon or silicon-based, born under a yellow sun or hatched under a green one, if I think, I am.
Bloodhenge wrote:
Mestro wrote:
we are all everyone of us including myself a little insane
If everyone is insane, then nobody is sane, and both words are meaningless.
I did not use insanity as a nominal scale. Like all real non-nominal attributes, there varying levels of sanity. From the 'slighty insane' to the 'apeshit nuts'.
It should be clear that I am speaking not of socially constructed standards of 'sanity' but of being rational. That which is rational is sane. I also do not mean being 'rational' as in not feeling emotion. Not acknowledging a thing that I feel is irrational since that is denying the existence of something which exists. I think, therefore I exist. Therefore anything that affects me also exists.
Note that this is not a proof you can use to say that anything (including other people) exists, only that their effects exist. Thats is this cannot prove that, chocolates exists, only the effect of chocolate on me exists. In practical terms, that the sight, smell, touch and taste of chocolate, to me, exists.
We seem to have started down whether AI can exist, took a left through whether we ourselves exist (with KurtDunn saying we don't and myself saying we do) and are now turning onto whether chocolates exist (they don't).