Collective consensus is an authority. (i.e. "group"). Think of it in elementary logic ways. An argument is fallacious no matter how many people agree or think it's true.

1 million people believing the Earth is flat doesn't change the fact, and it's absolutely no different than just 1 person (the big boss) believing it. Both appeals are the same.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily right btw. Just your arguments are not a way to argue because you bring fallacies in the mix.

I mean, just because 1 million people say the Earth is flat, that doesn't make it round necessarily. However, if you argue with someone who thinks it's round and uses arguments, resorting to consensus means nothing to that discussion and is fallacious.

Obviously from me, yes. Even if that changes society norms.

History taught us, it can only change for the better.

For now, the answer is no; a century later, the answer may be yes.

If you read my story with ZONG, then he said the same thing in 1500. So basically you imply he is innocent and did the right thing, considering his era, since you're doing the same thing.

Personally, I find it disgusting, it's like excusing their behavior "back then" (even if unacceptable today). But no matter what the era, such behavior is inexcusable to me.

Discrimination is absolute. No matter the era.

This is exactly what I meant with "you believe discrimination was necessary for human evolution; a necessary step for society evolution that had to be passed".

Given that you keep using unconventional "logic", it is truly shocking to learn that you accused me of committing a logical fallacy. Anyway.

In fact, I would accept your "time machine" argument because in that case you had actually been to the future and thus you are perfectly capable of presenting a "superior" definition to the people living in the present world.

Now, please tell me, without a time machine, how can anyone know that his/her definition is superior and sustainable for the future?

See, you have committed a logical fallacy but you do not want to admit it.

Did I even say that you were wrong?

I said that you were arrogant!

Sorry, your fictional story about "ZONG versus Murs" is too long; I did not bother to read.

Why don't you just tell me the moral of the story?

That's "long"? No hope for you I guess.

Moral in few words: everyone thinks, given his current situation, that his current social norms, current era, current everything, is "better" than the one in the past and that it is the "best" available. This is a natural bias -- it's only people who stubbornly insist on it that are wrong.

For example, the idea that blacks deserve human rights is not new, it's been around for at least a century. Yet, they've suffered far more after it was already "known" simply because of people like you who resist and are stubborn to change society. Such "radical ideas" of giving black people rights are bad, after all, wait at least 50 to 100 years! That was such a good step in human evolution.

You, yourself, said "maybe in the future". Well, people 100 years ago also said "maybe in the future" in respect to black rights. And yes, it did happen in the future today, but that was way too slow for my liking and those people were wrong and sicken me, it is absurd to defend them. There was far more suffering than needed.

I guess we must suffer because in every era there's people like you who resist obvious good change clinging to their stupid society and appealing to their current authority because they think their "current society" is infallible and answer to everything no matter how much more logical it is.

Not surprised if AIs/transhumans (it's on topic since I'm talking about *discrimination*) start off with the wrong foot like black people did, even if people like me give logical ideas, others will be stubborn and will label us as "radical" and they hold the power unfortunately, and we'll have at least 10 years of suffering because "that's in the future" or other total nonsense (10 years assuming exponential growth). Why can't it be instantly changed in the present to avoid such needless drama? FFS.

No, discrimination was never required for human evolution and never will be. No matter how stubborn idiots in power say otherwise.

However, if AIs wipe us out due to it, it's all for the better. Humans never learn from history. They deserve it in this regard: they don't learn from history and are bound to repeat the same mistakes of discrimination. Such a species will never evolve, there's no point in letting it only cause suffering. I'm sick of pointless suffering due to blockheads clinging to their shitty society norms when it is obviously wrong and causes suffering (like with black people in the past).

All discrimination is equal.

You're right. There is no hope for me. The new academic year has just started, and I am still wasting time to rebut your silly arguments. I have better things to do.

Absolutely wrong!

Have you ever heard of the phrase "the good old days"? (I thought that your English was quite good; maybe my assessment was overoptimistic. Anyway.) Refer to:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/good-old-days

Such a phrase is regularly spoken by the middle-aged and senior citizens. Why?

We were discussing how anyone would know that his/her definition was better or "superior".

I have already pointed out that it is impossible unless someone actually has a time machine.

My mention of "maybe in the future" simply means that people may come up with something better or "superior" in the future, which may or may not actually happen.

Back to the topic.

The Race to Quantum AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTfWSXn6Jm4

Classic case of bias and you don't even realize it. I'm sure a very old black man will think his childhood was "good old days" right? (now, apart from nostalgia, I mean it in a serious manner)

It's simple. If it applies and works for more situations, even if hypothetical, then it's better and has to be accepted as soon as possible; the sooner, the better. It's not like it makes existing situations worse (self-aware AIs don't exist anyway, so it can't) so what's the hold up? The more situations it applies to and solves without any issues, the better the definition is.

No, we don't have to "wait and see", we can "think and see" about it, that's the ENTIRE POINT of logical thinking/argumentation. Imagining about it. Think about people like Einstein realizing the potential future of nukes way before the first one was even tested. What kind of nonsense is it to wait until it actually happens? That's so backwards.

Waiting for it to happen and then deciding doesn't even require brain or critical thinking or any argumentation. Even monkeys can "see" what happens and act on it (monkey see, monkey do). Instead, visualizing how it would be is one of the strengths of intelligence and logic.

Strangely enough, that's exactly what you're doing here, with your arguments about AI being dangerous. But I'm already well aware you shift subjects and only appease to logic when it's convenient for you.

Think I'm talking nonsense? Ok then. You want to "wait and see" before we give AIs human rights? Then you wait and see before even labeling them as potentially dangerous.

Follow your own logic, don't be a hypocrite or have double standards. Don't like it? Why should I like it then? Please.

And I know your response will be something like "it will be too late if we wait and see what happens" as they'll exterminate us etc...

Well guess what? It will be too late if even ONE AI is discriminated against before deciding we need to give them human rights (if that scenario happens). Get it? It's too late to me at that point. This is as bad as the human race being exterminated in my viewpoint, because the reason for it is... human stubborness and unwillingness to learn from history. Fuck pointless suffering and stubborn people in power.

What? You don't need to see it in practice to realize it's better. That's the entire point of logic and argumentation.

What is the point of "thinking" about stuff if you want it handed to you on a silver platter "in practice"? Whole point of arguments are to convince people with sound logic, not with facts, because anyone respectable doesn't need to be CONVINCED of facts (i.e. situation in practice). Facts must be accepted, not convinced of (unless said person is an extremist or ignorant).

First, look at your own words:

"everyone thinks, given his current situation, that his current social norms, current era, current everything, is "better" than the one in the past ..."

Obviously, your statement is untrue. So, I told you why:

Many people, especially the middle-aged and senior citizens, think that in many aspects, their lives in the past were better, evident by the fact that those people say the phrase "in the good old days" regularly. It is not about "childhood versus adulthood"; it is about the general changes in their ways of lives. Despite technological advancement, most of those people still prefer their "older" ways of lives.

And then you just called it "the classical case of bias"! Sigh!

We were talking about how anyone would know whether a definition was "superior" and sustainable for the future.

First, the fact that "a definition can be applied to more situations" does not necessarily make it a "better" choice. At times, we may need a narrower/finer definition; it just depends on the situation.

Second, how would you know that your "broader" definition would be sustainable for the future? Could it be possible that the future generations want something more specific?

At the end of the day, how would you know that your definition is "superior"? It is nothing more than your GUESS! Sigh!

Really? We should take your word for it, right? What happens to your stance on "the importance of scientific methods"?! Sigh!



When I challenge your radical definitions of things, you argue that I am "appealing to authority".

When I point out your oversimplification or overgeneralization of things, you argue that my example is "biased".

When I identify your logical fallacy, you simply ignore it.

What's the point of discussing any issues with you if you keep arguing like that?

But that's wrong. Why do I have to repeat myself? Ask a very old black guy if his childhood was better when his rights were almost non-existent. "Good old days" is nostalgia only. And besides, it is the same era anyway, stop nitpicking on pointless stuff.

Such as? There's no definition or theory in science that ever uses a "narrower" definition if the better definition contains more cases. Sure sometimes you use a simplification but that's only because you are comfortable with it as an approximation or whatever. So you're wrong.

And a simplification means that the result is the same except it is less accurate. AIs not having rights is most definitely not the same outcome, not even close.

I don't know? But nobody is forbidden from improving on it.

The question is stupid because if they are to improve on it, then clearly it makes no damn sense to even consider the possibility WITHOUT it in the first place. If a better definition will be available (and there surely will be, especially considering aliens), then what sense does it make to not even bother with a former improvement? It's like asking to jump from elementary math to general relativity. Science builds gradually.

Your entire argument is "X is not perfect even though it's better than current definition, therefore let's not bother with X", are you serious right now? Science builds upon successive improvements, you will never have a perfect theory describing something perfectly, and that's fine, but if you don't successively improve it then you'll NEVER arrive at a better theory or definition.

Or think for yourself. Not that hard.

The definition doesn't even say how AIs will act, only IF. It's a very simple scientifical checklist that anyone can verify. i.e. if AIs possess all qualities of a human, they deserve at least human rights.

It doesn't fucking matter how society is, this is a universal norm. It doesn't require a society in the first place and applies, equally, to anything you can possibly encounter so far in the entire fucking Universe. Rights are given based on QUALITIES of an entity, no matter what they are. Anything else is discrimination, because that's the exact definition of discrimination (i.e. treat something for what it is, rather than what it does).

Look at your own words again:

"everyone thinks, given his current situation, that his current social norms, current era, current everything, is "better" than the one in the past ..."

Do you have any verifiable evidence to show that everyone thinks so?

As I pointed out, many people do NOT think so. PERIOD!

According to Furs, I am always wrong; I should not be surprised by such a remark any more.


First, even the definition of "science" itself can take a "narrow" or "broad" approach. Refer to:

Narrow Science and Broad Science
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~jacksmi/content/narrow_and_broad_science.html


Second, contrary to what you said, narrow and broad definitions of things are commonly found and used in science. Very often, in elementary studies, we use "narrow" definitions of things whereas in advanced studies, we use "broad" definition of things.

Example: What Are Enzymes?

In elementary studies, we use a narrow -- or very precise -- definition:

"Enzymes are proteins that act as catalysts within living cells."

Refer to:

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-are-enzymes-definition-lesson-quiz.html

In advanced studies, we use a broad -- or more general -- definition:

"Enzymes are macromolecular biological catalysts."

Refer to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme


In fact, this example also tells us why a definition needs to be changed over time.

In the past, biologists believed that ALL enzymes were protein-based.

A "recent" discovery shows that non-protein molecules, such as RNA, can act as enzymes. Refer to:

Ribozyme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme


If you are not good at a topic, don't pretend that you are an expert on it!

Sure. Just don't claim that your definition is "superior" if you have no verifiable evidence to support your claim!

Yes, I do.

My conclusion is that I should never take your word for it. PERIOD.

Robot replacement therapy for companies.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-09-04

Perhaps sometimes replacing staff with robots is a good thing.

I've seen plenty of workers like Wally. Some countries make it hard to get rid of them. Some countries make it easy.

era = lifetime. Show me one single person who talks about the good old days BEFORE HE WAS BORN. Stop grasping at straws, it's pathetic. Two people, born in different eras, will both think their time was the best or "good old days".

And obviously "everyone" was an exaggeration. There's people like me who don't, that's a given, stop trying so hard to nitpick on my choice of english. You know this since I clearly don't think that way, thus "everyone" excludes at least 1 person (i.e. me), so if you can do 1+1, it's obvious it was meant as an exaggeration -- "majority" would be better suited here.

Your linked article is discredited for the simple reason it uses this phrase: That, by definition, rules it out being any sort of hard science.

Science has become a tool for morons to appear as though their shitty viewpoints are better than religion and now we have "non-hard sciences" and "social sciences" which are not science at all since they're fully based on opinion. If it doesn't use the scientific method, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It is no different than religion.

No, slapping the word "science" on something doesn't make it more credible or more special than religion. If it doesn't use the scientific method, it's not science, and I don't care what the "norm" is. I don't want to argue over the english word science, I argue about science as a concept. Which implies zero opinion, or human experience, or whatever.

I'm not going to address about the definition changing over time, since you're clearly ignorant and I answered it at least 3 times already.

Who in their right mind would accept a weaker definition KNOWINGLY? The fact is, definitions in science change over time as we improve them, not because scientists WANT to use an old definition DESPITE KNOWING a better one. Scientists don't accept weaker definitions ON PURPOSE like YOU want to, so stop comparing them with your stupid idea of "waiting it out" to see how it plays out.

You know what else science does? Simulations. Yeah, you don't fucking have to "wait" to see what happens, you can imagine it or simulate it.

I gave you a checklist to verify. What more verification do you want? It applies in more situations without harming the others, so thus, there's no reason to not use it, considering it's superior.

If a scientific theory describes gravity perfectly and another describes gravity AND quantum phenomena perfectly, then the latter is obviously superior since it applies to more cases and there's no reason to not use it, unless the outcome is the same (i.e. you're only concerned about gravity), in which case it serves as a simplification.

But, and I've already said this!!! This is NOT the case here since such "simplification" does NOT result in the same outcome -> discrimination will happen. Thus this is NOT a simplification since it does not have the same outcome.

Stop using generic cop-outs when you clearly don't read and STOP LINKING STUFF when you don't even read my posts. Fucking pisses me off since you expect me to read your stuff but you clearly babble non stop and reiterate your fixed viewpoint over and over again no matter what I say.

You made up your mind, I know it already, but at least have courtesy not to repeat something when I already addressed it and then shove some cherry-picked links. Yes, it's annoying.

Unlike you, I don't want anyone to take my word for it. But if you're incapable of doing a simple checklist, then I guess it would be the only way. Not like I care.

Only thing that pisses me off is that you are an atheist and consider yourself superior (in arguments) to religious people (i.e. their viewpoint is wrong), when you appeal to social norms / culture and other human-defined crap, which is no different, at all (that's the problem). I mean religion even was considered part of social norms once (in fact not even separated from the state) so by definition you cherry pick only what you want but the problem is you consider your viewpoint as superior to the rest (I mean in respect to this, not science). And that's what's stupid. It's either all or nothing, there's no middle ground when talking hard science. For example, that crap called scientology is not, in any way, shape or form, more science than any religion.

It is really mind-boggling to me to see someone who doesn't believe in souls or humans being innately special still cling to such human-made concepts, I can't understand it at all, considering everything (instincts, feelings) are artificial with such viewpoint. Being aware that everything you care for is an illusion and still being a slave to the illusion is stupid.

I mean, we all have them cause we're human, but one of us (you) want to keep them despite knowing they're not special (i.e. not souls), I on the other hand would appreciate the more logical my brain becomes and the less stupid stuff I can have with it (remove useless instincts and such). Not off topic since self-aware AIs are literally a brain like humans without human constructs like instincts (unless they learn them). We can learn a great deal from them then.

Good! At least you are willing to admit that there is something wrong with your statement.