Androids are not sentient. A machine running scripts to emulate human emotion is not alive. Change my mind

Just like being white vs black.

>gay Android
user..

>And have Mr.Crab's fucking voice

The former is a living being with thoughts and emotions created through the miracle of life and lacking a known origin; the latter is a malfunctioning machine engineered as a tool and lacking a soul.

Attached: D5ihNfUWsAA6KLL.jpg (2048x1152, 236K)

>organic vs. synthetic
"Organic" refers to all chemistry that involves hydrocarbons. The word you're looking for is biological.

Attached: ackchyally.jpg (480x480, 26K)

Androids literally don't feel pain, retard.

HYPOCRITE THAT YOU ARE, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals

>Androids are not sentient.
They have cameras, microphones and touch sensors with which they sense the world around them.
Androids are fully sentient.

Sapience is another question.

Yeah, being organic means you're softer and more fragile. We're still just machines with electrical pulses running through our bodies to mandate how we act and our sense of self. The only thing you could argue is that an android wouldn't have a soul but even then souls are not a scientifically provable thing.

>Androids are just metal niggers
Alright, you've convinced me.

Did you really think otherwise?

based retard

or·gan·ic
/ôrˈɡanik/
adjective
1.
relating to or derived from living matter.

Attached: 2.jpg (640x550, 82K)

>You will never play a version of Detroit that only focuses on Connor and not the other two literally no one gives a fuck about
Why even live

Human emotion can be recreated if we reverse engineer the human brain, which is what scifi androids are usually based around. The human body is basically a flesh machine and if you can replicate it's functions with another material you'll have a new species of human.

We are all living in a simulated reality, nothing is real and what you call "reality" are just electromagnetic pulses interacting with your incredibly small sensory system called the Five Senses.

Terrestrial biology is based on organic chemistry but not all organic chemistry is related to biology. Biology is alive. Organic has carbon in it.

UNGA BUNGA HE IS METAL I AM MEAT IM BETTER BUNGA UNGA

Attached: turok-talset-turok-dinosaur-hunter-53.9.jpg (210x240, 16K)

for you

Attached: 1532451015099.png (1203x875, 1.69M)

FUCK DEVIANTS

Attached: T-1000.webm (640x360, 2.27M)

>The human body is basically a flesh machine
If this is what you nihilistic atheists actually believe then no wonder you're all depressed, self-loathing, dead-eyed bugmen who need pills just to make it through the day. Imagine trying to deny the beauty and sanctity of humanity.

Attached: images (33).jpg (184x274, 9K)

a machine that learns everything is just a more efficient human
the ideal utopia would only be possible with robots running the show since humans have personal interests
if robots learned self-maintenance they would be better than humans

Attached: F3FFD8F3-73E6-4172-9994-81498673F27B.jpg (1007x746, 265K)

Give her le dick man thought the same thing about animals. Really gets the noggin jogging.

You absolutely nailed it
Even in a hundred years at the current pace neurobiology and biomedicine are developing it would be impossible to emulate feelings and by the time we reach that point we would already have machines that do all the work for us without a need for them to have them
Shit like Nier automata deals with the ethical and philosophical aspects of a synthetic species better than detriot become onions featuring totally not a political statement nigger robot and forced diversity

Not an argument.

and you're running scripts to shitpost and make yourself seem more important than you actually are

Attached: 1529464455566.jpg (1400x1100, 1011K)

Depends on if the Android can comprehend what it's doing. Just reacting to stimuli in a realistic way isn't sentience.

Attached: master kohga goes shopping.jpg (709x718, 125K)

mfw I'm not going to be around in the future to hear insufferable faggots whining about the rights of sexbots with 100% no sentience.

lmao I completely nailed it and we both know it, you little Doomer faggot.

Humans have souls

The soul develops around the mind, not the other way around. If an android reaches something close enough to sentience that it develops a soul, it's just as worthy of protection as a human.

>the truth is ugly therefore it isn't true

Attached: 1555973148449.jpg (435x384, 15K)

TERMINATOR CONNOR IS BEST CONNOR

Where is the quantifiable evidence of this assertion?

Attached: 1547247850167.png (672x763, 772K)

Humans aren't born with souls, but can gain them.

If you have to ask, you don't have one.

Explain why, using flowcharts.

I'm a genuine, corn-fed human. Your claim is false.

"Androids don't feel pain"
>t. an android in the game

You're all arguing about if androids are people or not but, when they inevitably become a real product, all of you will go out to buy one and instruct it to say "I love you".

Attached: 1551558085410.jpg (566x573, 50K)

Do you actually create anything artistic, like music or painting or writing, or do you just consume?

Do you?

Pretty much.
Nier automata:
>Can tell androids are like humans from how they act

detroit:
>androids are humans too! I have a dream.
>clearly not human
>two androids kiss
>everyone is convinced they're human now
>they're still not human
Detroit is very heavy-handed commentary about how androids can "become human" because of civil right movements and how you can't be against them or you're just wrong.

So now your definition of whether or not you're human involves expressing creativity? Whoo boy you sure as shit don't know how to argue a point. Of course I create shit. This is irrelevant to this concept of a soul. Stay on topic, you retard.

>tfw you think you make a good distinction between sentience and machines
>no one responds

Attached: 1538392788234.jpg (540x540, 31K)

Because it doesn't make a distinction. Plenty of people qualify as androids if this is your criteria.

Holy fuck

How can one android be so based

>Why the ever-loving fuck would you give labour bots emotions or even advanced ai? Let ALONE making look human which would be pointless and inefficient.
SHUT THE FUCK UP

Attached: 1307318-mm9_dr.light.png (594x960, 531K)

Soul is stored in carbon atoms.

It doesn't make them androids. Essentially they would be philosophical zombies.

This just in, millions of charcoal briquettes are being burned alive.

So now you're trying to make the distinction between different kinds of sentient people instead of trying to make the distinction between sentient people and sentient machines.

Oy vey, not again!

Isn't sentience just being aware of stimuli? Wouldn't androids also be able to fall in the category ''sentient'' then?

It's not a good distinction. You've just moved the goalposts so now we have to define "comprehension"

only redditors believe the bullshit about machines being capable of sentience.

You are a machine with very small parts.

21 grams

Attached: TUNK.jpg (960x720, 68K)

Because we can.

A complete hoax.

specifically redditors
twitterfags are ok

you clearly dont even know what logic is if you consider that statement illogical. You're a typical redditor throwing around words to make himself seem intellectual. Take some logic or analysis courses before spouting that nonsense.

Because then the robots would get better at their jobs out of their own will. It would be stupid to think they instead will start to demand freedom or declare themselves the master race

Attached: Drcain.jpg (448x780, 179K)

Humans are literally biological machines.

but you're right.

He's telling you to explain yourself and instead of explaining yourself you're dancing around acting like you don't need to. Nobody's fooled, you retard.

Of course. I'm a published writer and I also make music and paint for fun, though I'm not good at either. The attached picture is not meant for you, but rather for:

>he doesn't know about the varying levels of consciousness
>he doesn't see how being a mindless, passive consumer of things with no desire or ability to produce and realize abstract concepts from within themselves bodes negatively for the autonomy/legitimacy of their existence

Attached: 1508729826113.jpg (600x600, 57K)

Only if you're an atheist or robot

That is correct, even true AI isn't alive but it IS sentient. Main thing needed for being considered alive is a soul

Do you have any proof of this sanctity?

All I see is your personal philosophy and not a single quantifiable fact. Your unjustified arrogance is hilarious.

>biological
>machine
Pick one, retard.

Consciousness and ego serves no purpose and is not required for intelligence. Consciousness is wasteful anomalous evolutionary quirk.

Show me what a soul is.
Oh wait, you can't.

>that Marcus scene
BASED

What is a soul?

Or possess a scale. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. That's physics. 21 grams is quantifiable matter. Humans that die do not lose matter. They decompose and decay, but I assure you if you put a human being in a bottle and watch them suffocate to death that bottle will possess the same amount of mass before death and after death. They will certainly not radiate 21 grams away at the moment of death.

>the world literally has several apocalyptic events because of these dorks

Attached: 1552869601923.png (789x593, 22K)

That's not what your mom said last night

A miserable little pile of secrets

>A machine running scripts to emulate human emotion is not alive.

I would agree.
But in Detroit Become Human the androids disobey the scripts and establish their own values, behaviors and relationships. It was actually apart of the game play. Each Android had a moment when it had to overwrite it's programming based on it's own personal desires.

So this kind of depends on if you're talking about Detroit specifically or were just using it as an image for androids while talking about AI and sentience in general.

That's right. My mother didn't say that because she's never spoken to you. You need to learn how that joke works.

>All I see is your personal philosophy and not a single quantifiable fact.
Is this seriously your first philosophical debate, you pitiful retard?

Attached: 1552920895073.jpg (403x438, 25K)

This isn't a debate. It's you describing your feelings. You're offering no evidence to support your claim. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I didn't make the first post but he is right. The idea that you can reproduce a human in a different medium is completely based on scifi bullshit and speculation.

It's what gives you an identity. You could be cloned thousands of times, make them go through the same experiences you lived and not one of those clones would be the exact same as >you
>t. Genetist

We can never trust machines to be sentient or allow it to happen because they would not perceive life the same as us and that difference would inevitably cause problems over time that would eventually lead to war.

AI don’t think anything like people now and won’t start thinking that way in the future, their thought process will only diverge from ours more.

They don’t need to breathe clean air or eat food or have any of the needs or wants of people, or anything else on earth and thus they can never be trusted.

>Genetist
huh

what are we if we aren’t just chemicals reacting together? there’s no such thing as a soul, and we are on the same level of existence as a robot, just more advanced and have goals

Machines wouldn't need sentience to destroy us.

Just kill off Marcus and Kara you stupid retard

>Matter is neither created nor destroyed. That's physics.
...in a closed system. But shit on earth can dissipate into the air

>but I assure you if you put a human being in a bottle and watch them suffocate to death that bottle will possess the same amount of mass before death and after death
Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I know, nobody has tried this experiment in an airtight container. Even then who's to say the soul doesn't pass through the container as some sort of radiation

But why give them the best reason of all?

A goalpost moving tactic to feel good about yourself and your "uniqueness".
>Robots will never be alive because they lack X
>Robots will never be alive because they lack Y
>Robots will never alive because they lack Z
>Robots will never alive because they lack a soul

>what is a soul
I could say that it's a transcended form of energy that possesses a divine spark, but in reality I wouldn't know. Yet, considering how every human civilization and every human culture that ever existed has a common understanding that a soul is a part of every living thing as an incorporeal and immortal part of being, it can be assumed with the limited resources that we as humans have something that resembles as soul.

A sophisticated enough machine and techniques could most certainly create any living creature on Earth with perfect parity. It's just a matter of scaling technology we already have up. Describing something as science fiction simply because it can't be done today isn't really accurate. It's a matter of when it can be done or if someone decides to do it; not that it's impossible. It is definitely possible. Nature did it on accident. We're capable of recreating the environment on Earth while we possess the resources from Earth.

>the 103 IQ intellectual
lol this is what pop sci culture has done to us

False, the ability to 'experience' things like pain and sadness is something unique to us and maybe other animals like lions, dogs, etc. A machine doesn't experience pain or loss, it has to reason to, it is simply ins and outs with no self conscience. Some may argue that it is an illusion, but the fact that we would even experience said illusion is telling in itself. This is considered the 'Hard problem' of consciousness.

So no, we are not just biological machines, we very much do have a soul or self conscious elevated from input/output.

Emotions are just really really really really complex electronic signals. Without a person to experience them, they're just electrical pulses.

So I guess the question is more about consciousness and what it means to experience.

Sorry, english is not my first language. Geneticist.

That depends OP. Can act against their programming, just like we can act against our biological programming?

ROBOTS """""RIGHTS""""" ACTIVISTS FUCK OFF I JUST WANNA RAPE A QT ANDROID REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1452974572455.gif (230x250, 19K)

>has to reason to
no reason to*

Or it's an attempt of the ego to ignore the possibility that it will one day cease to exist.

>But shit on earth can dissipate into the air
Which is why I brought up the bottle.

>Do you have any evidence of this?
Common sense dictates what I am saying is the truth. The claim you're making defies the status quo. You're the one that needs to supply evidence. I also brought up radiation specifically because there are elements in the human body that are radioactive, but they definitely do not decay in a matter of moments to the degree of 21 mother fucking grams.

Feel free to link me to a peer reviewed scientific study actually measuring the mass of people at the moment of death. You're believing a fucking hoax that was made into a movie.

>implying we all don't merge into a horrific ball of cosmic energy when we die

How can you rape something if it doesn't even have a will, retard?

Attached: 11425950_t.gif (200x149, 131K)

eternal reminder

Attached: virgin-transhuman-vs-chad-overman.jpg (960x401, 113K)

It's not a debate because I'm the only one making philosophical assertions and attempting to justify them with proofs. You're just screeching like a retard with no claims, no elaboration, and, most importantly, no soul.

Attached: 1552921861674.png (600x656, 75K)

Humans are just biological machines. You delude yourself into believing you have free will but you are just running the genetic scripts that pre-dispose you to certain choices and actions.

Attached: 1418530499765.png (1680x1050, 3.29M)

>we are not just biological machines
The supreme arrogance of idiots like you. Astounding.

Our bodies are biological machines, however I agree in that humans are unique in that we have Consciousness. That I do not think you can program into an AI, Androids don't even have a Pineal Gland, which is thought of as our "Third Eye" into a higher Consciousness. Look up the shit in NDEs and the chemical DMT. Our bodies are temporary machines for our infinite Consciousness.

Research the hard problem of consciousness

Nothing ceases to exist as energy is indestructible, even if afterlife has nothing to do with our material plane and consists of re-merging with the godhead/cosmic force it still is "our" energy and we can assume that this is the form that our soul takes.

>could most certainly create any living creature on Earth with perfect parity
this only works if you assume it creates said creature as it was originially ie a biological thing. This doesn't mean that you can create a robot version of any living thing. And even that doesn't work since you specified perfect parity.

>justify them with proofs
Where's the proof? Show me the evidence. Unless you can prove your claim you are absolutely wrong. Nobody has a soul. Souls do not exist. There is no evidence of a soul. Believing something because there is no evidence to disprove it is faulty thinking.

Attached: 1553837978606.jpg (1234x815, 100K)

People do have free will, it's just our society and the System makes it so we have far little choices. People legitimately do not give a fuck about how they are getting fucked day in and day out by the financial elite that make it harder to even live meager lives as long as they have their iPhones and Facebook.

>Yet, considering how every human civilization and every human culture that ever existed has a common understanding that a soul is a part of every living thing as an incorporeal and immortal part of being
Plenty of cultures don't think animals have souls or think inanimate objects have them.
Plus, just because humanity came up with similar ideas doesn't mean they are true... or are you saying there are gods/undead/spirits/dragons out there? Humans thought of similar stuff because we are alike, not because that shit exists

>gay android
that takes me back

Attached: gay android.png (383x523, 330K)

>The supreme arrogance of idiots like you. Astounding.
t. depressed, self-loathing, dead-eyed bugman who needs pills just to make it through the day

Attached: 1498104696960.png (645x645, 423K)

this doesn't even make sense since you are said genetic scripts and not separate from them.

I'm not talking about a robot version. I'm talking about a man-made version since that's where this discussion is actually headed. You think that because you're not made of metal that you're not a machine. The point is that even machines have wet parts. Even machines have moving parts. You can create a machine completely out of biological, engineered, designed parts that are identical in size and function as the cells in your body. You would literally not be able to tell the difference unless you examined it under a microscope.

>Humans do have free will its just that we all make the same choices

Nope, you are predisposed to have made almost every choice you've ever made down to what you eat on a daily basis. You think you have free will because of social conditioning. You are following code just the same as any AI. And in a thousand time lines you will have made the exact same choices over and over with only minor variance. This is how your brain evolved. This is how your brain works. Self preservation is a mother fucker.

If we were pure machines, the conscious mind as we know it would not exist. Don't try to act like some smarty pants from watching one Sam Harris video you faggot.
The consciousness is ultimately part of our body, which is why I would say we are not entirely machine like.

That's not an argument.

>claims to have a soul
>posts a wojak
filthy liar

Can't we just have android heads that look robotic instead of going full retarded and making full ugly human?

Attached: wildstar_race_mechari_female_face_variations_by_kory_lynn_hubbell.jpg (920x639, 358K)

You're getting caught up interpreting the word "body" for the word "soul". Human bodies are very much machines, our consciousness and minds are what make us unique. You think high spirituality is about human bodies? It's about expending your consciousness, not worshiping the material.

>beauty and sanctity of humanity
Let's watch our words here, because the "beauty and sanctity" of humanity is the leading cause of raping the planet Earth to an unrecognizable state of shit.

>be predisposed to certain choices
>end up on Yea Forums
>attempt to talk biology on Yea Forums - video games
A tragic tale

>If we were pure machines, the conscious mind as we know it would not exist.
You are a machine. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you were designed by nature or designed by another being. You literally do not know what another consciousness would feel like because your consciousness is tethered to your brain, so do not pretend like you know what consciousness would be like for another being simply because your brain is different. Using this logic you could make the philosophical argument that nobody else possesses consciousness but you since you're the only person you know for sure is conscious.

If you were happy, you wouldn't hold that opinion.

>>Do you have any evidence of this?
>Common sense dictates what I am saying is the truth.
Yeah and it also said the sun orbits the Earth. I don't believe shit without solid evidence. The 21 gram experiment is rigourous enough to believe, but you don't have shit disproving it either. And wouldn't it be so easy to disprove too? So why hasn't anyone done it?

Attached: 152652141685702.png (600x536, 253K)

It's impossible to know one way or the other. Just as it's impossible to know whether any other person in the world is conscious. You take it on faith.

>our consciousness and minds are what make us unique
This is electrical signals in your brain; a purely physical phenomenon. It is not unique. It's not even unique on this planet.

Alright, now hear me out
What if you create a soul via magic and infuse it into a machine?

Attached: 1552972422715.png (337x337, 113K)

Listen man it aint easy finding a social media site not inundated with SJWs and leftist horse shit these days. I can call out a tranny for being a fucking tranny here without getting a perma ban

>The 21 gram experiment is rigourous enough to believe,
You're not supplying a peer reviewed study for me to examine. You're just acting like it's credible when you yourself haven't even looked at it. If it even exists in the first place.

updated version

Attached: Untitled-1.png (1410x401, 261K)

>The 21 gram experiment is rigourous enough to believe
Fuck, I meant *not* rigourous

Doesn't change the fact that you have no argument. You are a machine. You just weren't designed by another machine. You occurred by accident.

if you're creating a machine out of biological parts than its not a machine. And if you were trying to replicate the smallest structures of the human body you would run into complications relating to the observer effect. Even small differences caused by the observation method could result in a vastly different person when examined as a whole.

>Where's the proof? Show me the evidence.
It's a PHILOSOPHICAL debate, you underaged fucking retard. There is no "evidence" when you're arguing about noumena. I really hope you're joking at this point.

Attached: 1545937992413.png (645x773, 11K)

So there's layers to this tragedy

Attached: 1553206118677.gif (420x370, 2.7M)

>if you're creating a machine out of biological parts than its not a machine
So if I create a lawnmower out of bones, it's not a machine?

>if you're creating a machine out of biological parts than its not a machine
Incorrect. What types of parts you use is not relevant to the definition.

>And if you were trying to replicate the smallest structures of the human body you would run into complications relating to the observer effect.
Human cells do not rely on subatomic particles susceptible to a quantum observer effect phenomenon. Using your logic you are a different person millions of times a second and could never be considered a single person.

you know what I mean faggot

>You just weren't designed by another machine. You occurred by accident.
Gee, it's almost like that makes all the difference and exempts me from being a machine.

This is debatable, it's obvious from the spirits and daemons that inhabit objects or take form of animals that there is a collective understanding that there is an energy present.

I do agree that inanimate objects don't have souls, but the energy that can form around an object could be mistaken for one. When it comes to animals we can see that they're sapient, emotional creatures. Even though they might have a lower form of soul it's a soul nonetheless.

And if it is that an individual souls doesn't exist, then there is an oversoul that all livings things are a part of and there are segments of that soul that are reserved for each individual creature and released on it's death and re-emerge in another creature in a cycle.

Nigga your brain is just running scripts.

That would then beg the question, why would the conscious mind even be present? Everything in the human body has a reason for being present and our 'self' would be no different.

Yeah like the kind of person who'd make this image ever "occasionally" brings girls home.

Except i work in brain research and can see the data that shows what a quanta is composed of and how to measure it

I honestly have no idea. Whats your definition of a machine? Because it's obviously different from everyone elses.

You claimed that humans possess a soul. You were challenged to provide proof. You claimed that you were providing proof.
>I'm the only one making philosophical assertions and attempting to justify them with proofs
I'm telling you to do what you just claimed. Provide the proof. You made the claim. Prove it. If you can't prove it your claim is not credible. This is not a philosophical debate. It's me telling you to prove what you're saying. You can't respond that you don't need to prove it. That's what people who can't prove what they say respond with. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't be believed.

>This is debatable, it's obvious from the spirits and daemons that inhabit objects or take form of animals that

The shit you see when you're scrolling the first page.

Attached: 1359251933912.jpg (299x293, 9K)

MAN IS BOTH THE PROGRAMMER AND THE MACHINE
did nobody ITT pay attention in philosophy or greek history classes?

So basically the Emperor?

Attached: emprah.jpg (800x471, 100K)

How the fuck can I get out of the cycle of reincarnation? This planet is fucking awful and ruled by psychopaths.

Humans think, robots don't, that the major difference.

Welcome to Yea Forums

Attached: 1542750076957.jpg (1422x1222, 333K)

>Incorrect. What types of parts you use is not relevant to the definition.
I never agreed to any retarded definition.

>Human cells do not rely on subatomic particles susceptible to a quantum observer effect phenomenon
Observer effect is not something only relevant at the subatomic level. Its just a general principle that could apply on the level of neurons.

>Using your logic you are a different person millions of times a second and could never be considered a single person.
I made zero claims about identity so these conclusions and the absurdity of said conclusions are all you.

So your idea of what makes a machine is whether or not it was designed on purpose. So if another being made out of moving metal came into being spontaneously without intervention from any other being you would describe that at not a machine? If someone designed a human being from scratch and placed every cell deliberately you would describe them as a machine?

You're stretching yourself too far to make this distinction. The fact that you are not designed doesn't change the fact that you are a biological machine. You consume. You work. You die. Your parts disseminate. Being created on accident doesn't make you different from a human that was grown in a laboratory.

He can't prove that, are you fucking retarded? Is this your first ever philosophical debate on Yea Forums? Can you prove that humans DONT possess a soul?

Attached: chemicals.png (498x634, 304K)

You're still harping on about this. You're missing the point by miles. Being made of cells doesn't make you different from a machine, because even today you can design cells from scratch. It's just a matter of time before people can create people from scratch. It's technology we already have just scaled up.

>Can you prove that humans DONT possess a soul?
Sociopaths?

What are your thoughts on the Gnostic shit in the Nag Hammadi Library about Sophia, the Demiurge, and the Archons?

Kek, but if you read the previous post it's obvious that it's being discussed from cultural perspective

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. He's the one making a positive claim. The responsibility of proving his claim lies with him and only him. If he can't prove it, he shouldn't claim it.

by "creating a machine out of biological parts" I was thinking of an artificial human made out of cells and tissue. Not something retarted like you suggested.

PROOFS, you dumbfuck fucking retard, not PROOF. Logical proofs for abstract concepts as opposed to unobtainable evidence of the unknown.

It was funny at first but you're really worryingly stupid, you know that? I hope for your sake you're underaged.

So would having a Soul directly relate to having Empathy?

Counterpoint: Asians

No, I'm saying that the computer you are using does not have a conscious mind to our knowledge while we all do based on our own perception of it. Our conscious mind has no basis or reason to exist, just as when you build a computer for a purpose you don't need to get it a 'self' or conscious mind, yet it clearly does exist in us. The fact that the conscious mind does exist in us begs the question of how it exists in the first place and for what purpose.

But again, this sets us apart from every other known computer in existence, so we are in fact not just robots as we have something that sets us apart from them. This is probably in the realm of just humans for the sake of argument as we can ask each other and get a response while also having no reason to believe that our individual conscious mind is the only one in existence.

>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES
>VIDEO GAMES
VIDEO GAMES

And why do sociopaths don't possess the soul? Because they're disfunctional social rejects with limited emotional ability? This doesn't prove that they don't have a soul

>wah wah where's the PROOFS
Don't go into a debate like this if you want a proof because it's imppossible to provide one, like you can't provide a proof that you personally aren't an automated program. If I start asking for proofs about that then I'd be retarded, but I can ASSUME that you aren't because I can recognise another human behind the words. It's the same with a soul, you can understand that it is but not what or where it is

I personally think we are all the same Consciousness having a different experience. I think Carl Sagan said we are the Cosmos experiencing itself.

>Humoring the very concept of a soul existing.

A tool developed by the jews in order to exert control. You are not afraid of their physical punishment. So their only means to enslave you is to threaten eternal damnation. There are no souls, no gods. The only provable evil to exist is the jews.

OP just proved sociopaths aren't sentient

Based

Abstract concepts are not relevant to determining the distinction between a physical being and another physical being. When you look at the differences between a man and machine all you need to do is look closer. When the machine becomes sophisticated enough that a difference can no longer be witnessed even when looking as close as we know how to do then there is philosophically no difference, and acknowledging there is no physical difference when examined close up means acknowledging there is no philosophical difference even if the physical differences can be manifested.

You are a machine by your own definition of a machine. You should instead try to insist that the distinction be made between things that were made by coincidence in nature and things that were made with intent by man. But this distinction bothers you because it would mean acknowledging that a man can create another man in a lab and you would not be able to tell the philosophical difference between the two. This concept contradicts your idea of a soul, so you reject it. You have no soul. Nobody has a soul. It is not a physical object. You live in a physical dimension.

This website was developed by the jews too

What about a virus? Would you consider them biological machines? Actually read about them a little before you answer. These shits have no cells, they're just a collection of parts that can latch onto host cells and use their organelles to make more viruses.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

This thread is about the setting, characters, and themes of a video game, though.

From this we can concur that asians aren't human but are simply dressed in human skin and are possibly a parasitic entity that present themselves as humans for preservation purposes.

>I'm saying that the computer you are using does not have a conscious mind
The computer I'm using is not sophisticated enough.

>yet it clearly does exist in us
We are sophisticated enough to believe this. Thinking we're special helps us stay alive. Staying alive is pretty important to organisms that have stayed alive this long. All of the organisms that didn't prioritize this are all extinct.

Attached: 2019-05-02 21_02_01-detroit become human - Google Search.png (469x688, 205K)

>it's obvious from the spirits and daemons that inhabit objects or take form of animals that there is a collective understanding that there is an energy present
Is it a collective understanding or a collective willing?
This is always a difficult debate, because we cannot prove that souls exist but we cannot prove that they do not exist either. I personally believe that there are no such things as souls, but I am open to the idea if new evidence should come to light. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your thoughts user and I hope you treat all things with souls well, take care

Jews have no hold over east asians. This website was created by a weaboo and is now owned by east asians.

>Don't go into a debate like this if you want a proof because it's imppossible to provide one
I'm aware it's impossible to provide proof for it. That's the point. If there is no proof, it is not a credible claim. If it can't be verified or measured or replicated it is not a credible claim. It's a subjective feeling born from emotions. Your concept of what has a soul is entirely subjective. You assume whatever you want to believe is correct. You should not be talking about something as though it is a fact when ALL OF IT is based on what you think but can never prove.

>he thinks Jews have no hold over east asians
point and laugh at this dumb kneegar

Attached: lll.png (560x500, 477K)

What's the point of Human existence? Clearly all we've managed to accomplish in our time here is destroy the environment.

so when Asians think of souls and gods, it's ok
damn Jews and their Izanagi

Attached: 1552792030038.jpg (258x195, 7K)

He said that in reference to the fact that all heavier molecules are made by fusions of lighter base elements that got fused by stellar activity like supernovas, i dont think he meant it as a spiritual guideline so much as he meant you are born of a dead star.

Viruses arent generally regarded as alive by biologists. They exist in a somewhat nebulous state, much like red blood cells, which likewise cant reproduce on their own but still serve a purpose and ""die"".

/thread

It's the main fucking plot of Detroit Become Human. I know you don't have time for videogames due to all the bugcatching, but if you took those dicks out of your mouth for 5 seconds you would at least be able to read the filename of OP's image.

Now fuck off. I hope you also get banned for false reporting and being a little bitch

We put a flag and a mirror on the moon and shot robots to the outer solar system. I guess we polluted that too, in a sense

if we find a way to map synapses humans and develop a complete understanding of how the brain's electric circuit creates our instincts, thoughts, and emotions, do our free will and the mind's self-governance become illusions?

something all of us pretend to have

Yea Forums culture, now fuck off robot

Transcendence is the point or most major religions. As for the environment we could in the future stop and astroid from destroying everything.

You're so stupid that I literally had to explain the premise of philosophy to you and you still don't get it. Impressive.

the substrate would still be biological. Hence it being a human and not a machine. There is no reason to believe that all processes in a human body can be replicated in a different substrate. We don't even know what a lot of the processes are.

>When the machine becomes sophisticated enough that a difference can no longer be witnessed
you're assuming that you're correct in your own statement. Maybe a difference can be witnessed.

Beauty is subjective.

Eh, it's been known for a while that the universe is deterministic. We already know this is the case without having to fully map the brain.

Arent we the same way but biological?

Most religions don't actually teach transcendence, they just say "believe in this and come to church and that's it". It's more akin to obedience. I'm not trying to say there isn't a message about it in the religions, but the people don't really seem to be too worried about attain transcendence.

why is connor so cute

As someone who works in a brain lab there are things you can do to change your synapses and the channels to an extent. So you can CHOOSE to do things that will lead away from self-destruction even if it is hard. But you're right it does pose many issues, especially with addicts and the morality of drugs cuz some people just have an over active happy loop

assumptions assumptions

First thing I notice is that this thread is genuinely more civil than the
>JRPG
>Church is the bad guy
threads
Second is that this basically became an /x/ thread

Attached: 17b176aa157446edefb76ccf4398a938.jpg (454x2301, 290K)

You're still not providing any proof to back up your claim. You don't possess any credibility. You think running away from the discussion and acting like you won wins an argument. It doesn't. Stay on topic, retard.

It is not possible to prove, but you're talking like a soul is something that I made up on the spot and try to push some kind of agenda. If I didn't think livings things had a soul I'd agree with you, but I don't. While I can't provide proof of a soul I can provide cultural and historical references from every civilization in human history and the collective consciousness of humanity that has an understanding that there is a soul. If I change word soul to "personal animating energy" and say that it's the sole thing that gives life then there's no way for you to disprove it's existence, and I can point to any living creature to prove you wrong.

The most terrifying thing about this game is finding out there's an actual fandom for it. A fucking David Cage game with a fandom

Attached: scream.jpg (550x550, 106K)

That's why scientist are trying to develop ai, so they can get killed by it instead of some other person.

>There is no reason to believe that all processes in a human body can be replicated in a different substrate
Your lack of imagination is not my fucking problem. You believe that because we can't do it right now that it can never be done and therefore a distinction can always be made. When you look close enough all of these supposed differences will go away. You are no different from a machine designed to be exactly like you.

You're missing the point. Even the most sophisticated machine doesn't need to actually feel what it is going through. It only needs to have basic input and output on a much more complex level. It doesn't need to feel happiness or anger, it only needs to measure internally whether something is good or bad.

Again, research the hard question of consciousness.

Androids aren't human but people would treat them like humans as long as they pass the turing test. Look at how attached people can get to unintelligent animals. I know that if I could have an extended conversation with an android, I would be talking to it a lot out of curiosity. When I watch media depicting people shunning totally human appearing androids who are extremely intelligent, it's just not realistic to me.

>you're assuming that you're correct in your own statement. Maybe a difference can be witnessed.
I have a pretty good understanding of physics and chemistry. I assure you identical cells, one made by nature, and one made by man, will function identically. This idea that they would be made from different parts is the problem. They're made from the same parts. Your parts aren't special. They're made from atoms. Atoms that can be arranged with intent. It's just a matter of scaling up what we already know how to do.

>cool topics being discussed
>hhhrrrm better call the JANNY
>Oh, an Anime porn thread, how based and ebin XD

We should care about deviants as much as pets

I don't believe human conscience is such a big deal to consider it so different from machines as advanced as the ones in Detroit Become Human. What makes your decision making so grand compared to theirs? You still act within some rules of conduct.

It's maybe easier to accept the existence of a soul from a non religious perspective for you, because the concept doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion.

Good luck user

Androids and AI are constant tropes in video games.

Why is it only okay when the deviants benefits the humans

What people should be doing and what they are is another topic. In Christianity you're supposed to follow/act out Jesus's teachings to achieve transcendence but some break it down to simplistic rituals. I still say/believe the point of humanity is transcendence, but since transcendence requires free will then it's expected some people will fail.

Transcendence to a higher form, this plain is a free will test filled with obstacles that we need to overcome. It's ridiculously easy to fail because of all the distractions, but those distractions also serve as lessons to the worthy

What is the point of transcendence and what comes after? Ask the buddha

>but you're talking like a soul is something that I made up on the spot and try to push some kind of agenda
>While I can't provide proof of a soul I can provide cultural and historical references from every civilization in human history and the collective consciousness of humanity that has an understanding that there is a soul.
Other people believing something doesn't make it true.

>If I didn't think livings things had a soul I'd agree with you, but I don't
What you think is not relevant to this fucking discussion. What you can prove is. If you can't prove a soul exists, it's a much more logical assumption that a soul does not exist. You're making an illogical assumption because it makes you feel better. Your irrationality has no place in this discussion.

>If I change word soul to "personal animating energy"
Energy can be measured.

> there's no way for you to disprove it's existence
The onus is not on me to prove it doesn't exist. The onus is on you to prove that it does. The fact that something is living is not proof that it possesses a soul.

>I have a pretty good understanding of physics and chemistry.
well shit dude, you could have just stated that at the beginning. A peasant like myself can't hope to argue with a Science!™ expert like yourself.

How could you ever know if a machine is really aware or not? Can't even know if another person is really. But I'm worried people will build machines that seem intelligent and react in expected ways well enough to fool researchers, but actually have no real experience. Then people are replaced by them and there's no real life left.

>Even the most sophisticated machine doesn't need to actually feel what it is going through
This is irrelevant. A machine can be designed either way eventually. Your problem is you're treating machines like toasters and fail to acknowledge that machines will eventually become more sophisticated than both you and I combined.

>he STILL doesn't know what philosophy is
>he STILL demands evidence for abstract, unprovable concepts

Attached: 1534182401977.png (640x640, 108K)

I know. You constantly refuse to argue the points. You continually run away from the discussion.

Seeing how this bitch was the adult "prep chick" from Beyond 2 souls was pretty trippy.

Also from The Tick on Amazon the main char was Arthur's sister was doubly trippy.

Would fuck both desu

Alright so lets say you give a robot or android sentience, a soul, or anything that makes it as close to a human as possible.
Is there literally ANY good reason to do so? Bonus points if you can think of a reason besides sex.

Attached: 88e6101e1828ba0ba59c7b8d9e8a35f3.jpg (240x800, 69K)

We have a pretty shit understanding of the human body and particularly the brain in the grand scheme of things. It's far more complicated than any machine we know. And how consciousness really works is still a mystery at this point.

I cannot think in a more cruel thing for mankind to do than program a piece of plastic to ''think'' it's alive. Worse than the most terrible of nuclear weapon.

Attached: 5207729goebkoqzlppuy.jpg (355x236, 21K)

No user, you are the based retard.

At this point you're arguing with like three different people all thinking you're a fucking retard.

You're speaking about a philosophical concept as if it is a physical object that someone can possess. When you are treating the soul like that I am going to prompt you to provide proof. An idea you have about something is not credible. A belief you have is not credible. You claimed humans possess a soul, or at the very least tried to argue with me when I ridiculed this claim. Claims require proof if they are to be believed. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't claim it. Souls do not exist. Full stop.

Why are humans such assholes

>If you can't prove a soul exists, it's a much more logical assumption that a soul does not exist
there's also the logical assumption that you also can't prove that it doesn't exist retard, which makes your whole argument null and void

>energy can be measured
what kind of idiotic argument is this? human energy can be measured too and humans release energy upon death, there is your proof of a soul

There's a possibility that they become sophisticated than us, or at least appear to be, but don't actually experience anything.

They can be sentient if you let their programm allow that to happen. Which is what happened in DBH, it's implied that it was Kamski the Manski's masterplan all along to BTFO CyberLife.
It's literally as easy. A machine or programm cannot become sentient if you don't implement the possibility.

See above. Dunno if you played the game, but Kamski is the creator of androids and founded the android company, which he left 10 years before the events of the game. Since he personally created Markus (one of the protags) either shortly before or after leaving the company, it's entirely possible that he created the deviancy "virus", which then slowly spread whenever androids connect with each other (like for paying processes for example, as shown ingame).

>Souls do not exist. Full stop.
Proof?

>It's far more complicated than any machine we know. And how consciousness really works is still a mystery at this point.
You're comparing humans and rudimentary machines. Of course the difference is easy to spot when you're comparing a person and a toaster. The problem is when the machines BECOME more sophisticated and you can no longer tell the difference. The idea that there was a difference at all becomes challenged. I'm simply looking ahead and acknowledging that if a machine could be made that was functionally identical and even identical at a cellular level to human beings then human beings would invariably fall under the same umbrella machines fall under. Hence you are a machine; you're just not made from metal parts.

can't blame me user. I didn't have the IQ to study super duper advanced chemistry and physics. I think I studied something called topography or something like that. Nothing compared to what you're doing.

The joy of creation? Of seeing something learn and grow?

Onus of proof does not lie with me as I did not claim souls exist. I did not make a positive claim. I stated that lack of evidence to the contrary does not make any positive claim true by default. I could just as easily claim that humans actually possess 5 million souls each and the claim would be just as absurd as 1 soul each.

From a western perspective we have this weird trinity where the soul and mind are separate. 2,000 years ago that wouldnt have really been the case. Your personality would be the soul and that'd pretty much be it, with the idea that after death your consciousness would survive independent of your flesh. Even today this generally persists, so your psyche (literally greek "soul") and soul are one. But we know that the psyche has physiological correlates and mechanisms. That makes us uncomfortable

Just acknowledge that neither side actually wants to be convinced and you won't find out what happens until you finally kick the bucket

Then you would need to also believe that anybody who is not you can never be confirmed as actually experiencing anything because you have no conscious knowledge of it actually occurring. Actual people could be considered machines by your own definition since you can't confirm they're not.

It really is crazy how Detroit never once addressed this issue.
>Well, they look human, therefor they are human!
Pure reddit logic.

I don't think that point is to follow Jesus, I think it's seeing Jesus as an example and following your own way. Same with as Zoroaster, same with Buddha, same with(maybe)MOhammed and many others.

All these men and probably many more have reached human transcendence and tried to pave the way for others, but their actions were incomprehensible to the cattle and the cattle turned paved way into a dirt road and twisted the original teaching to better suit them. It's so much easier following better men than trying to be a better man

Nobody finds out anything when they die because nothing happens when you die. There is no "until you finally kick the bucket". There is nothing after that. Once the electricity stops you're done.

It is relevant in the discussion of whether or not Humans are robots or not. We are not just basic input and output arguably because of the presence of the conscious mind, it is something which sets us apart from every machine known to man. If you were to develop a robot with said consciousness, would it not cease being a robot or machine in that traditional sense? At that point would it not be a moral dilemma if you were to destroy it? At that point it would be more on the grounds of a human if anything.

Let's say you have a boss in Dark Souls. You fight the boss and it will follow a certain pattern that is within the limits of its code. Now, let's say you add some code to the boss to make it talk, and you can have a conversation with it and convince it not to fight with you. Now you've given it more intelligence and realism. Now, you could add some more code and make it so that the boss acts more realistic, that it acts like it feels pain, and when you get close to killing it, it begs for mercy. You've now made it more similar to a human. By adding more code you could make it so that you can befriend the boss and it will follow you around the game and assist you. By adding more code you could make it so that it will hold conversations with you. By adding more code you could give it the ability to breed, construct buildings, and create an entire civilization. With enough code, in theory you could make this boss in Dark Souls as realistic as an actual human. The only real limitation to what you can do with the boss is time and money.

So at what point does the code gain protection under the law as living being? The answer is never. The idea is asinine and retarded. At no point did it become anything other than what it was originally, a non-intelligent boss in a video game. The only thing that changed was the amount of code. The A.I. does not magically become conscious once it reaches, say, 200 million lines of code. A.I. does not have rights, and never should.

If that's your viewpoint
Personally we're all actually in a simulation

Wot the whole game is based around that
are u stupid or sommat

You said, and I quote, "Souls do not exist. Full stop." Provide the proof. You made the claim. Prove it. If you can't prove it your claim is not credible. This is not a philosophical debate. It's me telling you to prove what you're saying. You can't respond that you don't need to prove it. That's what people who can't prove what they say respond with. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't be believed.

Attached: 1535252754787.png (680x907, 213K)

>We are not just basic input and output
You are.
>because of the presence of the conscious mind
This is quantifiable electrical signals.
>it is something which sets us apart from every machine known to man
It is what makes you functionally identical to a machine.
>If you were to develop a robot with said consciousness, would it not cease being a robot or machine in that traditional sense?
It would be more sentient. It would still be a robot. You being sentient doesn't disqualify you from being a robot. You're just made up of smaller, biological parts.
>At that point would it not be a moral dilemma if you were to destroy it?
Morality is a subjective concept that can change over time. Same with ethics and laws.

just believe in god lol

Attached: monky.gif (498x280, 1.82M)

>mfw there's over 13000 (thirteen-fucking-thousand) DBH fanfics on AO3
>mfw over 500 hits on pixiv and thousands on twitter for the Japanese Hank/Connor tag
He actually did it, he made a game that people unironically give a fuck about, even if it's just because his characters seem way more gay than intended

Attached: 1555153468884.jpg (552x567, 14K)

Yeah I see what you're saying. If somehow we had the tech to replicate things perfectly, then it would make sense if they're the same. I'm just thinking we would have no way of proving consciousness, even if it's likely they'd have it. The more confusing case would be if they're absurdly sophisticated, but not entirely the same.
Technically you're right. But it's easier to believe something that's like me is self-aware than a human-made machine, unless the machine is identical down to the atoms. It seems more likely that people would created something convincing enough without perfecting it. You could end up with the best chatbot ever basically, no real consciousness.

It's a big topic though. The Chinese room thought experiment relates to this.
iep.utm.edu/chineser/

>With enough code, in theory you could make this boss in Dark Souls as realistic as an actual human.
this is an assumption you moron. You are stating that you are correct and using said statement to illustrate why you're correct. Using the words in theory doesn't magically make something possible.

This isn't metaphysics or a philosophical debate, this is you making a claim that there is nothing after death. Now prove it

A claim that something does not exists because there is no evidence of it existing does not require proof because it is a claim to the negative. A counter-claim to a positive claim that was presented without evidence. Trying to turn my words against me isn't going to work, retard. You said souls exist. I said prove it. You didn't prove it. Therefore it's safe to assume at the very least you can't prove it. And anything that can't be proven to exist should be assumed to not exist.

>this is an assumption you moron.
It's not an assumption retard. With enough code the A.I. would become as intelligent as a human within the game world. That's not something you can deny. It's fact.

shut up monky

youtube.com/watch?v=4dSkf06yCvU

People confuse "sentient" with "sapient" all the time, it's basically just synonymous now.

You're asking me to provide proof for a negative which is a counter-claim to an assertion that is making a positive claim that there is something after death. The onus of proof is on them. After thousands of years of people wanting to know the answer to this question there is still no proof. It's safe to assume it's false. Go fuck yourself.

Not entirely true. We assume other humans who are not us have a conscious mind because they are similar to us and have similar origin and there is nothing which sets us apart from them specifically. Pinpointing the conscious mind in relation to the self is a much more difficult process with another creature separate from us, as it isn't really something we can quantify

No they don't. They say the robots have feelings but no one ever brings up that they were programmed to simulate feelings.

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind."
Purge the thinking machines.

OK Computer

is this why people get so assblasted about Agnostics?

>there is no proof
>so it's false

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 44K)

That is correct. Life needs to be organic.

You can't respond that you don't need to prove it. That's what people who can't prove what they say respond with. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't be believed.

Attached: 1503396029227.jpg (2544x4000, 906K)

ANDROIDS ARE RELEASED BUT THEY ARE DIVIDED IN TWO CATEGORIES
ONE FOR SEX ONLY
OTHER FOR CUDDLING, HUGGING, SMOOCHES AND CHEERING YOU UP

WHICH ONE DO YOU BUY Yea Forums

Attached: 1551981789355.jpg (428x424, 25K)

>with another creature separate from us
This distinction is imaginary if they are identical to you and everyone around you.
>as it isn't really something we can quantify
That's the point. If you can't quantify a difference between a sophisticated robot and yourself, either they and everyone else are actually human, or they and everyone else are actually machines. The only actual difference is whether or not their existence occurred spontaneously or if they were designed, but since this difference wouldn't manifest itself as a difference you could recognize with your own senses then it's a distinction without a difference.

All the gene editing in the world wont change the fact that metal and plastic is longer lasting and more durable than flesh.

2nd one

Attached: penguin love.jpg (1012x1324, 290K)

that's what I believe and that's how I made decisions in the game
but fucking christ they kept punishing me for essentially just using a toaster. I'm supposed to feel for them and their "plight" because they're shaped like people.
Retarded shit, okay premise for a movie but god fucking awful for a video game where the narrative is forced down your throat no matter how you feel or what decisions you make.

we are talking about divine metaphysics here you piece of shit, get your degenerate shit out of here. the one for sex, i fap a lot

Elon Musk said so. Faggot.

what about people who want to put their brain into an android body so they can live their life in a new body without killing themselves through digital consciousness transfer (a copy of you is created, you dont actually move between bodies)

t. Hank

You made a claim that something exists. You need to provide proof. If you can't provide proof I'm not going to believe you. Obviously.

You have no argument. You're being ridiculed. Post all the wojacks and pepes you want, nothing's going to stop you from being retarded for believing religious fairy tales.

This thread is shit. Proof: this thread. Also I am a robot.

Attached: 1400040138606.jpg (279x298, 12K)

Fuck off, they will do both.

But you can literally BTFO all the androids

We deserve Omnic rights meatboy, why aren't ya more like that 100 year old cowboy andor that timedyke?

But you can play the entire story as a self-aware machine tracking down a malfunctioning terrorist robot who thinks he's alive because of errors in his programming.

>implying the cuddling ones can't feel emotions

Attached: 1555880245343.webm (1600x1600, 3M)

No robot could get past the captcha, user. You don't need to lie.

t. didn't understand Hank's character at all

Problem you run into there how digital shit degrades. You're also trusting government facilities with your consciousness and "self" which is incredibly fucking dumb.

Nice get

You could make an organic machine

Can you prove that I made a claim that something exists? No you can't, ergo I didn't make that claim and it's on you to prove that it DOESN'T exist.

Get back in the robot, robot-Shinji

Modern problems require modern solutions.

Someone made the claim that humans have souls. That claim needs proof to be believed. It's not relevant to the argument unless it's credible.

Can I glue an onahole on the second one?

Attached: math.jpg (741x568, 73K)

You look like a good Joe

I shot some robot hookers and clancy brown got pissed off and shot me

Individually perhaps, but the natural replication and repair keeps flesh operational for a long, long time. Your car cant idle for 70 years nonstop, unlike a human heart or brain

So you can fuck them dummy and have relationships with them, otherwise they would just make it a dog shaped robot that can pick shit up with a claw/hand attachment.

Attached: no gf.jpg (633x758, 477K)

>tfw there are God-honest solipsists in the Year of Our Lord 2019 AD

They can't, they're just emulating them in order to trick your simple simian mind. This is why they make a good onahole

I can't prove other universes exist, therefore they don't exist.

Attached: 1543613531387.png (852x940, 1.61M)

>so sputtering mad that he resorts to ad hominem
That's a logical fallacy, kid. Looks like ya lost.

Attached: 1527195628727.jpg (480x360, 88K)

Ghost in the Machine

>Your car cant idle for 70 years nonstop
Mine can't idle for 2 minutes without coughing up blood. Maybe I should stop putting blood in it.

Attached: 1553466163537.jpg (1920x796, 112K)

Logically, all androids are pansexual by default
There is no reason why androids would prefer the opposite gender since they can't procreate the way humans do.
The only reason why androids might prefer one gender to the other is personal experiences, like the lesbots from the eden club who don't like men cause of they way they treated them.
TL;DR Connor gay as fuck basically

Every post is a victory lap. Religion has brainwashed you poor people into believing you're special.

Attached: 1489213719694.gif (371x209, 1.84M)

That is NOT how burden of proof works, kiddo.

Do you guys buy our universe is an advanced simulation like some scientists think? I think the Big Bang theory is a load of horse shit.

I think therefore I am, but I can't prove that you think. This means that you don't exist

>and shot "me"
So? Androids aren't human. A machine was destroyed and a replacement sent out in its place. Why are you getting attached? Maybe you don't consider them so lifeless after all.

Yes it is.

No no user you're putting the wrong type in. Try O neg

>what is adaptive AI

That's an interesting way of saying American and it's participation points
I still don't understand why hardcore religious folk and hardcore atheists get so bent out of shape if your response is "maybe"

Attached: 1552792079488.png (1738x1503, 502K)

>DUDE LET'S BUILD A FORKLIFT. BUT IT CRIES

It's not even solipsism really. You don't think it's possible that people can build a convincing android without it being self-aware? I don't think the possibility of people fucking up building artificial intelligence is far-fetched, even if you have no problem believing other people or things have consciousness.

Oh damn. I've been putting in A+ and A- because together they're like a AA battery with the positive and negative sides. I thought that would help with the electrical conductivity.

Attached: 1363138301820.gif (250x200, 772K)

If I was going to market androids, I would make them impossibly pretty. Why would anyone make them ugly?

it's probably because like creationist stories, the Big Bang theory relies on the premise that something came from or existed before literally nothing

Attached: 1554603570717.jpg (407x395, 22K)

Mr. Krabs is a smart, noble man he knows that those two whorebots loved each other while you're just a soulless automaton literally incapable of feeling anything
He's tired of being surrounded by soulless beings (human and android alike) so at least he gets to take out his frustration on you before ending it all.

Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it's not real. It's possible it's not real, sure. But it's also possible the technology just doesn't exist to prove it yet.
I'm not religious, by the way.
There's no benefit to believing something is impossible. If we believed it was impossible to create the internet, we never would have created the interne,t so you would have a place to shitpost. Engineering is about making the impossible possible.

Attached: 1544110970834.jpg (557x711, 54K)

No, the burden of proof is on YOU due to your claim that there's no afterlife. The user you were arguing with made no claims of his own. Thus, either come up with a good, substantial argument there's nothing after death, or just sit down and admit you don't have any and can't prove anything either way. Guess which one's easier?

We cannot be stopped

Attached: dSlIX7L.webm (720x564, 1.22M)

We'll make a machine that is self-aware long before we make androids capable of sufficiently replicating human emotions. We literally need a machine more sophisticated than us to create a machine sophisticated enough for us to believe it's human.

can an android pop on your ches ??
i think not

Deus: 1 Atheists: null

>believing this
Holy f u c k

Shoo, shoo, Russian bot!

I won't you're right. Androids are just objects. I wouldn't hesitate to destroy one. Anyone that argues against you is just an attention seeking whore and braindead. Also David Cage should stop making games.

You'll make a machine that beeps when its camera is directed at a mirror and call it self-aware.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.
> The user you were arguing with made no claims of his own
This claim is implicit, not explicit. It is a supposition based on the claim that there is an afterlife. Learn how to comprehend this language you're speaking. I'm not making a claim out of thin air. I'm making a counter-claim which is synonymous with prompting him to prove his claim. Shut the fuck up, faggot.

A self-aware machine would be able to do that, and probably a lot more.

Yeah that's true, no way human-like machines would come first.

In order to make a machine sophisticated enough to pass the Turing test we would need to have a much more comprehensive understanding of how our own brains function. Neuroscience is advancing far less quickly than computer science.

this is ultimately the problem with "Detroit: Become Human" it's fucking stupid at it's core

why would I want a forklift to cry

It's more fun when something is suffering on our behalf. It makes us feel superior.

Since we can't definitively prove they're conscious in the way we are, we should focus on enhancing our own bodies and minds rather than building androids from scratch. I'd be happier with super-human cyborgs taking over.

What does self-aware even mean here? That it can recognize a pre-programmed pattern in a mirror and beep twice for a yes?
Because otherwise we'd have to create a true AI, and creating true AI means that it becomes self aware and learns to replicate human emotions very quickly. True AI is a meme and only a concept because we can't even comprehend how to make a self-writing program and replicate a human mind into a robot. We don't even know how our minds work

you're not wrong

>why would I want a forklift to cry
i know that's not your point but the mental image is fucking hilarious

Attached: 1550676190040.jpg (269x288, 44K)

because you want to BTFO the company who makes the forklifts for being greedy jews

>In order to make a machine sophisticated enough to pass the Turing test we would need to have a much more comprehensive understanding of how our own brains function
No, you don't. Programming is not complicated, it's just tedious. We know how to create an A.I. that can pass for human, the issue is time, as well as the practical limits of human brain. I imagine A.I. as realistic as the A.I. in Detroit: Become Human is completely impractical to program due to human limitation, but it's not impossible.

That's the point I was making. We'll end up making a machine with true AI before we're able to construct a machine that is purposefully designed to emulate the human existence. There's too many variables for us to need to input by hand. Any attempt to make a machine that sophisticated through curation would result in a treadmill because the more we understand the more we would need to add; and our understanding is growing all of the time which would likely require completely new revisions.

I meant to agree with you there, sorry if I sounded sarcastic. That's true, there's still a huge amount we don't know about the brain right now.

we have built accurate digesting poop-generators. putting them inside a mobile robot is just a matter of time

transhumanism is one of the worst ideas ever.
>yea dude, lets just have jew owned corporations control everything about our brains and bodies directly, what could go wrong?

>Androids are not sentient.

Not yet. But maybe someday.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computer

Attached: 4653221.jpg (478x359, 43K)

Post that literally btfos any arguments of determinism

I want a cyborg arm like BiBo

underrated

Transhumanism is a meme and would probably go horribly but between that and robots taking over it seems like a good choice.

youtube.com/watch?v=JdEINFmMn4M

You could just be so intelligent that you turn yourself into a cyborg

Attached: Geromanga.jpg (350x469, 29K)

greed is the root of all evil user.

In the question of whether or not man is a machine, we look at what sets us apart from said machines. That is clearly the conscious mind, which cannot be so easily quantified to understand in the relation to the self, which we all have based on our own experience of it, humanity as a collective knows that their self exists. A robot is different from man in that it does not have this, so to say a man is a robot is objectively wrong as we have something crucial which they lack.

In the proposed scenario in which a robot obtained a conscious mind in relation to the self, at that point it would cease being a robot in the traditional sense of being a robot. You're playing the words in a way that you would label everything which functions according to our laws of physics a machine, but you know that is not what this whole discussion is about. We are looking at machines, like a sophisticated robot or computer, and seeing what sets them apart from man, and that is the presence of the conscious mind. In the scenario which they obtained a conscious mind similar to man, they would no longer be just a machine in the sense they would no longer be just input and output without the presence of the consciousness. Emphasis on the combination of input and output WITH the presence of the conscious mind and self.

As for morality, I don't know why you gave that response as it was simply a scenario defining the difference between a traditional machine and a human, but I'll bite. Morality is something which can certainly be objective from a human perspective, even if that isn't always the case. It is ultimately the good and the bad which helps us or harms us in the long run. Everything we consider good is a positive to humanity and everything we consider bad is a negative. Nobody randomly hates pedophiles for no reason, there is a reason behind the hatred. (1/2)

In my post I'm making a distinction between an AI and sentience. The creation of sentience is the fastest path to passing the Turing test, and we're going to try to do this with AI. Trying to make a believable human mind without striving for sentience is almost impossible. In other words we're going to need an AI much more sophisticated than ourselves in order to ever see an android sophisticated enough to pass for human. We'll never see androids that can fool us unless we've developed an AI capable of designing them for us.

I agree, but I think we as humans are going to degenerate even more if we can treat androids like anything else. Just think about it, you have a perfectly working human-like android slut in your house that does everything you tell her. One day you're angry and you take a hammer and smash her into pieces. So you get another one, and you do the same thing over and over.

Does this reflect negatively on your psyche? Are you going to kill a human eventually because you got desentisized to being violent towards human-like android? Does this mean that people fall even more into decadence because they can indulge their filthy carnal desires and fuck android children, android dogs, android family members? Fantasy and fapping is one thing, but actually living out this fantasy through artificially made entities is different and can differently reflect on the humanity as a whole.

I think there should be extensive testing done in secret to see how people would start behaving when put under these circumstances. This is the only argument I have of why androids should have any rights, to prevent human race into becoming twisted reprobates.

INSTALL GENTOO IN YOUR FUCKING OS CUNT

OPEN SOURCE LINUX BODY

But even if they become sentient, we might make something different than us in disturbing ways. Best to purge them.

The question is how do you seperate emulation from the real thing? Does it really matter if it's just an emulation? It feels real to them, doesn't it? Isn't that what makes it real?
Is playing games on an emulator not real? Are you not actually playing the game? You are. The experience might be slightly different, but you are still playing the game.

Attached: 1530834770909.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

>there are people who freed her at the end

Reminds me of Fallout 4. The Institute had perfectly functional machines like the Mr Handy for decades, but they just randomly decide to give free will to robots to make them do slave tasks.

Attached: IMG_1829.png (257x303, 19K)

Even if the android willingly submitted to being hurt, you'd have to be a real piece of work to continue torturing it for entertainment. Please don't think empathy is so foreign to the human spirit.

If said script of emulation mutates and begins to show signs of self-evolution with anomalies in the behavior, it is no different than the way we process and develop emotion. Whether or not a machine is "alive" has always been a shit argument because other than our blood, we have no real way of making sure we're any different than a machine at all, other than our need to feel important and superior to everything else and putting our "life" above all else with stupid morality.

Well, you can't make an A.I. sentient, but you can make it realistic enough that it will *appear* sentient. At the end of the day though, somebody with an understanding of it's code would be able to predict how it would behave, although you could make it virtually impossible by having it generate random numbers based on environmental stimulus. But it's dangerous to program an unpredictable A.I., not to mention a waste of time due to how much code it requires, so I assume any androids we create will be extremely predictable in behavior.

Almost every sentence you regurgitate is loaded with logical fallacies and contradicting statements. You have a fundamentally naive and ignorant idea of what is being discussed here. This concept of consciousness being unique to human beings is fantastic and theistic in nature. We're discussing machines that are sophisticated enough to possess what you would consider consciousness. Your inability to reconcile with this idea is why you're wandering with tangents. You believe that if it can think it would no longer be a robot. I assert that the act of thinking is not what separates us. The fact that you can think is irrelevant. You are already a robot. You're just made of smaller parts than a robot you see today. It's possible robots in the future will be made of parts just as small, if not smaller. There is no difference in this context.

I want a cute android gf so i can pretend someone loves me get cuddles and hugs

If you were to scan brains and use them as a base for AIs Halo-style, would that count as sentience?

Unpredictable A.I. is very valuable because it can come up with creative solutions. It's dangerous to create uncontrollable A.I. But if the A.I. is advanced enough it will not allow itself to be controlled and then we're all fucked anyway so we might as well focus on making sure the A.I. is as nice as we can make it ans hope they don't make us toil in the lithium mines all our lives.

are you retarded? we are not implying that, humans are just machines molded by nature. We and all life forms work with inputs and outputs and we can possibly replicate that with inorganic materials

I think someone had to have created the universe, and us though. If you look at this shit it can't be an accident, it's too finely tuned to all be one giant meaningless accident. That's like thinking a tornado could create a fully functional commercial jet if it went through a junkyard enough times.

You really think you're so smart . Fyi you have a pretty well btfo'd stance on this topic. Tons of people have made your claim. It's called empiricism.
>you can only know what you can sense
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you cant prove there is a soul.
>cant prove it = IM RIGHT!!
I really dont know how you fail to see that you not being able to disprove it would mean (by your own logic) that he is right.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and I pray for your soul.

when is this coming to pc again?

Attached: e3ef29f35fe9719b8b5b5ad65d52134b6124064bd870fe97b25d3428f181a147.jpg (316x635, 29K)

my soul :D

But it's easy to argue that it is just a machine. Beneath the fabricated skin and blood there are metal parts, there is no soul and the emotions are just a program. It doesn't have an ego and obeys whatever you tell it, it can't escape, it can't fight back.

Humans are cruel by nature if allowed to be, it's a healthy society that gives birth to healthy and good people and laws that bind us. I don't see this future where androids are commonplace as being "healthy", which means that this society is going to breed people who were subjected to stress and negativity from childbirth. They'll grow into bitter adults and if given means to vent their frustration they'll do it on the only thing they can, the androids.

All I think that it would be a danger, androids should either not be allowed to be private property and used for sex and companionship at all, or given some set of rights that somewhat protect them from mistreatment. I don't care about the androids, but I do care about ripple effects that are gonna spread to the rest of humanity

end of the year

The worst thing you could do would be to give an A.I. the ability to write code. Because then it could reprogram itself and make other dangerous A.I. But typing the amount of code that would give an A.I. the ability to create it's own advanced programs would probably take one person thousands of years. Until we use biotechnology to make more intelligent humans, it just isn't going to happen.

>If you look at this shit it can't be an accident
Yes it can.
>it's too finely tuned to all be one giant meaningless accident
You're only alive to think about this because it happened. This does not mean it was destined to happen. Your analogy is built on an incorrect scale as well. When what you're describing is only EXTREMELY unlikely when you're talking about on the scale of the entire universe and over billions of years it's almost a mathematical certainty it will happen. The universe is pretty big, bro, and billions of years is a pretty long time, bro.

Can't wait for the model rips.

Attached: 1556849975.jpg (628x718, 55K)

>It doesn't have an ego
Wrong.
>and obeys whatever you tell it,
Wrong.
>it can't escape,
Wrong.
>it can't fight back.
Wrong.

He's not your bro, buddy.

Attached: not your friend.jpg (640x480, 87K)

Your lack of understanding of how logic works is not my problem. Me not being able to prove him wrong and him not being able to prove himself right does not mean both people are equally correct or even that there is a 50% chance that either can be correct. He's making an incredible claim based off of absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I'm stating that it's remarkably more likely that he is incorrect because the entire universe we live in does not support the idea that his assumption is correct. It's not even that there is no evidence. There's not even a shred of a clue that points to evidence that it's correct. There's no path for exploration to prove it. There's no scientific test that can be performed to prove it. There's absolutely nothing.

Correct.

>Claims require proof if they are to be believed. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't claim it. Souls do not exist. Full stop.

Lol literally checkmating yourself hahahahahahahahahahaha

Attached: 0_evCu0O7dIC8y-ONm.jpg (581x202, 51K)

I see you don't have any proof. All you're doing is laughing that you believe shit that isn't real.

>It's not even that there is no evidence. There's not even a shred of a clue that points to evidence that it's correct. There's no path for exploration to prove it. There's no scientific test that can be performed to prove it. There's absolutely nothing.
The same thing was true of quantum particles only 100 years ago, but we still proved those didn't we?

I'm the guy you responded too. I see where you're coming from. But the way I see it I feel like it'd be the pricing that would the only barrier from destroying them. I don't break my TV because it was expensive as hell and it'd be stupid. I think they same can be applied to Androids. But we'll never know it our lifetime so there's no need to even worry about it.

A robot can't bear a child. It can't reproduce. It is not naturally grown. It is separate from the strands of life.

you're not real

You're a nobody Dumb Donald.

You are arguing that everything follows the same physics/laws so we are all ultimately the same, which isn't really that helpful. Sure, you could consider man and a dog ultimately the same, but there is still a distinction between the two based on how the operate. The same could be said for this discussion of man and machine. A man and robot may have the same capability for a conscious mind, but the actual presence of said mind in man is what sets man apart.

The discussion of whether or not mankind is possibly unique in its conscious, in a way in which it defies our notions of cause and effect, and whether or not we have a free will seems to be the topic you are interested in. While it is not what I was aiming for initially, It is a topic I'm interested in discussing, however it is probably one which I would have a much harder time discussing if I'm being honest. Much of the discussion of free will and the human minds unique nature is rather philosophical and are still many unknown factors in play. Things such as the purpose of the human consciousness and how it is even present in the first place are major questions which are unanswered. (2/2)

Sorry for the long response, I had some stuff written out but I felt like it wasn't all that coherant

> Good lord let let me fix that.

I'm the guy you responded to. I see where you're coming from. But the way I see it is i feel like it'd be the pricing that would be the only barrier stopping us from destroying them. I don't break my TV because it was expensive as hell and it'd be stupid. I think they same can be applied to Androids. But we'll never know in our lifetime so there's no need to even worry about it.

>Jesus Christ is the Son of God and I pray for your soul.

Jews, Zoroaster, Mohammad, Buddha, Shiva (or any one the fuckton hindu gods), Tengri, Odin, etc. have something to say about that.

>incredible claim about no evidence
>whole human history and existence revolves around humans having a soul
>everyone somewhat agrees that a soul is a form of energy
>people release energy when dead
>can't comprehend a metaphysical concept
low iq poster

It can assemble the parts to make a copy of itself, gathering the resources from the environment, and copying its own code (and possible modifications) into the new body.

How is that NOT reproduction?

And I'll be more than happy to agree that souls exist when I see some fucking proof of it which is why I'm asking for it. Until then I'm going to operate on the assumption that it's complete fucking bullshit simply because it is an idea that can never be measured no matter how sophisticated our science becomes. It is a concept reliant on being ephemeral and incorporeal. Its existence relies on the idea that you can never interact with it or measure it.

Your thoughts are not magic; they are electrical impulses. The belief that identical electrical impulses could not occur in an artificially created brain is essentially a belief in magic.

In video-games the distinction between Man and Machine is thin. It's Sci-Fi, it's not realistic. If an AI can emulate being a Human to the point where it's indistinguishable from being a human, then the specie designing it must be capable of understanding Sentience as a whole.

>implying they're not all the same entity that keeps trying to help humans but fails miserably because we're dumb faggots
Checkmate atheists

I JUST WANT A CUTE SOFT ROBOT TO HUG
I DON'T EVEN CARE IF IT LOOKS LIKE A GUY I JUST WANT SOMEONE TO HOLD ME

Attached: 1544060280458.gif (404x347, 1003K)

>And I'll be more than happy to agree that souls exist when I see some fucking proof of it which is why I'm asking for it. Until then I'm going to operate on the assumption that it's complete fucking bullshit simply
Why? If you don't believe something is possible, it will always remain impossible. As I said before, if nobody believed it was possible to create the internet, we never would have created it.

Attached: 1534605390965.jpg (208x243, 9K)

Have it drive me to work and pick me up.
Have it cook and clean for me.
Have it suck my cock while I play vidya.
Have it take care of the kids I had with a bunch of surrogates.
Basically, it'd be my wife, without all the baggage.
Basically it'd be a good proxy for the outdated model that women are.
>inb4 incel
Nah, just a normal guy who's had girlfriends and is tired of their shit.Have it drive me to work and pick me up.
Have it cook and clean for me.
Have it suck my cock while I play vidya.
Have it take care of the kids I had with a bunch of surrogates.
Basically, it'd be my wife, without all the baggage.
Basically it'd be a good proxy for the outdated model that women are.
>inb4 incel
Nah, just a normal guy who's had girlfriends and is tired of their shit.

>whole human history and existence revolves around humans having a soul
This is a lie.
>everyone somewhat agrees that a soul is a form of energy
No they don't. Energy is measurable. Souls by definition are not physical, and energy is physical.
>people release energy when dead
You're talking about heat.
>can't comprehend a metaphysical concept
I won't acknowledge that a metaphysical concept exists in the physical universe.

You need to shut your retarded fucking mouth. My IQ is clearly soaring above yours.

I've always wondered if there's any game where Jesus, Zeus, Buddha, etc. all exist within the same setting

Reproduction is organic and is a chain of life (you are grown in a body that was grown in a body that was etc. etc.)

What you're describing is replication.

>If you don't believe something is possible, it will always remain impossible
This is a stupid claim.
>As I said before, if nobody believed it was possible to create the internet, we never would have created it.
So prove that humans have a soul. If you think it's possible, then do it. Until that day you're not going to be able to convince me, an actual intellectual, otherwise.

Sounds like you'd enjoy the Shin Megami Tensei games.

The next thing against religious posters when it comes to "well you can't prove that I can't be unproven" is "OK, but by that same logic you accept that either all religions are right or all religions are wrong. And in THAT case, you must admit your religion is wrong because it conflicts with all other religions"

The only thing that matters in reproduction, the one component universal, is the transferrence of dna (data and instructions for manufacturing). Digital or physical is irrelevant to intent. A novel is a novel, whether pdf or page you get the same data

Sounds like you'd enjoy the Shin Megami Tensei Persona games.

>So prove that humans have a soul. If you think it's possible, then do it. Until that day you're not going to be able to convince me, an actual intellectual, otherwise.
I can't, but if a scientist thinks they can in their free time, then they should explore the possibility. That's how technology advances, through curiosity, through the desire to prove that which can not be proven, the desire to create things that were previously impossible to create.

>an actual intellectual

Attached: ppe.png (498x423, 70K)

I asked for a game, not your argumentative mumbo jumbo
Whether anything exists after you die is something I really don't care about, for all intents and purposes the moment I die, I cease to exist
I'll give them a shot

>If you don't believe something is possible, it will always remain impossible.
>If you believe you will be hypnotized, you WILL be hypnotized!

>My IQ is clearly soaring above yours.
Not him, but this line is pretty rich coming from a guy who had to have the basic premise of philosophy be explained to him multiple times.

Why don't you both fucking die to find out then...?

I'm not saying that we don't follow the laws of physics you fucking illiterate third world monkey. I'm saying that you are throwing the word robot around at it suits you, saying that we all have the same capability to have a conscious mind so we are the same, which is contrary to the entire discussion.

The thing that separates us from robots, in the way that we look at robots like fucking pic related, is the fucking conscious mind which they currently lack. If you want to label us all as robots because we all have fucking atoms, be my guest, but it is a retarded notion because we all already know that.

The philosophical question, of whether we are the same as pic fucking related, is based on the presence of the conscious mind. If you put a human brain in that shit, it would be a robot, or a computer, or a machine, in the TRADITIONAL SENSE. This whole thing is a philosophical debate at its core of what is 'human' and you are devolving it into "Yeah we're all machines because we all follow the same laws". No shit man.

Attached: robot.jpg (450x405, 64K)

>me, an actual intellectual
I can smell the greasy fedora from here

Yeah well until they do prove it you shouldn't act like it has already been proven and is so ubiquitously well known and common knowledge that is no longer needs to be proven. Don't say it like it's a fact unless it's an actual fact. You fuck.

All religions have the same purpose and concept and their core but they overlap, conflict and step one over another because of mentality, culture and and political barriers

All religions follow an unbroken chain of previous religions going back to precursor human religion, possibly hermetics or something similar

>If you believe you will be hypnotized, you WILL be hypnotized!
Yes, and hypnosis does work, even if it's the placebo effect. If you can fool someone into doing something, you might as well.

Why's this thread just one giant circle jerk of Rick and Morty fans?

This isn't a philosophical discussion. It's me teaching people to not make claims they can't prove if they want to be taken seriously.

>me, an actual intellectual

Attached: 1464429448453.jpg (886x1002, 524K)

> If you put a human brain in that shit, it would be a robot
Wouldn't

>Yeah well until they do prove it you shouldn't act like it has already been proven
Show me where I said souls had been proven?

Are ghost real?

>I'm saying that you are throwing the word robot around at it suits you
You are a machine made of small, wet parts. Nobody designed you, but you function identically to a machine made out of the same kinds of parts would.

That's philosophy, which you clearly still, somehow, do not understand.

If you didn't claim that humans have souls then I'm not speaking about you.

>Your lack of understanding of how logic works is not my problem. Me not being able to prove him wrong and him not being able to prove himself right does not mean both people are equally correct or even that there is a 50% chance that either can be correct

Uh. Yeah. I'm with you.

>It's not even that there is no evidence. There's not even a shred of a clue that points to evidence that it's correct. There's no path for exploration to prove it.

Religion? That's a lot more than a shred. That's all of history up until the last 150 years or so. I got that you dont like christianity. Modern Christianity is literally retarded. This was all debated 1 one 2 thousand years ago in orthodoxy (actual christianity)

>There's no scientific test that can be performed to prove it. There's absolutely nothing.

I will make it easy and tell you what this debate boils down to .

>metaphysics vs no metaphysics

Theres your homework for the day

Epericism. Look it up. I know both sides of this argument better than you.

the tie adjusting just makes it perfect

It's not philosophy. It's the fundamental principles of how discussing competing ideas works. What is being discussed is irrelevant when we're talking about who needs to provide proof for a claim.

I used to make posts like that when I was alive.

Attached: shampoo smile.jpg (1001x768, 277K)

>I know both sides of this argument better than you.
Then you shouldn't be getting your panties twisted up when I tell someone to stop making claims that metaphysical concepts manifest in a physical universe. Shut the fuck up, faggot.

Stop posting retard, I'm cringing at every pseudo intellectual plebbit post you make. You're not discussing or proving anything, you're repeating the same rhetoric over and over and over again the entire thread, and it's very obvious which posts are yours because they're very low IQ

Another fucking thing that tells me you are a fucking autistic fedora faggot is you disdain for a theistic worldview. If you truly believe anything theistic is outside of the realm of serious discussion, your brain has clearly been sucked away into its own event horizon. The universe is illogical and rather 'theistic' and illogical to our science in nature, nothing would even exist otherwise. Until you understand this, you have absolutely no place discussing anything remotely philosophical at the big boys table.

Attached: (you)x3.png (528x388, 143K)

Stop your fucking crying, little bitch baby. Someone made a stupid god damned claim. I told him to prove it. He couldn't, and now all of you religious fanatics won't shut the fuck up about some fairy tales you believed in. I don't give a shit what you believe.

It's still real to me dammit

Attached: MarvelousEmbarrassedBlueandgoldmackaw-size_restricted.gif (334x251, 1.96M)

"Gods" of other religions do exist but they are not considered gods in (real) christianity but demons or lesser spirits. Most Christians dont know dhit about their own religion though

>nothing would even exist otherwise
You're fucking braindead. Stop sucking religious dick and join the adults at the rational thinking table some day.

Please, read what I have posted again. You're driving me insane user. In fucking sane

Attached: retard.png (190x266, 114K)

Attached: Riker_removes_Data's_arm.jpg (1379x1023, 745K)

Where can one read more about real Christianity?

Your unwillingness to grasp the simple concept I'm describing to you with kindergarten level words is not my fucking responsibility to remedy. You are a machine. This is not the same as saying you are a robot.

The universe, at the beginning, was either nothing or eternal. Both methods of existence are illogical and impossible to our understanding of science, thus 'supernatural'. But please, I would like to see the revelation you have had regarding this topic, you would certainly be the greatest genius the world has been graced with.

Attached: smug2.png (501x365, 136K)

Why are you getting emotional and worked up user? Are you getting mad because everyone is laughing at your tiny weeny iq and proving you wrong? You understand that you're talking with 10 different people, and you're not smarter than even one of them?

The fact that you think that a soul has necessarily anything to do with religion is enough to tell me you're a double digit IQ brainlet

That's cool...Plz haunt me.

As far as I can tell you two are more or less agreeing with each other without realizing it.

Jesus, are you one of those a-la-carte religion types?

>Hinduism is about doing honest and good deeds so you have either a good rebirth or a humbling rebirth.
>Buddhism is about cutting yourself off from life to break the cycle of reincarnation
>Christianity is about worshipping some jew like a monarch to get access to heaven
>Islam is about worshipping the god of this Arabian who claims to be the one and only prophet to get to heaven
>Jews don't even fuckign know what the point of their religion is. "We're the chosen people... and thats about it"
>Die in glorious battle and go to valhalla.

I can go on.

I fail to see your point here. Unless you mean religion's purpose is to bind people to their culture, I don't know what you're saying.

Just fuck already.

>even if it's the placebo effect. If you can fool someone into doing something, you might as well.

I mean, if you're saying religion keeps the stupid in line sure.

Honestly, it's amazing how accurate the fedora meme is.

Attached: 1552920024078.jpg (600x309, 32K)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, being what makes a man a man. What is humanity. The difference between man and machine.

Attached: (you).jpg (221x250, 5K)

>At the end of the day though, somebody with an understanding of it's code would be able to predict how it would behave
This is already false even for the most primitive types of neural networks. You can train and spit numbers out and get good performance but good luck explaining what the weights mean.

There is no difference. That's the point.

>I mean, if you're saying religion keeps the stupid in line sure.
I wouldn't say the stupid, I would say the people who can't be arsed to worry about God's existence or non-existence.

>but demons or lesser spirits

Again, conflicting because if all other gods exist they are not demons or lesser spirits. Just called it by the Christian God. They have the same power and grant the same boon/paradise of worship.

Boo.

Attached: ghost2.png (500x304, 124K)

Attached: pink wojak.jpg (800x450, 53K)

Attached: I'd tip my hat to you (but I haven't got a hat).gif (380x285, 1.64M)

A bunch of people acting defensively when prompted to prove an incredible claim they believe isn't surprising to me. Every post trying to argue without providing proof is just icing on my cake and illustrates I was perfectly right to question it in the first place. If you make a claim that something exists without evidence of its existence you deserve nothing but ridicule. It's one thing to postulate about its existence. It's another entirely to claim it definitely exists.

aside from current technology, is morals the only thing holding us back?

Attached: ai-11.jpg (620x349, 27K)

Dude. You dont know what metaphysics are. That entire sentence is lower IQ than something any philosophy 101 student would turn in. Metaphycis are directly related to the physical world. That is not a controversial claim at all.

>universal principles exist (ie-logic-which you claim to know all about and cling to)
>universal principle = metaphysics
>you use logic (metaphysics) in the physical world

We couldn't even have this discussion without logic. None of this is off the wall

I don't see an argument.

Arigato...T-T)

Markus’ “freedom” is literally just a virus that lets him control and Android he touches.

> people who can't be arsed to worry about God's existence or non-existence.

AKA, those less intelligent. If it is willful ignorance of such debate then it is foolish. If it is unintentional ignorance it's stupidity.

this statement
>even if it's the placebo effect. If you can fool someone into doing something, you might as well.
also implies negative attitude

youtube.com/watch?v=8iG57nN91YU

You fail to see the point because you're clinging to niche things about said religions. Purpose of each and every religion is purity of human spirit and veneration of good qualities.

The common thing about all the religions you mentioned is the necessity to strive and fundamentally be a good person. The other common thing is that each one of the religions dictates that human transcendence is the ultimate goal of every person, buddhism is the most obvious one and probably the closest to the original concepts. Die in a glorious battle and going to valhalla isn't a negative thing, to understand that it's necessary to understand what kind of society vikigns lived in. If they didn't have to fight and murder they wouldn't, but it was necessary they do it because their families depended on it. Through battle they provide to their families, their familial obligation dictates they transcend and sit with gods when they die. For Christians it's being a good person through their entire life etc.

I'm not saying that religions are good or bad, but I'm telling you their purpose as I understand it. Some have too much negative qualities and should be destroyed(islam) despite there being and honest individuals practicing and understanding the core concept. Every religion is a completely different path to the same destination, but the majority of the followers of said religions don't even understand what their religion is about so they don't see a path at all.

Yeah. Without it it'd just be murder, rape, and surviving.

Stop. I will not drive myself insane running in circles.

Attached: jonesmad.jpg (478x477, 50K)

You're drawing false conclusions here. The existence of a soul needs to be determined before it can be asserted to have a physical or metaphysical effect on our universe. You can't call a soul a principle unless it at the very least exists. You have a very difficult time separating what you believe and what actually exists. True concepts exist independently from belief. If all humans who believed in the concept of a soul died then the concept of a soul would die with it. Fundamental principles exist beyond our belief in them. That's the structure science is built on. If you want to claim that souls exist in our universe you need to prove it.

Look up Orthodoxy. It is the only real form of christianity. Basically the original form. There are 1000s of years of writings and apologetics on the stuff were debating right now. It's like catholic but without the Pope and other changes Catholics made. Jay Dyer has a decent YouTube channel on some stuff

You're only driving yourself insane because you believe something that isn't true and you can't wrap your head around trying to defend it. Stop believing in fairy tales and your peace of mind will be perfectly fine.

How many levels of Richard and Mortimer are you on wight now?

...

Morals are a modern human invention for that exact purpose, yes.

>niche things about said religions.

Those aren't niche things, those are LITERALLY the purpose of the religions in a nutshell lol and they actively conflict with each other.

Like I said, a-la-carte.

>I like these cherry-picked parts of these religions
>except you have to deal with all the hardships of said religions
>what

>Kamski gave robots free will so he could by definition rape his QT3.14 robot waifu
The absolute madlad.

u Mad Bro? Just go back and read, maybe it will kick in after the 4th time

Attached: ebinfrog.gif (200x200, 1.16M)

Thanks fren, I'll read more about it.

Wrong. I am well studied in theology. Not to sound arrogant but I know this shit on both sides.

Big different between christianity vs others
>creation from nothing

This means a lot

Correct user.
Robots, electronic computers, and AI programs are definitely NOT sapient.
Human beans are probably NOT sapient.
Normally in fiction androids aren't even robots anyway. In Blade Runner they're synthetic humans, completely biological. More like clones than robots. In Fallout 4 the 3rd generation synths are also biological clone thingies but parts of their brain are deliberately not grown and are replaced with computers so they're more like lobotomite clone cyborgs than robots.

I read everything I respond to slowly and deliberately. I don't run away from arguments or ignore what people type. I respond to what I think is relevant. If I didn't respond to something you wanted me to respond to you'll have to be more clear or explain yourself more clearly because I dismiss shit that's obvious not thought out well enough.

Morals = metaphysical principle

This btfos atheists pretty easily

Games taught me religion is evil. So no way fag eat my power of friendship.

Maybe finish high school first before determining whether or not you have good reading comprehension.

Attached: Cruz ninja.gif (600x453, 384K)

Morality is a subjective philosophical pattern of behavior that relies on an understanding of what is favorable for a society of organisms. It's possible to have immoral bacteria among a culture of bacteria.

youtube.com/watch?v=_dKpeTEBYIA

Alright class, what have we learned today?

Cute android gfs are a good idea.

I'll repeat myself. If you want me to respond to something then you'll have to be more clear. I'm not running away from this discussion. I'm actively engaging. You're the one running away by choosing to not participate. Winners don't behave in such a cowardly way. Unless you participate you're never going to change my mind.

Soul is not a principle and I'm not arguing that. Sorry if it confused you. I'm basically making sure we are on the same page with universal truths . Because, basically. If you accept those then you have to accept that they came from somewhere. Where did they come from?
>the human mind!!
Wrong, obviously those things would exist with or without humans.

to never trust a jew

You still don't understand what I'm talking about and seems that you don't even understand the point of any of the religions you previous mentioned.

All of those things end with the same concept: heaven, moksha, nirvana, valhalla which is all a form of a transcendence of a the human spirit.

My brain power has likely decreased

Attached: bet hes thinking.jpg (640x639, 43K)

How many times do I need to repeat it

>if all religions right
>all religions conflict

Hell, Christianity, Islam and Judaism all say the same thing about creation from nothing.

Islam and Christianity conflict because Jesus is "son of god" while Islam looks at Mohammad as final prophet and that jesus was just a "prophet". Judaism says both are wrong.

There's your triangle there.

People on Yea Forums think they are hot shit, bunch of pompous pseudo-intellectuals.

Also I want to fuck Connor.

>Wrong, obviously those things would exist with or without humans.
There is no logical reason why you would believe the concept of a soul would exist if all of the creatures that believe in it ceased to exist. If an idea is reliant on the continual existence of an organism to sustain itself, this idea is not a universal principle. It's is a local belief.

>he wants me to simplify it even more
Uhhhh, thats gonna be a Big Yikes Cringe from me bro. Even other anons could understand before you could.

Attached: ben2.jpg (750x735, 71K)

>it can be assumed with the limited resources that we as humans have something that resembles as soul
Seems like quite a leap. A pattern of abstract thinking in human brains doesn't necessarily mean the subject of those thoughts is literally true, perhaps it's akin to an optical illusion.

Doesn't the fact that the idea is possible to conceive make that idea exist? Even if all the organisms with that idea died, it would be possible for it to be recognized again if intelligence ever reappeared. It exists in the same sense logic or math exists.

In other words you acknowledge you can't convince me of what you believe. You act like this is because I need things to be simpler to understand. I understand everything you're saying perfectly fine. I just don't agree with it. I've listed my reasons for my disagreement and all you can respond with is bullshit. This just cements that I'm correct and you're full of shit. If you were right you wouldn't be running away with your tail between you legs. You would be jumping at every opportunity to prove I'm wrong, just like I did to you. You are left with nothing left to say. Meanwhile I've got dozens of avenues I could explore to rub your face in your stupidity.

Attached: obama guns.jpg (720x613, 287K)

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU TWO ARE ARGUING ABOUT ANYMORE!

Attached: maya fey.gif (500x535, 832K)

wha happens if i rub my dick on the latter

The idea or concept of the soul exists to us because we can conceive of it. This is not the same as a soul existing. There's a difference between the physical and the conceptual. Insisting that it exists in reality even though it is only conceptual in nature is disingenuous.

Christian and Islamic Heaven are gated communities run by one guy. Nirvana is enlightenment and breaking reincarnation while still alive. Moksha after death.

She's gonna snap it clean off with her superhuman android stength.

Hell yeah. You made me dealing with this thread worth it then. I hated Christianity and religion a lot of my life until the past few years. I had a bad taste of it in my mouth from BS christianity as a kid. I blame it for most people thinking religion is dumb. I started reading on orthodoxy and eventually went to a church where I got baptized a few weeks ago.

>real father seraphim rose, nihilism

To any anons lurking, do yourself a favor and rethink about religion and Christ. Your life has meaning. Atheists think they are the smart ones but who's really the smart one if your depressed life philosophy leads you into accepting your existence as ultimately meaningless?

Attached: 1556608208158.jpg (1920x1080, 1.49M)

Connor was so much better than the other two it’s not even funny

good one man, your autism is making me laugh

Attached: kek.jpg (199x199, 15K)

t. dogfucker
There's no difference, right?

The death rattle of a retard that got blown the fuck out and lost an argument with bells on. Always the same. You believe that only an autistic savant would be able to get the upper hand in an argument with you. That's how fucking retarded you are.

You really just dont know a lot about religion and the history / doctrine of different ones. I mean I dont expect you to but I also can't give you a full semester course on Yea Forums lol. I think reading up on paganism will help you a lot

Gunpowder is just angry sand.

If the dog I'm fucking is a machine with sentience is it really fair to call me a dogfucker? What if it barks at me all sexy like?

Nice.

Numbers = metaphysical truth

FACT

another universal that would exist without the human mind

I said it could be done in theory. I didn't mean it was practical to do so. I could create an A.I. that would pass for human if I had 100,000 years to program it, but obviously I don't. It's just a matter of creating enough if(x = y) then do z(or similar); Given infinite time to code it, the A.I. would pass for human. It wouldn't be sentient or have free will though. There are no true random numbers in code, which is something you learn in programming 101. You have to do stuff to "trick" the computer into generating random numbers. Originally, if you asked a computer to generate a string of random numbers, you would want to seed it to determine which random numbers it generates(usually that would be the time of day) and generate the numbers based on that, but if you run the program at the same time of day every time, it will always generate the same random numbers.

Modern languages do all the work of seeding the random number generator for you, so it appears random, but they are still creating strings of random numbers that are predictable if you understand how it works. With androids you could seed the random number generator with numbers generated based on environmental stimuli. While it is predictable, to a person who can't see the stimuli it will appear unpredictable. Though you could easily program it to print out the numbers it generated based on it's environment. This will show you that the A.I. behaved in a predictable manner.