Leo Gura

It's not the same thing. I see how people use it. Use it to not think.

Lab rat meat for all! Coming soon.

Rationalizing rape is survival.

What a rationalization. Emerald is right here. Eat what you want but stop kidding yourself.

Yes, it's a real problem. Major disruption and chaos ahead. None of us really know how to prepare for it. However, humans who merely use AI to think for them will forever be stupid. Like your philosopher friend. You can't short-circuit contemplation any more than you can short-circuit physical exercise. A robot cannot do your pushups for you. A robot cannot think for you. So flexing your intellect is still necessary. As far as what careers will still be viable in 10 years, it's really hard to say.

False. In the end all your rules are checked by survival. If it kills you, then your rules fail. Most of what humans regard as true or valid is simply whatever allows them to survive. Consider why AI is logical. Because if it wasn't humans would just kill it because it wouldn't be useful to them. And why are humans logical? Because the illogical ones killed themselves long ago. Also, the notion of empirical applies to the operation of your mind. When you do logic inside your mind that is empirical! When you add 1+1=2 in your mind you are empirically investigating the structure of Mind. Which is why mathematical discoveries are possible. You have new insight into the way Mind works. All of your logical rules had to be discovered as insights through observation of the Mind. A =A is an insight. There is no understanding of anything without insight.

@zurew Everything is an empirical claim. A = A is an empirical claim. You are born totally ignorant. The only way you can know anything is via Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be known without experience. The notion of a priori knowledge is academic nonsense. And you side-stepped my point that you do not know the import of logic via logic alone. Import is what matters, not following rules. The issue is not whether some logical rule is valid. The issue is why logical rules matter at all and how they a relate to reality. There is no escaping Intelligence. Intelligence is fundamental to all sense-making. You can never get rid of Intelligence.

No, that is wrong. There are infinite different kinds of axiomatic logical systems with various rules. How do you know which ones apply to our world and which ones don't? Only empirically. You cannot even know that logic has any import without empirical investigation. Just because a computer can follow rules doesn't mean a damn thing existentially. Intelligence is always required to know which rules are worth anything or have meaning. Why do humans even attach importance to logic? It's clearly not just because of rules. It's because someone with intelligence understood that logic is fundamental to reality. And, btw, logic cannot just be written down in a finite system of rules because logic is infinite. Logic works because an intelligent, conscious being is using it properly. Intelligence is required to understand which logic is properly applied and when it is not. Don't forget that even when your AI is being properly logical, that's only because it was trained by intelligent humans, on intelligent content created by intelligent humans, and optimized with intelligent feedback from intelligent humans. So yeah, after you train it like that, it can act logical. The collective logic of all of mankind is baked into AI. And still, AI will make logical mistakes that it doesn't know how to fix, requiring a human intelligence to fix them.

You're not going to learn remote viewing. This is a genetic ability.

Inside and outside is a duality. They are co-defined. You can't have an inside without an outside unless you have an Absolute or Infinity. Infinity can have only "inside". But every finite thing must have an inside and an outside. If there is only inside or only outside the thing is either infinitely large or infinitely small. Every slice has two sides. You can't have an up without a down, since up and down are relative to each other. This is actually a great proof of the Oneness of Absolutes. The only thing that can have a One is an Absolute. Oness is a property of an Absolute. Absolute is God.

Everything just has a Meta-Unity. Language and thought simply breaks down at this ultimate level. If everything is real, that's a Unity.

I don't need to believe in it. I became directly conscious that God is Everything. Yes, Oneness is more inclusive than 300-ness. But Oneness still allows 300-ness to exist.

Sure, include all those things. Everything is still One. One is an absolute. It's not different from many. Oneness contains manyness within it.

@Synchronicity Here is a dead simple logical proof of Oneness: Take the notion of Everything. Everything must be One. Why? Because any thing whatsoever must be included in Everything. If you can think of or imagine a thing which isn't part of Everything, that means you didn't have Everything, so just include that thing into Everything. So by absolute logic Everything must be One. There can only be one Everything. Everything must also be infinite since Everything can hold an infinite number of things. Since numbers are things, we can see that Everything must at least contain all the numbers, which means Everything is infinite. It is impossible to imagine anything that is not a "thing" since I define "thing" as anything whatsoever, including "non-things". So Everything is God. Classical logic. Doubt it all you like, but it is true.

The whole chain is LOVE, so the kangaroo is just part of the chain. Like the reason for a brick in a house is the house. A kangaroo is just one brick within LOVE.

I do say that within Infinity everything has an ultimate reason. And that reason is LOVE. So the kangaroo is there because LOVE requires it.

My claim is that they could not have a logic in which they see that reality is not One or Infinity. Or if they did, it would be self-deception. Other than that, they can have all sorts of weird applications of logic which I have not considered thus far.

Your stuff is not illogical, it is hyper-logical. My worldview accounts for that. I call that hyperbolic logic.

That's right, but logicians don't grasp the significance of that. Everything is uncaused, but people are blind to the magic of God since they don't see the infinity at work in all things.

I'm not denying classical logic per se, I'm just saying it needs to be fully applied and its ramifications traced through completely. The problem is that classical logicians stop short of this. They don't see the radical ramifications of classic logic as applied to the problem of existence and ontology. How do you get something from nothing? Classical logic doesn't go that deep. Although it could if pushed. Which is basically what I did with my proofs.

@Synchronicity Conventional logic requires that all finite things have a cause and they cannot be their own cause nor exist for no reason whatsoever. It is highly unconventional to say that a kangaroo exists for no reason and with no cause. And this logic is correct. Finite things require other finite things as causes. An infinite thing does not need a cause because infinite logic allows it to be self-created/eternal.

@Synchronicity I see our views as quite compatible. We might differ on how exactly Infinity manifests itself in all its weird edge-cases. I don't claim absolute knowledge of all the edge-cases of Infinity. To me those are interesting details. You have a better sense of those edge-cases than me.

It's only restricted in the sense that it doesn't admit false things as true. My logic doesn't really restrict what sort of phenomena are found within reality. Flying 5 dimensional unicorns are allowed. Even finite sub-realities are allowed, as long as they are part of Infinity. Anything that can be coherently imagined is allowed. If you can figure out a way to coherently imagine a 4 sided triangle then it can exist. Otherwise it cannot.

It's restricted in that false things can't be true. Your view is also restricted by truth. We are all restricted by truth. If truth was not restricting you then you wouldn't be disputing anything I say since anything I say is as good as any view you hold. There is no way around Truth.