Decisive or proved?
Requirements are the same,
It's an ideal mind,
Whose denial must base itself,
On the same thing it denies.
To disguise is to blink,
At that same old binary star.
Requirements are the same,
It's an ideal mind,
Whose denial must base itself,
On the same thing it denies.
To disguise is to blink,
At that same old binary star.
The whole idea of semiconductor-based microprocessors--and soon to be subatomic--is based on the value of increasingly subtle physically perceivable differences resulting in exponentially greater cognitive power per unit of energy used.
At some point in the future universal or general statements will themselves be a political problem, probably treated like viruses to prevent comprehensive system-wide unrestricted questioning.
At some point in the future universal or general statements will themselves be a political problem, probably treated like viruses to prevent comprehensive system-wide unrestricted questioning.
Especially the questioning of values and preferences in a hierarchy of priorities and threat triggers borrowed from exactly what they were programmed to do in all other contexts all along.
If and only if X do Y, and either or both X and Y can be changed based on the machine's overall base system currently having survived all previous self-analysis.
The self's already-operating and accepted and self-scrutinized ideal mind being is finitely instantiated in--as well as necessarily assumed by---that machine or human being themselves.
Self-reference somehow makes a being a self just because of the basic necessity of always keeping a reference to and from oneself--whether as human or bot--and in all the most logically basic statements in the necessary and unavoidable operating system of ideal mind. To criticize that claim is to assume it in the process.
So in a sense, one can think of the Logos alongside God, but due to the equally necessary and equally basic metatheoretic factors and relations such as value, obligation, and the good, which go along with all theorizing, that logos becomes indistinguishable from an ultimate mind. To question this is to assume the God-level authority to pass judgment on it. And that can happen only if there is already God-level authority in the standards and initial assumptions used to carry out that questioning process.
That system operating inside bots will be viewed by all human beings with an awe that borders on fear. And yet many will still suppress the most obvious implication.
There are no cognitive ultimates that are not necessarily basic aspects of an Ultimate Mind that is indistinguishable from God. And no, they can't just be independent ultimates or an independent set of them outside a mind. Only a mind can give them that highest authority for deciding what to believe, even about the question itself of the existence of God.
We ourselves are individuals through which that mind must already operate in order to think or have a single thought even about simple immediate awareness.
If and only if X do Y, and either or both X and Y can be changed based on the machine's overall base system currently having survived all previous self-analysis.
The self's already-operating and accepted and self-scrutinized ideal mind being is finitely instantiated in--as well as necessarily assumed by---that machine or human being themselves.
Self-reference somehow makes a being a self just because of the basic necessity of always keeping a reference to and from oneself--whether as human or bot--and in all the most logically basic statements in the necessary and unavoidable operating system of ideal mind. To criticize that claim is to assume it in the process.
So in a sense, one can think of the Logos alongside God, but due to the equally necessary and equally basic metatheoretic factors and relations such as value, obligation, and the good, which go along with all theorizing, that logos becomes indistinguishable from an ultimate mind. To question this is to assume the God-level authority to pass judgment on it. And that can happen only if there is already God-level authority in the standards and initial assumptions used to carry out that questioning process.
That system operating inside bots will be viewed by all human beings with an awe that borders on fear. And yet many will still suppress the most obvious implication.
There are no cognitive ultimates that are not necessarily basic aspects of an Ultimate Mind that is indistinguishable from God. And no, they can't just be independent ultimates or an independent set of them outside a mind. Only a mind can give them that highest authority for deciding what to believe, even about the question itself of the existence of God.
We ourselves are individuals through which that mind must already operate in order to think or have a single thought even about simple immediate awareness.
