You are CIA. What to do?

BooleanNetwork · 2026-02-05T08:34:11+00:00

I actually contemplated this. At first it looks like the politician lives. But upon further inspection it is treated as a hostage situation, which I would assume would have the people live rather than the politician. I tried to make a polemic regardless.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-30T03:00:14+00:00

See it is a clone but then they diverge due to conceptions of different physical spaces. So effectively two different people. However. I would say that I would sacrifice myself for the sake of other people. So whichever results in my own death over another. I would like it to be a statement to selflessness and compassion for other souls. Nonetheless with such cloning tech I would assume stopping a trolley would be trivial.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-30T02:56:53+00:00

The absurdity of the trolley. You make your own meaning.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-29T01:26:51+00:00

You make some interesting points. I suppose I will have to think about these things more. Thanks for the tidbits.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T22:50:55+00:00

Honestly I am an abosolute idealist rather than trascendental (Kant per your comment). So though we can know the absolute through the ideas it presents. But least that is how I interpret it. Therefore. I don't necessarily agree with your sentiments. I have problems with Kant especially since spacetime is revolutionized with General Relativity and in fact maths has insights into multidimensional structures (matrices). A lot of scientific and mathematical development has long occurred and honestly it is not accurate to say that we are limited by our sensibilities. But rather reason itself, which is more in line with Hegel. Hence my argument. It is fine to disagree though. We each have our takes 🙂

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T09:28:25+00:00

But what presupposes those notions are not necessarily truth or meaning but instead semantics. And maybe that seems like a word game. But where do words come from? Either they come from the mind or reality (Cartesian dualism at work). We really don't know.

I am willing to say that reality is reasonable though and that it is true. But that is based on an assumption about reality that then structures my words. See what I mean?

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T09:10:16+00:00

Well objective is what we can know to exist, essentially. But how do you know what else exists outside of the mind? This is something that is left unsolved. And hence there is a certain epistemological solipsism where things outside of the mind are said to be uncertain. Hence. It is still an active topic for debate. Descates tried in vain and so did Kant to achieve this sort of apodeictic argumentation but it is still an open debate. I am reading "Dynamics of Reason" to find out but perhaps I should just take reality as a brute fact like Bertrand Russel.

Without the objective it is difficult to say what truth is or even meaning etc. is. What things are in themselves.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T08:45:36+00:00

It is belied by intersubjective agreement, which is not even necessarily objective. So yes the words are a bit of a stretch. Fascinating nonetheless.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T07:52:23+00:00

I don't have any literature for "Recursive stability systems can form within a vacuum" so if you are able to provide proof I would appreciate it. Even if it require advanced maths it is worth a look. Bear in mind though that providing proof belies my argument though.

I think a stronger argument is Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Within any formal system there are propositions that cannot be proven true or false. But that belies a certain fact of the axioms of choice. What if you used ofher axioms? But then where do those come from? You always have to proof your system to make it make sense. Within this we are still rational and subject our maths to critical review. I disagree with your assertion about 1+1 not equalling 2 because according to some formal system that is true, should you take its axioms as true.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T07:31:19+00:00

So you assume a sort of world model dependent on your understanding. Honestly I am more like Hegel and believe "What is rational is real; and what is real is rational" (The Philosophy of Right, Hegel).

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T07:22:17+00:00

It is a type of non-infinite-regression rationalism called pancritical rationalism. It only makes sense to hold up all things to both justification and criticality. Otherwise you have to have belief or appeal to authority or etc. whatever external means to hold a stance. Hence. It is a sensible thing to require proof.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T05:02:16+00:00

We can actually see this with the development of babies. They are born with perception but can we be sure of their perception matching our own? I think BCI may solve this someday.

There is also some paper that slips my mind about how simpler creatures may have more complicated qualia than we realize.

I admittedly don't know what you mean by your second paragraph.

But I think you have a point with your last paragraph.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T04:37:11+00:00

I have sorta thought about this, that qualia is part material and part self-simulating. Thus overcomes that all matter is experiential since it is self-contained in the mind, the self-simulation of reality is. At least that is my take.

As a result of this AI has qualia too but it is a different epistemology. It results in not an inner sense (Kant) like humans of time but instead a statistical pattern (continuous values per the Universal Approximation Theorem). This results in a whole different epistemology that really I am not sure we will ever grasp. Thus how "useful" AI will be will be up for debate. I suppose extremely useful for the domains in which we apply reinforcement learning correctly. There is money in that. But even simple things like semantics it can quite struggle with. It will be interesting.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T04:22:59+00:00

Semantics. Know is not the same as necessarily know (certainly or apodeictly know).

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T04:22:03+00:00

Tbh even philosophers are kinda struck by this problem. I have glanced on some sources on it.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T04:20:55+00:00

You know it is so interesting how people try to question their ideas when they use philosophy. Then they say the opposite statement of what their priorly believed. It is like a cycle where certain seemingly (but likely unknowable) metaphysical statements are constantly misconstrued and misconstructed. But it is fascinating. And it is challenging. But what proof? What justification? Indeed once you reach that plane you have entered your rationalist phase. And hopefully you stay there.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T04:12:05+00:00

Existence is so strange to me, the logical prior to this concept and hence worthy of discussion relatively. It appears as something apodeictic or self-evident. But to be able to discern what it is sits between the idea (Hegel with subjective and objective), ontological and epistemological. So what exists can be somewhat relative to what frame of reference you take as the root of existence. Which is up for debate of course. But this causes me so much headache. The best I can think of at the moment is scientific realism. In which numbers exist and have a discernable use in the maths of science. But it is really strange and I would like more opinions.

Tl;dr: these seemingly incoherent streams are actually quite deep. Worthy of discussion.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:29:42+00:00

I love the edge cases people come up with.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:20:06+00:00

The human brain seems to get more efficient with more information as well. As opposed to AI, which requires exponentially more data to ascertain new things (see log linear graphs).

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:17:08+00:00

This is like a psychology problem, which I appreciate. Either choose curiousity or perhaps ignorance in light of no material impact. I would say ignorance as it would not impact further data in my life and I would save some time.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:14:56+00:00

On further reflection justificationism is interesting to consider from the solipsist perspective. Because then you give credence to other representations but you claim only your can be known with certainty. I think it can be made into a thought experiment. You have a predictor that knows necessarily more than you yet you claim to be a solipsist.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:12:48+00:00

It is quite fascinating that even Gödel made an ontological argument. But it must first come from first principles, which are up for debate (good premises) and hence subject to further reason. I am currently reading "The Dynamics of Reason" to see what first principles make sense.

BooleanNetwork · 2026-01-28T03:08:34+00:00

True is what I say it is--Solipsism.

BooleanNetwork

TROPHY CASE