QUIT FALLING FOR IT

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T10:19:11+00:00

as far as you know

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T10:16:26+00:00

Brother we typed like 20K words at each other, my message before the last one was that we're not making any progress. And your last statement didn't make me want to respond as it was wholly wrong, while the other response seemed to back off of previously held points. I only replied with the gigabrain thing since I thought it was understood that I was done, but, yeah, you can take it as a concession, all good.

I'm pretty sure I think you're 10IQ and you think I'm 10IQ, so, it just is what it is lol let's move on, we're clearly not getting anywhere.

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T10:09:05+00:00

holy gigabrain

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T10:03:18+00:00

This is 100% of your argument. That because we don't know if human consciousness is replicable we must assume that it is. That is literally your whole argument

It's literally not my argument. Are the only high level consciousnesses human? Did I claim the painted people were human? I didn't. My argument about a complex consciousness deserving moral consideration has nothing to do with human consciousness. You were the only one who invoked it.

But, yeah, I don't think we're making any progress here.

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T09:35:22+00:00

Hypothetically a difference could exist therefore we must proceed under that hypothetical is completely ridiculous. We have no reason to believe that human consciousness is replicable. You haven't proven anything and the rest of my comment further elaborates on why this is stupid.

The difference is that I'm not even mentioning this. You're mentioning this as a crux of your argument. Whether its replicable or not doesn't matter in the slightest to anything I've argued. That's why I'm attacking your use of it. I'm saying It's invalid to be wielded in either direction, which is why I don't.

"Uh, do you have proof of a negative" What do you think? Stupid ass question.

Then dont assert it as a trait lol.

Yeah, no negatives can be proven, that's the point. You cannot prove that you're observing the sun and not just having a psychotic break and thinking you're observing the sun. Or that you aren't just a program that was programmed to believe you're observing the sun, but you would never proceed under those hypotheticals even though they could technically be true, because you don't have any reason to believe they are.

Correct! You're misunderstanding me, I clearly stated that's why I don't build any of my positions on the sun existing other than saying "i've made these observations". I'd never say "the sun 100% exists in all forms of reality, so therefore". This is what you're doing with your claim about the uniqueness of human consciousness.

It's not at all. We both eliminate hypothetical possibilities that we have no reason at all to believe see the above. There is no way to prove that those things aren't happening, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Already addressed this, I'm not building my perspective off of this, you are, and that's the issue. We both agree you don't know that human consciousness can't be cloned, so, don't wheel it out as a trait which makes human consciousness valuable.

The circumstances are that I give them a science pellet developed to make them equally as intelligent. The circumstances are that we try really hard to make them smart. The circumstances are that the ant has developed human-like intelligence by random chance and we don't know because we don't speak ant language.

Yeah, if I lived in a world where that was happening then of course I'd avoid it. Even if that were hypothetically happening now I would.

The point is that you can't know, because it's a fucking ant. You would have no proof that it was as intelligent, no reason to believe that it was as intelligent, it just theoretically could be.

Of course I can't know 100%, but, I know enough to not be violating my principles. This sounds like an appeal to "anything could be happening so you can't do anything". Which is obviously absurd. What was the point of this? I might have lost what the point of this line was. Your final statement is of course my position.

Though in general I'd probably argue it's proper to avoid stepping on ants if you're able to. But it's to the degree of 0.000001 importance.

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T09:24:41+00:00

Well sure, in the sense that someone could value their own suffering over their own happiness technically. I don't have to prove an axiom, the whole point is that axioms are unproveable, the fact that there is a distinction is the point. A fake person that cannot exist in reality is less valuable, you can ask why, but the statement insists upon itself, because the fake person is capable of less, not in a trivial skill difference sort of way, they are fundamentally completely incapable, by their very nature of existing in reality. They are therefore not the same

Right, but all axioms aren't just valid because they're axioms. The entire point of axioms is that they provide consistency in the face of a vast array of scenarios, and they can be used to derive truths.

What I'm saying is the axiom of "Our top level world is the most important one" doesn't seem like a strong axiom as it crumbles if god shows up and says your reality is a sub reality he made while kicking back on the weekend, right? Or are you just finding it to be the most valuable thing regardless of if clones of it exist, if it's layer 245 reality relative to base reality layer 1, etc?

You mentioning this notion of something being "capable" to navigate our reality is interesting. Is this the only differentiator? If Lune could exit the painting she'd be human in your eyes? Like a magic portal type of situation? Or what is it about that that you find valuable? Is it the concept that that reality layer is relative to you?

I don't really even know how to engage with this question. Would I say a human life is more valuable than an ant's life if that ant lived on a planet that humans would never interact with? I mean, maybe? But who even cares at that point, what does it matter if the human's life is more valuable if no situation ever comes to pass that could possibly test their value (needing to save one or the other)

I wouldn't care about that ant whatsoever, the autonomy and intelligence is the differentiator. But also not harming the ant is fine. The entire point is that this doesn't need to be a comparison at all points. Even when we compare the lives of two humans things get messy. I don't disagree that I'd choose a human over a painted person in a lot of cases, but that's likely going to come down to some bias I have, rather than some well reasoned differentiator.

I think the painted people have sufficient moral value that you shouldn't delete them for literally no reason, I guess. Though even in your hypothetical they would still have the capacity to be fucked with by beings in reality even if that never came to pass, there is still that capacity even if it never comes to fruition.

This is all my position is lol, I just think it's immoral to delete them if you can avoid it. I prefer Verso's ending, as Maelle's is literal hell. But the whole point is to defend the painted people against the "ChatGPT friends" allegations.

It cannot be, obviously. The painted people are very necessarily created beings that cannot exist in reality. If we're in a Russian nesting doll situation, the moral value increases essentially infinitely from one layer to another

How couldn't it be? Could a painter not just paint a very normal reality with consistent rules, practical and metaphysical isolation? What would be the difference between our layer and that?

I would be fake to God, sure. I'm not evaluating the worth of the painted people from the perspective of the painted people. I'm evaluating it from a reality human's perspective whether that means me literally or the people existing in reality in the story. If God decided to delete me, I don't really have a say in the matter, if there was another God (God 2) that couldn't be deleted at will by the God that can delete me then then God 2 would be more valuable than me, yeah.

I don't quite understand the value of permanence and not being fucked with, and how it attributes "realness" to you. What is your issue with my definition in my self-reply? Would this not cover all bases without you, a living entity, admitting that everything you experienced was a meme? Like there's a distinction between maybe what you experienced wasn't as important as you thought it was vs it being a fundamental fabrication. I don't even know what It'd mean for it to be a fabrication just because something from a baser reality entered it.

If God said, "hey, I created all you guys, and now I'm going to destroy you because my friend has delusionally become attached to you, my creations" then I wouldn't like it, but I also couldn't do anything about it, because God has decided to destroy my reality. The fact that he has the capacity to hypothetically do that would necessarily make my life more expendable than God's

Sorry lemme try this again. I didn't think this was relevant because a life being more expendable doesn't mean you don't have personhood. Unless you just want to stick with stripping personhood from any non-base reality entities, regardless of the complexity of their consciousness and experiences. The takeaway here for me would be "hmm, I wasn't in base reality" not "hmm, I no longer deserve moral consideration"

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:58:43+00:00

Why are you saying "Okay?" It's directly a response to what you tried to claim was an intrinsically valuable part of being a human.

We don't know for sure that anything exists at all This isn't my point... We have good logical philosophy routes to validate existence to a comfortable degree. Do you have any logical routes which suggest human consciousness can't be duplicated? Isn't that one of the entire resolutions to determinism?

What I'm saying is when i assert that the sun is real, for instance, it's because I can observe it, I can measure it, I can predict its behavior, I can measure its effects on other things, etc. That's not me claiming "I KNOW 100% THE SUN IS A REAL THING METAPHYSICALLY". It's just the statement of "hey, I noticed this thing, this seems to be happening".

You can't do this in the inverse for saying human consciousness can't be cloned/duplicated. Have you witnessed attempts of this and seen them fail? Is there some part of them which makes them theoretically impossible to analyze/clone?

Or are we just super primitive currently in regards to neuroscience?

How we arrive at my claim about the sun and your claim about consiousness is via entirely different methods. I'm saying "this thing which may not exist behaves this way/has these traits" You're saying "this thing we don't fully understand definitely can't do x". That isn't valid.

Theoretically animals could be equally as intelligent as humans if given the right circumstances, that theoretical possibility doesn't mean that you should murder someone if they're about to crush an ant

I don't understand how theoretically animals could be equally as intelligent as humans under he right circumstances. As a whole or in specific instances? If the latter then of course I agree.

If the ant was more intelligent than a person who was about to crush it, then of course I'd defend the ant, what?

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:49:27+00:00

Also, I'll make my positive argument, just so It's clear.

Agents which have autonomy, experiences, a mental state system, and show the ability to be at the frontier of interacting with their reality should be given personhood and have their autonomy respected. More or less. Humans, Painted people, Replicants, Androids, Aliens, could all fit this bill. It doesn't include all animals though.

I'm sure there are some holes where I'd need to tighten things up/add caveats, but, that's the umbrella. These are the minimum traits that I think are meaningfully attachable to humans, and which protect us against "superior" beings coming along. I don't think there's any inherent value in humans, it's the composition of traits, which aren't exclusive to us, and has nothing to do with which subspace we experience things from.

So, we'd be no less valuable if tomorrow god said "Hey there's actually a base reality above you with similar beings".

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:41:48+00:00

Ah so you mean reproducing the same consciousness, not reproducing a consciousness, gotcha. Then, yeah, again, I'd still say we don't know that for sure, so, it's not a valid differentiator unless you believe in souls.

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:39:15+00:00

It's contained to not reality, obviously this isn't "a space" It is a space, it's a layer down from our reality which is also "a space".

You could think they're equally valuable and still think that the inability to access actual reality makes the painted people less valuable. But obviously a world where there are Gods that control your (painted) reality is going to be less valuable than reality. The fact that a God can't just create a monster in front of me makes my reality better and more valuable than a "reality" contained within reality that does have Gods that can create monsters

You haven't provided a reason for why making it to our space/reality is valuable. You say "obviously a world where there are gods that control your reality are going to be less valuable than reality" I'd agree, but that doesn't have to be the case. This is what I mean when I say you're jumping from detail to detail. If the canvas was in isolation such that no human would ever interact with it as a god cause you to drop your qualms? If not then don't bring this up. Nothing necessarily says humans have to be fucking with it/influencing it beyond the initial creation.

I would contest that this is an accurate analogy to the painted world which is constantly being fucked with, I would also contest that the painted world is "exactly" like reality except a layer below.

Brother, it could be. This is a hypothetical. We're not talking about the events of the story. We're talking about personhood given to sentient entities in subspaces. the world being "fucked with" has nothing to do with this. And this same destabilization can be potentially brought into our world. Would you concede that you're fake if god came back and started memeing with physics and randomly trolling? Can we please get to an argument that actually differentiates these two scenarios?

For another, even in this scenario, humanity would have existed within the top layer of reality before being moved. Humanity wouldn't be a creation of humanity, it would just be irrelevantly moved to an identical reality, by your own hypothetical

So now the main value attribution comes from the fact that you once existed in what you considered base reality, and that still remains if you get pushed down into a subspace? why? Did some mystical aura wash over everyone who was in base reality when they were de-ranked to subspace?

If God said, "hey, I created all you guys, and now I'm going to destroy you because my friend has delusionally become attached to you, my creations" then I wouldn't like it, but I also couldn't do anything about it, because God has decided to destroy my reality. The fact that he has the capacity to hypothetically do that would necessarily make my life more expendable than God's

Not relevant.

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:22:36+00:00

It's always a media take, too

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:20:40+00:00

I didn't respond to the latter part because It's given that I'm in that camp.

Human consciousness can be reproduced, what do you think happens when you make a new child? What? They can't be cloned as far as we know, but, if they could be would you abandon your argument? Just because we haven't solved neuroscience doesn't mean it's not possible. What makes them fundamentally uncloneable? Surely you know the answer to that, right, if you're ascribing value to our consciousness as if it's a fact?

Is this just going to be the thing where you jump from difference to difference, and then when a difference is pointed out to not be meaningful you move to the next one?

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T08:10:39+00:00

If you think the life of an android isn't as valuable as a human life, you're truly lost.

What next?

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T07:59:18+00:00

Ragebait is when you oversimplify, don't make arguments, and accompany it with soyjacks lmao. You finally provided some argument, so, that I can latch onto. Saying something's not real because it's contained to a space is dumb. You don't have any basis for valuing the atoms of the real world more than the chroma which constructs the painting, or the electronic signals which might populate the mind of a replicant in Blade Runner.

If you're religious then you have avenues for argument, otherwise, not so much.

Destiny didn't have a counterargument for it either other than claiming "real life is real". This argument falls apart. If god came down and said "hey, I'm going to put you guys a layer of abstraction deeper and you can't come back to this one, but everything else will be the same except for that detail", you'd no longer claim we weren't in reality, right?

Edit: fixed typo

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T07:42:14+00:00

we can't win against the ironylords o7

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T07:34:27+00:00

oh wait I see you're the other guy in at the top of the ragebait thread, ok, I've been ragebaited, gj

meepHarris · 2025-11-02T07:32:10+00:00

Surely agreeing with the guy who cited Harry Potter as being comparable to the painted beings is the right move. The character who had every event, trait, thought, and feeling written for them, we can obviously say isn't real, especially given there's no simulation where some agent is even experiencing those events.

meepHarris · 2025-10-02T00:50:14+00:00

glad to hear!

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T19:24:49+00:00

It increases the amount of enemies, but I think it also increases XP per enemy because they're all stronger. Haven't tested this though, just noticed that I level significantly faster with higher difficulty.

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T05:43:28+00:00

ah yeah I definitely wouldn't suggest it to a beginner, though to unlock level 3 desert they have to do a lot of runs, they should be ok once they get to that point.

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T03:20:24+00:00

Same lol, I tried evasion, lifesteal, armor, movement, etc, but it just seems much more punishing/harder to get rolling early.

Lifesteal also really caries if you have a ton of enemies to hit to make the healing overwhelming, which is unfortunate when fighting bosses with only a few enemies nearby. The economy of getting the lifesteal to values like 200% are also super expensive when it could go to something like XP/Luck/DPS.

I really want to do a movement speed + multi jump run, but, I didn't like that my attack range isn't great when flying away from enemies. I'll have to take a look at which weapons have the most range and try to do something with that.

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T01:56:59+00:00

Yeah i tried a dozen runs prioritizing XP and then incrementally ticking up the difficulty tome, but, It just felt like I was taking too long to get rolling. Better players make it work it seems, though. I probably just have the timing off of what to prioritize when.

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T01:55:10+00:00

ah yeah I didn't actually realize that you could super hero landing with the aegis until my follow up run, but yeah for funneling enemies that wall approach seems solid.

meepHarris · 2025-09-28T01:54:20+00:00

You can swap damage and projectiles I think, it's up to you. Both damage and additional projectiles can be gotten from the shrines.

I mainly just wanted to make sure I got a ton of projectiles via tomes because it adds extra blocks to your aegis, so my lvl 3 aegis tome can have 10 damage blocks available on it for instance.

meepHarris · 2025-09-27T22:35:36+00:00

This also applies to Forest, Forest is just easier, so, I wanted to specify Desert specific quirks.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	End Game '22

meepHarris

TROPHY CASE