Ontologically, there is no transcendtal quality with being human. We are no different than animals. We operate and think in the same way but at an different or higher level. I personally believe that human beings are different, as that we have free will and souls, but so do other animals and creatures. This is why we are able to compare ourselves to other species or abstract away our position to representations of other imagined inteligent species like aliens.
This only follows if acceptance by the mind is treated as the sole criterion of equivalence. A substitute can function as if it were the real thing without being the real thing. Painkillers can substitute for healing, pornography can substitute for intimacy, and dreams can substitute for lived experience while asleep, but none of these thereby collapse the distinction ontologically or normatively.
Calculators outperform humans at calculation because calculation is a narrow, instrumental task whose value is reducible to output accuracy and speed. Human relationships, flourishing, and moral agency are not instrumental tasks with a predefined output function. There is also a fundamental difference between mathematical calculation and simulating human emotions, and more than that, metaphysical concepts such as love, connection, integrity, and so on; I suppose the simulacrum can imitate the aforementioned concepts, but it would still fall back to the previous problem which is that it was programmed to do so, and lacks the metaphysical value of a human. It should also be obvious that efficiency matters only where the goal is instrumental. Human intimacy is not.
As far as I can tell, this only serves to strengthen my point rather than undermine it; the fact that dreams are convincing until waking shows that immersion does not equal reality, since waking provides the corrective precisely because reality is governed by stable, external constraints that dreams lack.
If free will and souls exist, then there is a metaphysical distinction, even if shared with other creatures. Moreover, moral frameworks do not require humans to be unique among all beings; they require agents to be more than output-generating systems. Once you admit souls or other metaphysical concepts such as moral responsibility, you have already conceded the main point which is that humans are not reducible to functional representations.
All other animals have free will and souls though. Animals and generally most living things cannot be explained by casual phenomena.
How do you assign moral value to beings?
The simulacrum's task is not to imitate human relationships or flourishing but to imitate human speech and thought patterns, and therefore feel more real. This is an narrow, limited task which allows the simulacrum to obtain an comparable edge and performant over its human competitors and criterion. Human relationships or flourishing is not innate to humanity, In this, the simulacrum also learns how to talk to humans and perform better at this. This is calculated through prediction and generation. Speech is the basis of much of humanity's knowledge and basis for its development as an civlization, as it is the purest most expression of thoughts in an given language. It is humanity's greatest gift, and an gift that has been utlized in all forms of thought and expression. By outperforming humans in language and speech, simulacrums take on an new human sort of property.
I can't assign moral value to beings.
Why not?
My point is that life and an dream cannot be distinguished from each other, unless there is an certain point of waking up. This suggests that if an dream would continue for much longer, it would be equivalent to our representation of said reality. Again, reality that you are talking about is just merely nothing but an representation of the underlying world which we will never be able to see for it truly is except as for representations. Again, the person in the dream does not know that he is dreaming, just like the person in the cave does not know there is an world outside of him. He only knows the dream as his world, and views it as his reality. My argument is that they are of the same essence, which says that distinctions can be made between them, but one can do the functions of the other rather well. By characterizing this argument in this way, I solve your problem of simulacrums or representations not being able to be ordered.
I am religious.
I enjoyed arguing with you. But, I am a bit too tired to write eloquent rhetoric right now.
Likewise brocel
or they use war robots to kill usHistory shows that when large numbers of young men are denied sex, relationships, and companionship, societies get unstable. Sexually denied men revolt.
Today, male loneliness and involuntary celibacy are at all-time highs, yet no uprising. Why? Unlimited porn and digital copes keep most men passive and distracted.
But what if that stops working? What if millions of isolated men actually organize and demand change?
That’s when the elites drop the hyper-realistic artificial partners. Androids or clones.... think Detroit: Become Human level. Perfect, Companions that provide affection.
not that many, most men get pussy at least once in their life. And the men that don’t get pussy don’t self identify as incels anyway, they’re usually white knights too.
I will just quickly note that merely outperforming humans in language does not grant the AI human property — similarly to how a chess engine does not necessarily become a strategic thinker because it is superior to humans in chess; the engine may be capable of deep calculations and positional evaluations, but it does not experience chess phenomenologically; that is the human experience, the consciousness and sentience which the AI fundamentally lacks. Language also serves only as an expression of meaning and the self, but human essence has greater depth than linguistic expression alone, even if that may be a large portion of it.
The cave analogy is a classic case of epistemic doubt; in such cases, I obviously do not disagree with you that epistemology has its limitations, and this part directly pertains to the problem of inductive knowledge, specifically ignorance. I do not see how this solves the metaphysical distinction though — or the phenomenological one for that matter. Saying a dreamer’s experience is like a prisoner in a cave only shows limited knowledge, not that the dream and reality are the same in essence. Even if a dream were extended indefinitely, it would still be fundamentally different from reality because its “events” depend entirely on the dreamer’s mind rather than external causes. A long dream doesn’t produce independent effects in the external world, whereas reality does.
The Turing Test point. But that is fundamentally unnecessary, considering that language models outperform humans on speech. Large language models possess inhuman processing power, and knowledge compared to humans which allows them to outperform humans on said speech. My point was about how humanity's ideas are expressed in speech, and how speech is one of the greatest gifts of reason, and therefore, that by performing well in speech, you appear human or look like human, allowing you to communicate or talk like an human, which extends to expressing certain human ideals and knowledge well. Models are specifically designed to imitate humans or to appear lifelike in speech/language, and since speech forms the backbone of most human reason. This allows them to take on an certain human property or lifelike property via their optimize of said speech.
In Reality, i refer to our understanding process and ability to process reality. Our representation of it. In this manner, I have said that the dream and reality are alike, for one can be confused for the other. An man can happily dream without knowing that another reality exists outside of him. You have no truly knowledge of the object's true innate feature without said representation of reality. Most people in dreams cannot differentiate between dream and reality. i.e the thing in of itself. Most of the time, the only way to know that we live inside of another reality is by induction, i.e able to create another reality within our reality.
most men are cucks tbh, absolutely nothing will happen. I would say about 20% of men have any fire in them, most just go with the flow.
My point exactly on a different thread.
Most will let it burn reguardless, I’ll get this clone just to use it as a flower hugger in gta vHistory shows that when large numbers of young men are denied sex, relationships, and companionship, societies get unstable. Sexually denied men revolt.
Today, male loneliness and involuntary celibacy are at all-time highs, yet no uprising. Why? Unlimited porn and digital copes keep most men passive and distracted.
But what if that stops working? What if millions of isolated men actually organize and demand change?
That’s when the elites drop the hyper-realistic artificial partners. Androids or clones.... think Detroit: Become Human level. Perfect, Companions that provide affection.
