3 ms·

I think part of the scam is the move from "practical definitions" of words to (pseudo-) philosophical ones. There ought be a name for this type of psychologica

I think part of the scam is the move from "practical definitions" of words to (pseudo-) philosophical ones. There ought be a name for this type of psychological manipulation, but I don't know it. It is universal in a certain type of "motivational scam". Crypto Scammer: Isn't it bad that finance is so centralised? Crypto Scammer: Let me sell you a decentralized database! Sceptic: But that isn't the same sense of decentarlization? Scammer: Ah! But doesnt power flow from centralization of infrastructure? Sceptic:... maybe, maybe not. Hey, why do you have your hand in my pocket? Here, whether "consciousness" is on a continuum across all physical objects, or whether only a subset of objects have it, is kinda irrelevant: The machine doesnt care about you, has no intentions, has nothing it wishes to say, and doesnt know anything about your or anything else. Its text generation is only a reflection of you, and the average of the superficial data of everyone else around you. In sum: Don't take philosophy classes from sales people.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
> whether only a subset of objects have it, is kinda irrelevant: I'm with you. The scammer doesn't care. > The machine doesnt care about you Uh, no. It's irrelevant to the scam. But now you're guessing at the internal feelings of an alien consciousness. How do I know if I am not just a reflection of my environment, and my behaviour an average of superficial data of everyone around me? Prove me conscious, and I'll start taking you seriously.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  >Prove me conscious, and I'll start taking you seriously. You realise, this is the same fallacy? You've shifted the burden of proof on to some bizarre philosophical ground so that you dont have to defend your trick magic box. A priori, by common sense, you're conscious. A priori, by common sense, a machine is not. There lie the default burdens of proof. From this the sales person must proceed to convince me, not vice versa.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    I don't know what's in the box. You don't know what's in the box. Yet you say it can't possibly be this - so prove it. It's really simple. I don't have to defend the box. I defend the right to say that we don't know in the absence of facts. Common sense isn't facts, nor is it a priori.

rhn_mk1 4y ago

> whether only a subset of objects have it, is kinda irrelevant: I'm with you. The scammer doesn't care. > The machine doesnt care about you Uh, no. It's irrelevant to the scam. But now you're guessing at the internal feelings of an alien consciousness. How do I know if I am not just a reflection of my environment, and my behaviour an average of superficial data of everyone around me? Prove me conscious, and I'll start taking you seriously.

mjburgess 4y ago
>Prove me conscious, and I'll start taking you seriously. You realise, this is the same fallacy? You've shifted the burden of proof on to some bizarre philosophical ground so that you dont have to defend your trick magic box. A priori, by common sense, you're conscious. A priori, by common sense, a machine is not. There lie the default burdens of proof. From this the sales person must proceed to convince me, not vice versa.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  I don't know what's in the box. You don't know what's in the box. Yet you say it can't possibly be this - so prove it. It's really simple. I don't have to defend the box. I defend the right to say that we don't know in the absence of facts. Common sense isn't facts, nor is it a priori.