3 ms·
> 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 irr
by 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 agoI 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.