Kikker

What is your point? I already explained that the goal state must be defined beforehand in order to create an ai with any functionality, so your repeated arguing about it is a wasted effort. You also keep abstracting ai into everyday tools while I have already stated that ais differ from everyday tools in a significant way because they are able to interpret implicit feedback from multiple users. So not one wielder but multiple wielders and the ability of the ai is determined by the different wielders (millions sometimes). The ai is also optimized for every wielder and ideally it takes the wielder zero effort to operate the ai when pursuing a certain goal, unless incapable (brain dead for example). Ai enables hive-mind structures in which your results are determined by the feedback of others, for example google search automatically updates it's algorithm on different topics according to implicit feedback received from users in the form of clicks. Meaning your resultbar is determined by the users before you. I don't know which papers you are referring to but the discovery of the necessary and sufficient requirements of ai is barely a "solution" to Ai and human-level ai. (Newell and Simon (1976) Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry)

Despite having a very annoying voice, this youtuber made me question my position on climate change. Any rebuttals? I don't have the time or knowledge to research this unfortunately.

2: Understanding emotions and morals doesn't require having them. A general Ai would be more like a science machine, able to construct and test hypothesis. So it can derive the best "path" to a goal state, you would need to tell it what that goal state is though. Or to use your analogy: an advanced toaster which can tell you what laws to implement as long as you tell it what you want to accomplish with those laws. Any real Ai at that level though would use implicit feedback from multiple sources to test whether it's behavior is desirable or not, so people would "tell" the Ai what to do by simply living their lives. Current knowledge systems are already a few magnitudes too large for an organization to control (few billion elements) by the time we would have such an ai they will be at least a few magnitudes larger. Information bias needs to be inherent to the Ai. for example if an Ai judges every piece of information to be true information bias is bound to occur. Besides the information would hold so many contradictions that the ai wouldn't be functional. A general Ai capable of being in power would need ways to acquire information on it's own, with real actors in the real world.

Well you have the "famous" examples of artificial intelligence of: deep blue (chess), Watson (jeopardy) and AlphaGo (go) which are able to outperform humans in games requiring mental exercise. If these machines don't mean anything to you then I'll just list some current automatization. Transport automatization in self driving cars had less to do with inventing a car able to drive around, as humans already do for a century, but to invent something able to drive it. Today self driving cars can take safe trips through the country side and suburbs without slowing down while in cities they have to take some extra distance compared to human drivers. Navigation of the internet is automated with search engines, more importantly, the expert system of the internet with 200 billion facts makes reasoning possible. You can for example google a place and the whole right side of your google page is generated by an expert system. Baxter (robot) is also an example on how we have hardware but require learning systems and reasoning systems to further automate tasks. Middle class work like costumer service and administrative work can be fully automated by deep neural networks in combination with expert systems. Even doctors operate much more efficiently if they use expert systems to diagnose patients. A online version of that, a artificial doctor understanding natural language and is coupled with an expert system is already making process (Watson).

Free will is an abstraction of something we observe. The same way you just abstracted the decision making process of another human being as a balancing scale. The whole point of an abstraction is to ignore properties of the real thing until you are able to understand the concept. In this way any abstraction is an illusion since the only thing which accounts for all properties is the thing itself. We measure accuracy of an abstraction by its usability in the context where the abstraction is used. For example abstracting atoms as solid matter has it's uses when you're interacting with the world at a human scale. If you observe closer though, (or farther) that abstraction turns out to be false.

Though the current era is marked by the automatization of thought not of manual labor.

To offer some other form of abstraction: Random would be a property which is only affected by time and not space (4th dimension) Deterministic would be a property which is affected by time and space (4 dimensions) A fixed attribute would be a property only affected by space and not time (3 dimensions)

For a society to exist on mars there must be something that people want, something that can be done there more cost-efficient than on earth. You can go only so far with fanatics.

I don't understand, the police did show up when the girl called right? He did get arrested right? Why did "the girl" blame the state for not helping her when they show up and protect your property when you call them and arrest the person doing it? And why does the girl feel shocked when asked basic questions about the events by her lawyer? Is he supposed to believe that a boy is harassing a girl just because? It has always two sides, the boy has certain characteristics and the girl has done things which play into those characteristics. If one of those characteristics is "tries to kill when looked at funny" and the girl looked at him funny it should be obvious to anyone that the boy is in the wrong there. Get some self-defense lessons, until the girl feel comfortable defending against him. Maybe get a weapon or get help from friends/family. I mean the girl is afraid of him getting violent right? Did he hurt the girl? She could report that.

(1) Look, the thing is that Schopenhauer set up a logical proof in which we assume that people aren't omnipotent and that willing ones will requires somebody to be omnipotent therefore nobody wills one wills and we have to assume that the "will" is caused by something else. That's all the quote says, it's not a false dilemma where free will is defined outside of reality, it's the exclusion of a self-causing will. Nothing more nothing less. Schopenhauer later proceeds to argue that: Because our existence came forth by our ancestors will to survive (assumption) Humans have inherited that will (assumption) So our will must at least facilitate survival. (conclusion) Human behavior demonstrates our will to survive is the driving force of our existence (assumption) So our will is inherently focused on survival (conclusion) For our will to be meaningful it can't come forth out of the necessity to survive (assumption) So our will is meaningless (conclusion) Argue again his reasoning, as there is plenty wrong. But please, not against some meaningless straw-man. (4) You might have noticed but the paragraphs were in the trend of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism respectively. If you don't hold the assumption you don't have to argue against it. Saves time. (5) So even your thoughts are given to you by nature? You just have to "decide" what to do with them? like you said with the box, if you miss a brain function making you unable to be empathetic at all (smaller box) or you don't use that brain function be be empathetic in a certain situation what is the difference between the two concerning the use of free will? You can change empathic into any emotion btw. (6) A decision by free will is a free decision, at least in my argument it was. Let me ask the same questions again since you didn't answer them. If an decision is always free, does there need to be a difference between being self-aware and free will? Is exercising free will simply being self-aware? What is the difference between calling bad behavior a sign of undesirable brain functionality or a sign of bad character? Or maybe just I didn't understand how "good vs Evil" being a human construct prevents it from being relevant in a free will discussion, could you explain?

Which logical language do you use to dissect philosophical arguments? (and maybe arguments in general)

That didn't even cross my mind.

As opposed to equal outcome promoted by feminists? yes.

Besides from the advise given here I would like to add that your son won't be obviously crying when he experiences injustice so keep an eye out for that. Furthermore I like to add that your daughter probably can take a hit or two and she should learn as soon as she is able to understand that all her friends will use manipulative tactics to some extend and shouldn't mentally exaggerate the meaning of words like: "i don't want to be your friend anymore if...".

In the years I've progressed from a "coffee shop feminist" to an self-proclaimed "equalist" (by lack of a meaningful word) who sees equality of people an important goal and find the feminist ideology and actions working against that goal. A month ago I saw a video which made me realize that I didn't know what equality of men and women actually means and how my understanding of history between man and women wasn't accurate at all. I realize that the video may be unnecesary for some people as they already know the things discussed and at lot of people won't even bother watching but I want to share it anyway. Karen Straughan is interviewed by Dave Rubin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0PTjLnXmCs

Are you serious? They literally explain why you should use the mod symbol to prevent confusion: "we write clock arithmetic expressions in a special way. If we wanted to write that 4 + 3 = 1 on a 6 hour clock, we would write (4 + 3) mod 6 = 1." Before that they were drawing an entire clock to make clear what the operation should be. Of course you could argue that and I am interested to see how you would argue that. But just so I'm very, very clear: you need to prove that 7 + 8 =13 without changing the formula or ,alternatively, that we can't possibly know what N is in the expression " 7 + 8 = N" also without changing the formula.

The article uses the expression "7+8 = 3 (mod 12)" or in order of operations "(7+8) mod 12 = 3" You maybe didn't notice it but that's a mod operation, right there. "7 + 8" isn't equivalent to "(7+8) mod 12", also, those two expression aren't arithmetically the same.

7+8 = 15 is not a logical sentence it is a arithmetic expression. 7+8 doesn't imply 15 like in a natural sentence. 7+8=15 is a statement where you say 7+8 is arithmetically the same as 15. 7+8 is always arithmetically the same as 15. You can check this by applying the + operation in the expression 7+8 which becomes 15 and then check whether 15 has the same arithmetic value as 15, which is obviously the case. There is only one case to check because there are no other interpretations of this expressions so for all cases of 7+8 = 15 is true. Or in other words: 7+8=15 is universally true. How someone who says to be interested in mathematics and computer science can misunderstand the foundations is beyond me.

If you're using a universal quantifier and your domain is all the things that can exist in space and time with the possibility to interchange every definition ever conceived you're bound to find out that most things (if not everything) can't be universal in that particular way. And you didn't answer before but I will ask again anyways: what is the point of such statements? To clarify: I could devise a concept called "sheep" that additional to it's current definition(s) also can be defined as every object containing the letter "a" in a physical form, made from pure gold and is exactly 1000 atoms in diameter. What is the purpose of such a definition? It's a useless definition which has no practical value nor can it help people to understand the world they perceive and should, rightly so, not be used.

according to your begin post there only has to be a time and place where 7+8 isn't 15 or when a square is a circle. But 7+8=15 isn't coupled with a time and space as well as a square circle. Your definition of universal doesn't apply to things which aren't situated in time and space. When you assign those statements to a certain time and space however, you can easily imagine a situation where it isn't true, a student might write 7+8=16 on a piece of paper and a object may look like a square from one angle but a circle form another angle.

How is this definition of "universal" useful in any way?