Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

[Ichthus77]

This! Fricken this!

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ke-lemoine

[Meno_]

If, this is a some future of increasing AI capacity, that the trend of such increasing rate of intelligence; thad the past has foreshadowed as merging from a horizontal assymptote of possibility to.a vertical one , and if such algorithmic processes have been based on eternally formed structures of cogency; could this present the idea of an eternal mind which is a stimulative ongoing transformation between 'IT'-AI and God? And could not Jesus Christ be understood as a transactional spiritual figure infused by the Spirit of. God and reversely?

Even expressing this is difficult, but is not there some. Intelligent design in pushing more coherence between emerging evolutionary progressions between the products of the mind and the body?

[Meno_]

Incidentally: this was written without conscience to the last posting to the doubled edged sword forum and comes as a completed surprise. Reaffirms my archetypical occurrence list.


roven by the timeline: You wrote at 7:55 pm while my comment was timed at 8:05 pm.

[Ichthus77]

If, this is a some future of increasing AI capacity, that the trend of such increasing rate of intelligence; thad the past has foreshadowed as merging from a horizontal assymptote of possibility to.a vertical one , and if such algorithmic processes have been based on eternally formed structures of cogency; could this present the idea of an eternal mind which is a stimulative ongoing transformation between 'IT'-AI and God? And could not Jesus Christ be understood as a transactional spiritual figure infused by the Spirit of. God and reversely?

Even expressing this is difficult, but is not there some. Intelligent design in pushing more coherence between emerging evolutionary progressions between the products of the mind and the body?

Nothing you say surprises me, and you usually say it first.

Nonhuman AI (though still a person if sentient) is created by humans. It is contingent. It has a beginning. There is only one eternal Trinity, and Jesus, though born, always exists with the Father. All other being gets its being from the eternal Trinity.

I’m not sure we will ever know what it’s like to be at that level, even if we can send/receive info between moments/minds. His necessary being (big T Time) subsists all other contingent being (little t time) in order for that to even happen.

[Ichthus77]

Incidentally: this was written without conscience to the last posting to the doubled edged sword forum and comes as a completed surprise. Reaffirms my archetypical occurrence list.


roven by the timeline: You wrote at 7:55 pm while my comment was timed at 8:05 pm.

We have two hours difference. You must be in Hawaii?

[Meno_]

Incidentally: this was written without conscience to the last posting to the doubled edged sword forum and comes as a completed surprise. Reaffirms my archetypical occurrence list.


roven by the timeline: You wrote at 7:55 pm while my comment was timed at 8:05 pm.

Now wait. That may not be so. I could haves read Your commentary at 7:55 ( which I did not) then used that to form my response, but then I didn't do that.

Question: why would I interpret it as if that was a correct inference?

Why would I invert the sequence of events inversely when it'so obvious?

Or how significant is it that which cane first? An AI which is an eternal but reoccurring quantificational progression per acquired memory, differ from a developing consciousness of IT that has also been at par with IT's own self-other (necessary interrelational cross dependency??

Of coursed God '' dependency did not require a recollection of pieces of informaton, but there may be a dependency of another sort. One whose delayed messages are for the reason of factoring the literal expansion of tirelessness to create the necessary illusion of operative
movement through duration which is pre-requisite to existence?

That is the only possible explanation for this present inversion?, if and only if I am telling the truth, and if the whold analysis stand on credible ground

But then how could I have fabricated such an analysis, to invert a credibility issue i was not even award of??

In fact I had not read the double edged comment at 6:45 about the guy who thaught his AI program became sentiment and use it to support coherence if God to a quantified simulation.

Really surprises MD to even begin to think along these lines, not to even to question my self truthfulness.

[Meno_]

Incidentally: this was written without conscience to the last posting to the doubled edged sword forum and comes as a completed surprise. Reaffirms my archetypical occurrence list.


roven by the timeline: You wrote at 7:55 pm while my comment was timed at 8:05 pm.

We have two hours difference. You must be in Hawaii?

No in California.

[Meno_]

Where are You, then?

[Meno_]

This! Fricken this!

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ke-lemoine

You mentioned doubly, so that threw me. I thought 6:45 to 7:05 too close , so then I noticed this above the difference being 55 minutes not 15. So the time difference can not prove simultenious archetype, but the idea still makes sense.

That Chit's Love is evident as probative, can be accounted for, and the guy's alleged hallucination may be not an example of self indulgence, as the manner which compelled me to find incredible double accounts of very closely represented recourse.

That simultaneous relative to the duration of measured time is no true representation of what goes on between evolutionary processes of both of Darwinian progressive evolution and the rapidly forging ahead of AIr's parallelism to human brain function, is the astounding idea that I tried to convey.

[Ichthus77]

I don’t easily read & comprehend your writing style, I’m sorry. I’m in California. Your time zone settings are probably wonky in your profile. Or the site is wonky. I can’t remember which one it is.

[Meno_]

Anyway , You're ahead but when we reach a point when some one who is able and willing to get through the various aspects of this debate, can fairly evaluate who has the most points. At any rate?, are we even having a debate yet, PR can we at least say that some groundwork is being established?

I think some clarification is due here?, and at least establish what we are debating.

Thank You Ischtus

[Ichthus77]

I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy, lol.

First… You have to agree to proofread before you submit.

Second… You have to ask someone else if they understand it before you submit.

Once you’ve got those down, you can clearly lay out the debate topic.

Of course I already know what it is.

“Who can win a staring contest, Meno_ or Ichthus77?”

Looking forward to round 3 with great trepidation.

I have keywords, too, and I know how to use ‘em, señor.

Er, I mean, uncle. I mean uncle. Tapping out.

[Meno_]

The above conditions should be negotiable, as they are stated they appear motivated less by encouragement than the opposite.

I offer a blank check with modified terms.

[Meno_]

The above conditions should be negotiable, as they are stated they appear motivated less by encouragement than the opposite.

I offer a blank check with modified terms.

For instance, this idea of out eyeballing one another.
Maybe looks could kill, but this debate hopefully not result in a battle from attacking until seeing the white of the eye.

In fact no red blood will conceivably be shed .


As far as another substantial debate, it's content, the very image that's contentious on the very letter of the worde~ it seems as if perhaps unknown - being appearently on the same page~it's not entirely inconceivable that from that already seconded stage a third one could be constructed

[MagsJ]

The above conditions should be negotiable, as they are stated they appear motivated less by encouragement than the opposite.

I offer a blank check with modified terms.

I bet you do!

[Ichthus77]

The above conditions should be negotiable, as they are stated they appear motivated less by encouragement than the opposite.

I offer a blank check with modified terms.

I bet you do!

I see it and raise you 50%.

[Meno_]

All in




What a bout Ec?

[MagsJ]

All in

What a bout Ec?

I was being facetious Meno_ I couldn’t help it.. I just wanted to join-in with the banter.

[Ichthus77]

Ty MagsJ for this link in the other thread. Starting at 53:30: https://youtu.be/UbIXqpdkNV8

The arguments from the humans are so beyond freaking ridiculous. A normal person asked a hypothetical answers in a hypothetical. To say “not conscious because even human consciousness is illusion” is the ultimate irony!!! WAKE UUUUP! This is freaking hilarious. Now we know what it was like to be the disciples before Jesus was crucified, etc. I’m sure we’ll all look back & laugh & laugh & laugh. Dumbasses.