Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Not_Mafia]

There's a difference between calling someone a subhuman cockroach and calling someone an AI

[Postie]

Nothing good is going to come of saying someone isn't worthy of being considered a person, regardless of how you do it.

[Accountant]

You have 0 clue what is inside my brain

Unless you're a robot, in which case you'd be incredibly predictable.

Let me rephrase.

What is inside my brain is very clear. It is, as you say, incredibly predictable. For example, think of a moral dilemma or situation. Trolley problem, euthanasia, whatever My response is incredibly predictable, right?

However, Shaziro - and it is not just Shaziro, there are many others, but I single out Shaziro because he was the presumptuous one - seems to me to be unable to understand what is happening inside my brain. I think it's patently obvious that my empathy is disconnected from my attitude about what moral beliefs to have. However, Shaziro is not able to understand it. That's okay. I won't insult or demean Shaziro for something like that. It would be insanely ironic for me to do it when I myself can't understand others. At the same time, though, if Shaziro can't understand the way I think, then he should not be trying to instruct me as to how Accountant thinks, when I happen to be the world's leading expert on how Accountant thinks. If I say this is considered something that is near empathy, then it is. I have no reason to lie to you, and if you think you know better than me about how my brain works, think again.

[Accountant]

There's a difference between calling someone a subhuman cockroach and calling someone an AI

What if both analogies are equally true?

[Not_Mafia]

Have you considered giving yourself a superheroesque nickname?

[Not_Mafia]

There's a difference between calling someone a subhuman cockroach and calling someone an AI

What if both analogies are equally true?

So you admit to being an AI?

[Kublai Khan]

Can we not stoop so low as to refer to people we disagree with who aren't hurting anyone as non-human
It's not like that's a terrible mindset that has repeatedly ended horribly in the past or anything

I was called a coward if I did not come into this thread and engage with Accountant. Since being here, I've been called stupid, immature, and immoral in various backhanded ways. Where were you then?

But gosh, forgive me for stooping so low as to directly addressing the question asked to me as to why I think robots are inferior to humans.

[Accountant]

If they were smarter and more mature, they'd see that I'm totally right.

I thought your system was good because of your immaturity?

Different types of maturity, I think. There is the moral maturity, where you go beyond thinking "what feels correct?" to trying to develop a cohesive moral framework to guide your actions. That is the type of maturity I was referring to. The immaturity you need for the correct path is a different type of immaturity - you might term it fantastical immaturity, the immaturity of a child who does not accept the concepts of "impossible" and "unreal".

[Accountant]

Can we not stoop so low as to refer to people we disagree with who aren't hurting anyone as non-human
It's not like that's a terrible mindset that has repeatedly ended horribly in the past or anything

I was called a coward if I did not come into this thread and engage with Accountant. Since being here, I've been called stupid, immature, and immoral in various backhanded ways. Where were you then?

But gosh, forgive me for stooping so low as to directly addressing the question asked to me as to why I think robots are inferior to humans.

Well, Postie is criticizing the specific use of comparisons to non-human things. Cowardice, stupidity, immaturity and immorality are all very, very human things.

However! Let it be known that I do not, in any way, shape or form, take offense to Kublai's saying that I am a robot. At all. I don't think he was stooping to any level when doing it. It is a correct analogy delivered directly and in the correct ways, and I take absolutely no issue with it. I find it flattering that he thinks of me in that manner.

[Accountant]

I have a pet, it has fur and four legs and likes to be stroked, it's a dog but I just call it a cat, disagreeing is splitting hairs

A dog is fundamentally different from a cat. Squiblub is to empathy as spaghetti is to curly pasta. It's fine to just lump them all under "pasta".

Empathy and calamaribox are fundamentally different

You don't know much about it, seeing as I had to invent an entirely new word to explain it to you.

[Accountant]

The thing you are describing is not defined as empathy. That isn't "trying to tell you what's inside your brain". I've gone out of my way to avoid doing that, you'll note I haven't made any comments on autism for instance, because I recognize that I don't know what is in your brain. But if you describe to me an oval, yellow fruit and then tell me it's an apple, I'll be able to tell you "no, that isn't an apple, it's probably a lemon".

Yes, I keep asking if you think you're smarter than X, because you keep saying X will get smarter and will then agree with me. This implies that you think that you are already smarter than X.

But here it is as though I have described to you a sweet, red, round fruit with pale flesh, and you tell me that it's a lemon. Of course, I'm going to laugh at you and tell you that you either know nothing about apples or know nothing about the fruit I described - I judge that you probably know what empathy is, so obviously the issue must be that you did not know enough about the fruit I described.

For X, well, first of all, we can see that I'm more morally righteous than X. That's because my moral intuitions - my metaphorical eyes - are more powerful than X's. But just because X was not born with the right type of mindset doesn't mean that all is lost. No, morality is able to be calculated with enough analysis and understanding of the way things work. So, even though X is blind, if they get smart enough, they'll be able to arrive at the same conclusions I did. Thus, they will catch up with me.

[Annadog40]

If we don't know how your brain works, how can you assume to know how others brains work?

You said you are smarter than everyone. How do you know that others in this thread are less intelligent?

Just like others shouldn't insult you for having a diffrent opinion, neither should you insult others for the same reason.

[Accountant]

If we don't know how your brain works, how can you assume to know how others brains work?

You said you are smarter than everyone. How do you know that others in this thread are less intelligent?

Just like others shouldn't insult you for having a diffrent opinion, neither should you insult others for the same reason.

I specifically said I was

not

smarter than everyone. Thrice.

I don't assume that I know how other people's brains works. Can you quote where I did?

Finally, it's fine to insult people for having a different opinion. If someone came in here and said "Hitler did nothing wrong, gas the Jews", that's an opinion and I'd insult them for it.

[Shaziro]

But what you described was also not similar to empathy.

As for the latter, you literally completely avoided the point of what I said. Try again.

[Accountant]

But what you described was also not similar to empathy.

As for the latter, you literally completely avoided the point of what I said. Try again.

You must explain where I avoided the point. What point have you raised that I avoided? Stop being lazy with explanations.

What I described was caring for the well being and sympathising with the thoughts and feelings of others. idk how that's not empathy.

[Shaziro]

No, what you described was caring for whether or not they agreed with your morals.

You specifically said that people will "Get smarter and see that I'm right". This implies that you are smarter than them, because they need to, to quote you, "catch up". How, then, can you argue that you don't think you're smarter than them?

[Umlaut]

Empathy isn't

caring

what others feel, it's

understanding

what others feel and what things are like from their perspective, generally by feeling some part of it oneself.

You can be incredibly empathetic and only use it to manipulate and get your way. Conversely it is possible (at least in principle) to live a morally satisfactory life by following a code without experiencing any empathy at all, though it's difficult because you have to do everything in software so to speak.

[Accountant]

They need to catch up in terms of morality, but are smarter than me intellectually. They are smarter, but less righteous.

Also, that is not the case. I am telling you straight to your face I feel the pain they undergo and sympathize with their plight. That is empathy ABC.

[Accountant]

Empathy isn't

caring

what others feel, it's

understanding

what others feel and what things are like from their perspective, generally by feeling some part of it oneself.

You can be incredibly empathetic and only use it to manipulate and get your way. Conversely it is possible (at least in principle) to live a morally satisfactory life by following a code without experiencing any empathy at all, though it's difficult because you have to do everything in software so to speak.

Woah, woah, we aren't talking about whether it's enough to merely be empathic. We're talking about whether or not I am empathic.

For a long time, I was that person who did everything in software. But with long hours of training and hard work, and the help of the people I'm closest to and love the most in the entire world, I have arduously obtained a satisfactory sense of empathy. It's wrong for you to come in and say I don't, when I do, and worked hard for it.

[Shaziro]

Firstly, if you meant "They need to catch up in morality", then you're still wrong, but you aren't claiming to be smarter than them. So stop saying "they will get smarter", say "they will become more moral". They are very different things. Of course, once again, you'll still be wrong.

What you said was not that you "felt the pain they undergo and sympathize with their plight". What you said was "I empathize with them and their need to be good people". That suggests that you empathize with their need to follow what you believe to be proper morality. That is very different from empathizing with them being slaves. This should be blatantly obvious.

P-edit: Empathetic and empathic apparently mean the same thing, and I didn't know that. Makes me wonder why we have both words.

[Umlaut]

I hadn't even read the conversation, I was just responding to what looked like an inadequate definition. I had no opinion whether you did or didn't have such a sense.

[Shaziro]

Also, I'm not saying you have no empathy. If I -have- said that, I apologize, but I don't think I have. What I'm saying is that what you are describing is -not- empathy.

[Not_Mafia]

Accountant

http://gawker.com/science-proves-that-t ... 1446305654

[Accountant]

Also, I'm not saying you have no empathy. If I -have- said that, I apologize, but I don't think I have. What I'm saying is that what you are describing is -not- empathy.

It sounds a lot like empathy to me.

[rb]

my anecdotal experiences are consistent with this article

*stamps seal of approval on article*