I’m sure you’re right that many conspiracy theories are true. I just find your argument specious. Aren’t you saying:

Some Fs are Gs. These 1000 things are Fs. Therefore, some of those 1000 things are G.

On the one hand, sure, I want to be free to murder people if I really want, and free of creepy 24/7 observation, and people shouldn't assume things about me even if they're 100% accurate, and I would never trust anyone who wants to put cameras on me who claims it comes from a desire to reduce murders - let alone if it's lesser crimes.

On the other hand, if we really had a magical technology that allowed us to predict and stop murders with perfect accuracy and without the usual surveillance indignities and risks, it would be criminal not to use it. That hypothetical wouldn't be just another way for the powerful to assert themselves. And the problem with using it for other crimes is mostly that certain actions shouldn't be criminal, i.e. that the law is not lenient enough or not specific enough (perhaps for good reasons). In an ideal world with better institutions, we would resolve such a problem by changing the law.

[removed]

If a professor started asking me why I'm laughing at a YTP I'd just leave.

The article starts off on a poor foot by providing blatant misinformation in the fourth paragraph, stating that African Americans are more likely to be sentenced for drug crimes despite using drugs in roughly equal numbers to whites, but this is simply not true. This claim is based on surveys which show self-reported drug use as being roughly equal, however, we know that African-Americans are more likely to lie about not having used illicit drugs on surveys (1, 2). Furthermore the way in which they commit the crimes is different as African Americans are far more likely to buy drugs outdoors, far more likely to buy from strangers, and more likely to buy away from home.

but I'm talking about actual, main-stream theories, with at least a vague verisimilitude, clues and evidence, however potentially misleading and misinterpreted.The US government did 9/11, Covid is a lab virus, the government knows about UFOs, moon landing is fake etc.

Not "every high-fantasy/sci-fi setting that you might imagine"

I think /u/TheRoadsMustRoll's point is that there's a potentially infinite number of patently false claims one could make. Like, I could say "housecats did 9/11," "your great-great-grandma did 9/11," "marine gastropod molluscs did 9/11," and so on forever; given enough time we could easily make 1000 such claims. The sheer volume of claims or the fact that they reference known events doesn't confer likelihood that any of them are true.

I guess I’m confused by what you mean by experience. Do you mean something like sensations? Something like the ability to experience the sensation of the color red or emotional sensations like love as opposed to just detecting light and recognizing it as red light and emulating the appropriate responses that would correspond to the expression of love?

With your example of the man translating words, I’m not 100% sure that is not an accurate analogy of how humans process information. I know it’s supposed to be an example to contrast human knowledge with machine knowledge, but it seems pretty damn close to how humans process stuff. There are cases where people have had brain injuries where they essentially lose access to parts of their brain that process language. They will straight up lose the ability to understand, speak, read, and write a language they were previously fluent in, the information just isn’t there anymore. It would be akin to the man losing access to his database. So then the question becomes does a human even “know” a language or do they just have what is essentially a relational database to reference?

Regardless though, none of this matters in whether we should use AI for crime. Both of our arguments essentially make the same case albeit from different directions, AI can easily give false interpretations of data and should not be solely used to determine policing policy.

For me, mostly all defintions of freedom are incomplete. As they forget a lot of things we need to adress, if we really want to understand what freedom is. So here is my theory in addition. it isnt complete too, but it is much more complete then many other ones i think. And its one of the few, that includes determinism. Which is, lets be honest, 99% of all reality. And even the 1% is not proofed indetermined. not even acausal.

The problem with this dualistic defintion, its dualistic. Dualism only work for yes or no. mostly all other systems are not dualsitic. So i dont think there is more then one freedom. So we have to find a complete defintion of it.

Second, there is no proofed free wil. You cant take this as part of the theory, without a good definiton of it.

Its not the freedom that determines, its the movement of the past that determines!

There are no higher-order principals, its all one system of movement, which acts together. Its only seperated in their field of reaction, but it all underlies the functionality! Does it work or does it not?! our separation of the higher und lower principals just shows, that we are not precise enough when it comes to biology, psychology and the social dependency which create all beings.

SO

The most important thing about freedom (and mostly everything else) is MOVEMENT. Philosophers mostly have a problem with this, because ... many of them are no physics. Which is very sad and quite a dilemma. Movement is a value, that is shared through all systems. And we must ask all the time: how does it come so, that something moves in a speific way?

This is very important as we must combine the freedom with the determinism!!! There must be a connection! We cant postulate, that theres a free-will, this is still something that needs proof!!! or should we say, a better definition!

So the first and important thing is: the freedom of movement.

Which means not really that you are INDEPENDENT, it only mans that you have more then one option to do. And all those options are determined. Still, thats no proof for deciosionmaking!!! Because the decisioons are bound to a very rational and determined logic of values. The only problem of autority is, when you have two or more same values to decide on. And even then, it is not really a INDEPENDENCE you have here, because your decicion is mostly triggered by fixed determined and extremly dependent reactions to limited inputs.

So if you are not able to move in a specific way, this can be because you dont see the option or something is blocking you somehow. So we say, we are unfree. But its not ONLY because something is blocking us, it is mostly because we are not ABLE/SKILLED TO MOVE.

And you are unfree, no matter if someone, like a gangester, or your own limitation blocks you. We will see, its all the same. Its all part of nature.

So skill/information, our structure reforming things, is a very important factor here, that makes us free. Gives us options. But it isnt a wider room of desicionmaking! Its only a room of movement, which allows you to to different movement then before!

Our decions are still bound to the order of reason and the maximum (social) profit and efficiency. The golden rule of economy.

So now we must understand, that all our mindstates are also only reactions to other movements and so on, its also only a specific movement we do. which underlies the same rules dependencys as all other movements.

So now, we have to consolidate all those infos together.

1. Everything is determined

2. Life is a "selfpowered" system and a social system and moves and builds up in a social way, heavily dependent on their environment. It sets "its own"/"a social builded" goal of movement. As we see later on, the self and the society cant be divided here! All individuals have a necessary environment and cant be seperated in their genesis or their freedom and skills!

3. Nature, Life, Society, and so on WE cant move in all ways, so our movement is LIMITED. We know that before we know what freedom is!

4. We become less or different limitations, if we are able to move in more and/or new ways. This new (should be) unlimited movements is what we mostly adress when we talk about freedom.

5. Our freedom of movement is determined, because all our movements are determined and our search for new limitations is a biological and mostly natural sense of life - of social adaption!!! Freedom and Knowledge and Reformation of OURSELFS/SOCIETY (which is the same here) are all part of the systenm we call life (on earth)!

6. Our movement of decision is only free in such a way, as we are able to narrow down all
   possible movements before we do the decision. Every decision is a door to a unfree
   system, because you narrow it down in the end to the own way you are going.

7. So the most important things we do, is to interact with our environemnt, and get the necessary input to adapt ourselfes in such a way, that our system is as succesfull and compatible as it gets. Therefor it is the bets, to have the maximum options or the most efficient skills.

CONCLUSION:

Freedom must be part of the determined natural system.

Freedom is mostly about building up alternate (better) ways of movement/life.

The decision is not the important thing about freedom. Its the process of creating new ways! Not just with our mind, with everything we are.

Information/Interaction with the environemnt gives us the idea of what is possible and all our other (natual given) skills make it possible to reform our (old) natural given structure/movements and make new (natural) structures/movements.

This is all part of the system we call SCIENCE and FREEDOM!

It is much more complex then many think!

Enjoy!

PS

one of the most important things of life, is to recognize our environemnt and learn how it works and so on adapt our movement to these social beings. our freedom is a fundamental yet determined thing necessary for this process of adaption and ... should we say re-birth ;) or lets just say, revolution!.

Incongruence seems to fit the best with the assumptions baked into our language in my opinion. Considering irony in its definition is when something subverts it’s own meaning, and considering I am yet to get an explanation for why someone thought something was funny that didn’t have some irony baked in, I would say irony is the root of all humor, and therefore incongruence is the greatest explanation for it.

Is this not just carbon chauvinism?

Quantum computers can do maybe.

I am unconvinced that the points that you bring up are salient. Like, why do the things that you mention preclude consciousness? You might be right but I don't see why.

The idea of expectations/suprise/incongruity, must be more precise here.

When we see a comedy a second time, we still can laugh about some scenes. Not all, but some. So the old suprised expectation can still be suprised again, even when you encountered a different solution. Because our brain is not a computer. We still associate with the same old stuff, maybe weaker but the old expectations are still there, or should we say, archived. Not always, but in some cases. Some expectations are getting shifted and you cant laugh again about the same joke. Or not as much.

So it hink its possible to remember a suprise and still laugh about it, because it is still so unimaginable and unexpected.

And expectations and suprise is not restricted to verbal things.

And not everybody got the same expectations! So some jokes must be seen in a more specified subcultural context to understand the suprise or non-suprise.

So the concept of "incongruity" seems elastic, only because our knowledge about it isnt very precise. Its a pretty complex phenomena and so on, we need a lot psychology here, to understand it fully. So i wouldnt give it up.

Mmm no, because no man above 100 feet tall has ever been observed. While on the other hand, many times in history it emerged that the official, authority-approved version of the facts was false. And the alternative, unofficial, "conspiratory" version was true. For example, the German Reichstag was indeed burn down by the nazi Government, and not (as the German goverment and mass media claimed) by the commies. Or the Tonkin incident... or the fact that tobacco companies were indeed aware of the harms of smoking and wrestling plotting against anti-smoking legislation and scientific evidences... etc.

So there is nothing absurd/unlikely to assume that a little % of the current "official versions of the facts" are not true or not entirely true.

This is exactly how it went down. Our intro to relief theory was with our professor going "why is this funny? You laughed at this man. He is hurt, is pain funny to you?"

When the video in question is that of a man wrapping his dick in tin foil and sticking it into a electrical socket and incongruity theory is not helping because shit goes down exactly as you would expect for a man sticking his dick in an electrical outlet.

The same guy who was PM during the scandal, offered himself up for reelection and won, so yes, the cabinet fell, but we’re still stuck with some of the responsible politicians, including the PM. Not contradicting you, but an (IMO necessary) addendum.

Explaining a joke is cringe. If someone kills a joke, they're being annoying, but if someone is forced to kill a joke then they are the one being humiliated.

But that's the thing: unless someone's getting hit with completely falsified evidence, the arrest itself doesn't become less valid. It's irrelevant to the data whether or not a crime is uncovered because of a biased interaction or an unbiased one. The prediction model itself will still function correctly. The issue isn't measuring the data, it's getting you to start acknowledging data accuracy. A crime doesn't cease to be a crime just because it wasn't noticed for the right reasons.

I would say this is not something self-described philosophers would think of as coming in their wheelhouse. It seems like the intersection of psychology/sociology something like that.

It’s an interesting subject no doubt. Just not particularly philosophy.

Because if you are the original then your own local existence is killed and wouldn't continue to the clone, but from the clones perspective it would continue

Why isn’t this like: statistically it’s just not possible for all 1000 men in a sample to be less than 100 feet tall? What are the odds? At least one of them surely is 100 feet tall or more.

I believe it has more to do with the listener filling in the joke to his own taste.

I'm imagining Joe Pesci as that professor.

"Like funny how? Like a clown?

[deleted]

Any joke is improved if you follow it up with “and this was funny because…”

Whats the diffrence between teleporting and getting cloned with the original self immidiatly dieing, the clone does not differ in any way from your original so how can you loose perception