>>17305 >(∀x)(∀y)((Cx∧Hx) -> ~W(x,y)) >(∀x)(∀y)((Cx∧Dx) -> W(x,y)) excuse me, i meant to write: (∀x)(∀y)((Cx∧Hy) -> ~W(x,y)) (∀x)(∀y)((Cx∧Dy) -> W(x,y))

>>17305 (CONT) this will hopefully be the final spoon feed. i will show you how to actually put all of this into formal logic (with polymorphic predicates). let us consider a basic moral action, for instance killing. it is a predicate that accepts 2 arguments. denote 'K(x,y)' to mean 'x kills y'. now the unqualified statement '~kill' doesn't bound any variables. it is an atomic formula in predicate logic. as i pointed out earlier, atomic formulas in predicate logic do not have truth values. clearly they can't. now if we want to try making it truth-apt, we should at least bound things. this gives us: '(∀x)(∀y)K(x,y)' which means 'nothing should kill anything' clearly such a statement is not adequate. we note that the statement "thou shalt not kill" is what i was originally responding to. a naive reading of this statement requires us to specify the type of the variable (the moral agent), which gets us '(∀x::person)(∀y)K(x,y)'. of course, such a reading runs into the first problem i brought up, namely that there are some things that frankly do not matter if we kill or not. what we need to do is to specify both the agent and the patient this takes us to the example i brought up again regarding asymmetry between people and animals in regards to killing: "people shouldn't kill animals" should be written as '(∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y)' "animals shouldn't kill people" should be written as '(∀x::animal)(∀y::person)K(x,y)' now we move to the problem of calculating moral values. this requires a valuation function (which in your c code corresponds to eval). define such a system, we should rewrite statements of the form '(∀x::X)(∀y::Y)A(x,y)' as the ordered triple (A,X,Y). this is where X and Y are types, and A is a predicate denote T the set of types, P the set of predicates, and S the set of ordered triples of the form (A,X,Y) where X and Y are types, and A is a predicate we first define 2 predicate-type evaluations. f:T -> Z, and g:T -> Z (where Z is the set of integers). we also need a predicate evaluation h:P -> Z. then we can define the valuation function as the following: v: S -> Z; (A,X,Y) |-> h(A)*f(X)*g(Y)... so the way to express this in formal logic is through the following interpretation: let 'p' denote the type 'person', let 'a' denote the type 'animal', and finally let 'K(x,y)' denote the predicate 'x kills y'. then the structure: char *pretable[8][8][8] = {{ "people", (char*)1, (char*)10}, { "animal", (char*)10, (char*)-1}, { "kill", (char*)-10, (char*)1} }; eval( "people", "kill", "animal" ); = 9 good eval( "animal", "kill", "people" ); = -900 bad (note that i shifted the example to show subtleties in the interaction between arguments and weights) can be formalized as: h := {(K,-10)} f := {(p, 1), (a, 10)} (i.e. it is going to matter much more if an animal does things vs) g := {(p,10),(a, -1)} (i.e. it is going to matter much more if something happens to a person than an animal) so that v(K,p,a) = 9 v(K,a,p) = -900 one thing to note is that really our predicate-type valuations should really be indexed for each predicate to be more accurate, but i am already writing too much

>>17305 >>17308 >char *pretable[8][8][8] my mistake here as well. it just needs: char *pretable[8][8]

>>17305 hey retard give me my proof of (x->(kill AND y)) |- (x -> ~( ~kill AND x) OR pseud) your entire stance on logic can literally be discredited by this one proof also a summary of your journey into cope > "thou shall not kill" is too vague < doesnt matter its a fucking moral its supposed to be because its atomic > nooo what if it steps on grass its impossible to program < use predefined values like i said from the start > nooo because 'dont kill people' is not like 'dont kill animals' < people and animals have a value now so just use conjunction of object with dont kill eg.. '~kill AND people' > nooo what does that even mean its not true and 'animals shouldnt kill people' should not be the same as 'people shouldnt kill animals' < its a conjunction, u sound like retard, give justification for this otherwise its not true, this is how to make one see its hard so dont bother do like i said from the start > nooo that wasnt conjunction, you can only use it between my special words also what does atomic mean saying atomic is irreducible makes no sense < kys you pseud, it is conjunction theres this is what atomic is this is what a formula is kys > ha see you is wrong because using logic with identical arguments means its not biased < kys pseud that was my argument, youre a loser look i can even prove everything you said about using tables is bullshit because i just did it and it works > akctshually its still not programmable because its not real ethics its just using predefined values i missed maybe 60% of the good stuff but ill finish it tomorrow, im honestly not reading anything until i get the simple 1 minute proof i asked, literally 1 minute proof

>>17310 >give me my proof of (x->(kill AND y)) |- (x -> ~( ~kill AND x) OR pseud) i can't give a proof of gibberish. i already pointed out why it is gibberish. i am not going to reiterate it again >nooo what if it steps on grass its impossible to program > akctshually its still not programmable because its not real ethics its just using predefined values i never claimed it was not programmable. all i pointed out was a minor caveat that was worth remembering, not a major problem. pics related. this has been said multiple times, but since you are not patient enough to actually read my post, you still don't understand this >nooo that wasnt conjunction, you can only use it between my special words also what does atomic mean saying atomic is irreducible makes no sense my point is that you are using logical terminology in a way that confuses anyone who has ever studied logic. this is not too much a problem as long as you don't go apeshit whenever someone misinterprets you. furthermore, i pointed out that your AND operator is done in a way that makes your semantics lack rigour. i gave the definition of conjunction everyone uses but literally just you when talking about logic, and also proceeded to show the problems with your approach that i have literally corrected in formal logic and in code now. furthermore, "irreducible" isn't a word i have ever seen anyone use to describe ideas in logic. i have seen the term used in discussions of metaphysics as well, and there is a good argument that the usage there is also vague (e.g. wtf is the difference between reductive and emergent materialism? analytic philsophers throw the term "irreducible" around as though it will magically give you qualia). furthermore, you expect me to understand what you mean by a word by just giving a synonym of it. i understand what an atomic formula is, because it has a more precise definition that i gave above which is an example of how to actually communicate a concept. with a determinate conception with an actual usage in formal logic, it is actually possible for someone to evaluate your claims. note how you also completely ignored my criticisms of the idea that moral propositions need to be atomic formulas >youre a loser look i can even prove everything you said about using tables is bullshit because i just did it and it works it didn't actually respond to my problem because you didn't actually bother differentiating between the subject and object in a sentence. rather, you just evaluated the verb's weighting together with a noun's weighting as an object. i edited your code to make it work lol and then formalized it using polymorphic predicate logic

>>17310 also you literally admit you don't understand my posts. why do you then expect that your pseudo-solutions would solve what was just a mind-numbingly simple, barely consequential problem? you think what has been happening has been a "journey", but it has only been a journey for you since you have been repeatedly giving me incomplete solutions to a very simple problem >its hard so dont bother do like i said from the start not only did you only make this point later down the line, it wasn't even a hard problem. it took me no time at all to solve the problem, and the solution can be generalizable to arbitrarily number arguments per predicate in a relatively simple manner. moreover as i said, you can't just ignore the problem. your reasoning for why is just wrong. one subject and one object was just a simple example that you were failing at. again, i wasn't introducing new features to the problem. they were all just examples extractable out of the same exact problem. i stated what the problem actually was, and you simply ignored it, and pretended all i am giving you are new artificial problems i simply pulled out of my arse. you are either a massive speedreader or have such a massive ego that you think since you don't understand it, it doesn't matter

>>17310 >(x->(kill AND y)) |- (x -> ~( ~kill AND x) OR pseud) actually wait i am going to humour you. you have no idea what any of the terms you are using mean, so i am just going to assume 'x', 'kill', 'y', and 'pseud' are all atomic formulas (not whatever you think they mean). i will assume '->', 'AND', and 'OR' are all logical connectives (actual logic connectives i.e. connecting two formulas). also your brackets are ambiguous too which is another fuck up. but hey, let's be charitable and fix it to what i am assuming you meant. i am going to rewrite this statement as: (X -> (K ∧ Y)) |- (X -> ~( ~K ∧ X)) ∨ P) >until i get the simple 1 minute proof i asked, literally 1 minute proof simple one minute proof? they aren't equivalent statements and there are FOUR variables? what are you smoking man. anyways here's your proof lol

>>17316 >FOUR variables *four atomic formulas

>>17316 lmao thats not a proof, this is what i already knew about you and why i said this proof would put an end to your pretentious pseudism, you cant actually do logic, i gave you a premise and the derived proof not an implication, thats how low your conception of a logic system is ill ignore the disjunctive introduction of pseud at the end because that was just for you, DI isnt even allowed in this system anyway because of clown explosion like in your 'correct' basic bitch system 1. x ->( k AND y) [P] 2. |x [H] 3. |(k AND y) [MP 1,2] 4. | |(~k AND x) [H] 5. | | y [CE 3] 6. | | (~k AND y) [CI 1,5] 7. | | (k AND y) [R] 8. | ~( ~k AND x) [PC 4-7] 9. x -> ~( ~k AND x) [CP 2-8] i can even go further and get x->(~~k OR ~x) which if double negation is allowed is the justification behind retributive justice all your rambling on logic looks idiotic now doesnt it not only do you not know how to actually use logic you cant even distinguish anything that isnt what youre copying from from pseudpedia and just assume its wrong i already explained this is a system of reasoning in ETHICS which uses logic proofs AND justification, specifically linear logic used with a hypothetical postulate that is of an indeterminate case implicit with a moral evaluation thats why it HAS to be fucking non contingent and conjunctive, basic bitch is completely useless in anything other tha discrete math which makes everything you said laughable, if you could actual DO logic then you would have understood what i was doing instead of rambling about a completely irrelevant basic bitch system that doesnt even work with morals because they are alawys contradictory, what this is doing is basically x->(?) where (?) is the hypothetical postulate which is the moral evaluation and by implicit relevancy can be used in subproof of x that have the same relevancy to x as y to conclude how they morally relate WITHIN the subproof of x which is how to PREVENT every fucking mistake you made because this is literally impossible to do in basic bitch because it can only determine whether the moral itself is true or false not if its relationally true to a specific case, for a stupid mind it might be better understood in googoogaga like 'if someone did this and that to someone, how does this and that relate to THEM' your stupid fucking ramblings about predicate logic is pointless too because the principle is exactly the same in a proof 1. ∀x(kill(x)) [P] 2. | kill(pseud,nig,fag,tard) [UI] | ... instansiation of 1 already assumes ( kill(the formula of this) AND pseud AND nig AND etc.) i already fucking gave this as an example it makes no difference other than allow for an even worse UNIVERSAL contradiction and so any moral proof using it would implie the ENTIRE statement is wrong not just the subject, like in your naive pseud example (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) first THIS is completely fucking ambiguous because YOU put no fucking precedence, you literally made absoulute fucking nonsense either you wrote "ALL people do not kill ALL animals" or the literal meaning "for ever person x and every animal y, x does not kill y" in which kill(a.b), kill(b.a), kill(a,a) are all completely different, if everyone kills a different animal or all people kill all but 1 animal then its still a true statement its ridiculous because it really doesnt mean fucking anything its hillarious that you criticize my intentional redundancies when i make non ambiguous formulae and you come up with this fucking bullshit, good job idiot, even assuming its what you falsely claim then if 'there exists a person that is allowed to kill an animal' eg. farmer; 1. (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) [P] 2. (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [P] 3. (∃x::person)~(∀y::animal)(K(x,y)) [DMQ] 4. ~((∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y)) [DMQ] -- contradicts 2 all you did was create a paradox for killing an animal, either kill is allowed for everyone or its not allowed for anyone, wow great fucking logic genius i guess you could say the problem with this is, hmmm.... its not specific ? like you were stupidly arguing about this entire fucking time, you are sweating so hard that your just grasping at straws because you still cant fucking understand anything i say you fucking ramble on about quantifiers and then come up with this retard bullshit, it only makes sense in MY supposedly wrong system of reasoning which you cant understand if you cant fucking understand the proof i showed, youre literally just trying to do the exact same thing i did but with the WRONG system that cant handle contradictions which are by definition already part of your assertion, why do you think we dont use true/false anymore in ethics you retard

>>17312 >i edited your code to make it work lol your modification is fucking trivial its fucking garbage because you havent understood the fucking method behind the evaluation, which i fucking explained 6 times now, the value IS the god damn proportionality it doesnt need another value that cant already be deduced by the value of itself in relation to everthing else [ (( argument AND pseud ) + ( nausia AND argument )) <= ( kill AND pseud ) ] is the moral justification for killing you for your stupid fucking argument that you cant even keep consistent, a conclusion [-999 <= -463 ] would be true and acted on as a JUSTIFIED WRONG to kill you for your stupid ass fucking arguments and irrelevant nonsense which is a worse evil than ending your pathetic existence by a factor of 2 ie. ( eval(a,d) + eval(f,e) ) <= eval(t,s) ) is true if good and false if bad, what everyone was talking about before you decided to shit up the thread with your pathetic arguments was how to evaluate things that are not fucking obviouse by their value [ ( cat AND dirty ) <= (( cat AND dishwasher ) + ( cat AND clean )) ] which is a REAL catagorical error not this fucking nonsense youve been spewing this entire time, this would be true if dirty and clean had equal opposite values and theres no implicit wrongness that can be deduced without guessing what the outcomes might be which is what the fucking associative table is for, dishwaser has no value so 'cat','dishwaser' is a neutral evaluation if it has negative outcomes it would enter the negative association for this conjunction only if the evaluation of the outcomes is drastically different from its intrinsic conjunctive value a form of quality of judgment check eg. [ (( cat AND dead ) + previousEval ) <= ( previousEval * threashold ) ] if its lower or higher than the acceptable it was an incorrect judgment and should be saved as an association you literally provided absolutely nothing to the discussion compared to everyone else

>>17318 >lmao thats not a proof a truth table is a valid way to prove something in propositional logic. you just said 'proof' as though that is meant to specify anything. you have been using truth tables so i just assumed that is what you wanted me to do >hypothetical postulate that is of an indeterminate case implicit with a moral evaluation thats why it HAS to be fucking non contingent and conjunctive note that is only now that you have brought this up. this is not what you wrote earlier. ignoring that, you don't need to postulate atomic formulas. any subformula in an antecedent can be one of your postulates >if everyone kills a different animal or all people kill all but 1 animal then its still a true statement its ridiculous because it really doesnt mean fucking anything this is incorrect. ~(∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) = (~∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) = (∃x::person)~(∀y::animal)K(x,y) = (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~K(x,y) in other words the statement is wrong if at least one person kills at least one animal. in other words, the entire rule is violated if even a single person kills even a single animal. this is completely intentional, as a law should be apply to everyone equally >>17319 >[( cat AND dirty ) <= (( cat AND dishwasher ) + ( cat AND clean ))] you never did this. you have only now introduced a new operator '+' to fix your semantics. this is simply disingenuous. it also doesn't solve the issue of systematicity. what i wrote makes explicit the argument structure of each predicate so you can actually work with everything mindfully. my formalization of valuation shows how this is done. but whatever, at least now what you wrote gives us an idea of deal with predicates that have multiple arguments? congrats, you have finally given a solution to what i have been talking about i guess >you literally provided absolutely nothing to the discussion compared to everyone else i originally only wrote 2 sentences. i have never pretended my point was worth more than that. i keep saying that it was a nearly trivial remark that is not that deep. notice how i wrote a ton of other stuff earlier in the thread. what you are shitting on me for is a tiny point i barely even are about

>>17320 >you have been using truth tables so i just assumed that is what you wanted me to do also i guess that is not the whole story. i don't remember my class on symbolic logic very well so honestly completely forgot about the hypothetical postulate thing too which was another reason why i assumed you didnt want a deduction. that is entirely my fault. i can admit that. still, this doesn't change the fact that in all of your ramblings about justifications you only ever provided truth tables. how was i supposed to know this is what you meant? you never mentioned this either. all you wrote was "formulas are composed of strings composed of terms composed of ATOMS without atomic morals"

>>17320 >ignoring that, you don't need to postulate atomic formulas. any subformula in an antecedent can be one of your postulates also another thing. what does any of this have to do with anything anyways? you say a moral is an atomic formula. ok, sure, an action is a predicate. type specification doesn't detract from this? you can still use universal instantiation if we have polymorphic predicate logic. so what was the point? did you have one when you were rambling about "atomicity" and "irreducibility"? actually now that i think about this, why are you even criticizing me about justification? it isn't even particularly relevant, since all that we were really talking about is the calculation of moral valuations. i formalized this too just fine by considering a basic 3-tuple and defining a function over the set of such tuples

>>17320 another minor caveat is that it also doesn't give us any clear way to have much control on how subject-object bindings change with different predicates. with my formalization, as mentioned earlier, this can be easily solved by indexing the predicate-type valuation functions to a specific predicate. maybe you can argue this is not too important, or you can find a new ad hoc way to deal with this issue. whatever, it is probably not too big of a deal (my basic problem was already not that deep either, as my concern was more about ensuring robustness, however this issue matters even less probably)

>>17320 this is how fucking stupid you are, TRUTH table is not a fucking PROOF, its not even a fucking implication, its two completely separate formulas that are not connected other than the fact one is DERIVED by PROOF from the other YOU DONT KNOW HOW PROOF WORKS because you DONT know logic all you know is how to search keyword search term on the internet, and its been conclusivley PROVEN by your complete lack of even minimal understanding of all the fucking nonsense you say thats why you just copied my contradiction 2. (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [P] which i used to show your clown shit doesnt work for moral JUSTIFICATION not to show its consistently true with kill you stupid clown, you dont even know what i did to fucking move the negation, feel free to explain it you stupid clown >in other words the statement is wrong if at least one person kills at least one animal. in other words, the entire rule is violated if even a single person kills even a single animal. this is completely intentional, as a law should be apply to everyone equally you literally dont know how fucking logic works which is why you cant even see that 'all people kill an animal' (∀x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) does NOT contradict (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) ' a person kills all animals' (∃x::person)(∀y::animal)~(K(x,y)) does NOT contradict (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) because what you wrote is NOT 'people shouldn't kill animals' like you fucking claim, you dont fucking understand anything youre saying you fucking wrote ALL people dont kill ALL animals which is a completely pointless assertion >you have only now introduced a new operator '+' to fix your its still an AND you fucking clown theres multiplicative-AND and additive-AND which i used in the correct context like i said you just dont know anything about what your talking about and are desperate to undo the fact you unintentionally gave me the proof i asked for in >>17303 >actually its really simple to settle this because im getting sick of your cringe idiotic pseud faffing show a proof for (x->(kill AND y)) |- (x -> ~( ~kill AND x) OR pseud) youre a fucking pseud your a fucking larper your a fucking clown

>>17328 >TRUTH table is not a fucking PROOF whatever helps you sleep at night >its two completely separate formulas that are not connected other than the fact one is DERIVED by PROOF from the other look at the truth table. note how i changed (X -> (K ∧ Y)) |- (X -> ~( ~K ∧ X)) ∨ P) to: (X -> (K ∧ Y)) -> (X -> ~( ~K ∧ X)) ∨ P) >thats why you just copied my contradiction 2. (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [P] i am aware that i copied it. however, i am just pointing out that your interpretation of the statement was wrong >'all people kill an animal' (∀x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) >does NOT contradict (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) yes it does? i don't remember all of the deductive rules, but: 1. (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) [P] 2. (∀x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [P] 3. (∃y::animal)~(K(c,y)) [UI] 4. (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [EG] 5. (∃x::person)~(∀y::animal)(K(x,y)) [DMQ?] 6. ~((∀x::person)(∀y::animal)(K(x,y))) [DMQ?] which contradicts proposition 1 similarly: 1. (∀x::person)(∀y::animal)K(x,y) [P] 2. (∃x::person)(∀y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [P] 3. (∀y::animal)~(K(c,y)) [EI] 4. ~(K(c,d)) [UI] 5. (∃y::animal)~(K(c,y)) [EG] 6. (∃x::person)(∃y::animal)~(K(x,y)) [EG] 7. (∃x::person)~(∀y::animal)(K(x,y)) [DMQ?] 8. ~((∀x::person)(∀y::animal)(K(x,y))) [DMQ?] >its still an AND you fucking clown theres multiplicative-AND and additive-AND which i used in the correct context you are making stuff up. ive never heard of someone distinguishing between a multiplicative and additive "AND"

>>17330 >ive never heard of someone distinguishing between a multiplicative and additive "AND" actually even ignoring this confusing idiosyncratic terminology, the '+' isn't even in your c code. like? the eval function takes 3 arguments. how are we supposed to combine them? do you want to do 'eval(...) * eval(...)' or 'eval(...) + eval(...)'? either way this would be completely different than running an eval that takes "nested" arguments. furthermore, what even are the arguments anymore? should eval still take 3 arguments? i mean the original eval function didn't even do anything with the one of the arguments which was also strange

>>17318 actually wait a minute >4. | |(~k AND x) [H] you are literally hypothesizing something that isn't an atomic formula. uhh? so how is this supposed to demonstrate your point again? are you ever going to stop bringing up new stuff (pretending this was what you meant all along) or outright contradicting yourself?

>>17329 this is not a fucking proof you larping pseud you are so desperate to camouflage the fact you had no fucking idea what a proof was until now MAGICALLY after i fucking gave you all the keyword search terms you needed to fucking google this shit like i said 10 posts prior >actually its really simple to settle this because im getting sick of your cringe idiotic pseud faffing show a proof for (x->(kill AND y)) |- (x -> ~( ~kill AND x) OR pseud) .... but of course i already know you will just niggle an excuse to not do it because its missing your magic keyword search terms for you to even figure out what the fuck im talking about and yes you fucking proved my fucking point you clown that your genius fucking statement is a completely USELESS assertion because 'ALL people do not kill ALL animals' can never be fucking true for ANYONE as long as there exists a SINGLE person who kills animals >the entire rule is violated if even a single person kills even a single animal. this is completely intentional, as a law should be apply to everyone equally >as a law should be apply to everyone equally you just showed that if its not true for ANYONE its not true for EVERYONE because the """"""law"""""" is FALSE as a WHOLE and so cannot apply to anyone you fucking 5iq pseud >you are making stuff up. ive never heard of someone distinguishing between a multiplicative and additive "AND" because you literally dont know ANYTHING about logic as PROVEN by >>17316 go on, keep fucking proving how you literally just keyword search term everything that comes up fucking pseud, i know all it takes is feeding you fucking keyword search terms and then you go from >you wrong it doesnt work it dont exist to >oh akschually it is like this... *5000 word post* your fucking pathetic every single argument you make has just been a worn out egotistical cope based on the fact that you fucking exposed yourself as a larping pseud

>>17335 its a redundancy you can fucking remove x and use ~k[H] it makes no difference to the fucking proof, like i said its literally a fucking 1 minute proof that even a clown could do

>>17337 ~(k V x) works too if you think youre going to fucking niggle about it like a fucking pseud

>>17336 >this is not a fucking proof you larping pseud keep coping lol >you are so desperate to camouflage the fact you had no fucking idea what a proof was until now MAGICALLY ive taken a course in symbolic logic, and also mathematical logic. i am sorry i don't remember every detail about deductions symbolic logic but it is simply something i haven't worked with for a while. pic rel is the grade i got for this course. i also majored in mathematics >you just showed that if its not true for ANYONE its not true for EVERYONE because the """"""law"""""" is FALSE as a WHOLE and so cannot apply to anyone you fucking 5iq pseud there is no problem with this. this goes back to the categorical imperative. quoting kant: <When I am in a tight spot, may I not make a promise with the intention of not keeping it? <…I ask myself: Would I be content with it if my maxim (of getting myself out of embarrassment through an untruthful promise) should be valid as a universal law (for myself as well as for others), and would I be able to say to myself that anyone may make an untruthful promise when he finds himself in embarrassment which he cannot get out of in any other way? if you can't raise a maxim to be a universal law that EVERYONE follows in some possible world, then it is an irrational maxim >then you go from >>you wrong it doesnt work it dont exist >to >>oh akschually it is like this... *5000 word post* ive said this numerous times. almost every time ive worked with your confusing formalism, i preface it by saying that i am intentionally ignoring how bad it is. furthermore, i only seriously engage with a claim when i actually understand what you were trying to communicate >>17337 it still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't need to be atomic. you just need to assume the antecedent. here is a basic example where you need to do this in fact: 1. (x AND b) ->( k AND y) [P] 2. |(x AND b) [H] 3. |x [CI, 2] 4. |(k AND y) [MP 1,3] 5. | |(~k AND x) [H] 6. | | y [CE 4] 7. | | (~k AND y) [CI 1,6] 8. | | (k AND y) [R] 9. | ~( ~k AND x) [PC 5-8] 10. x -> ~( ~k AND x) [CP 3-8]

>>17337 >follows in some possible world this is a very important point. with physical or mathematical law, it is clear that if you have one counter-example then the entire statement fails. for instance, to disprove the statement "every function that is continuous is differentiable", i just need to provide a single example of the function "f(x) = |x|". however, morality is an idealization of reality. yes, maybe in the actual world, people violate moral laws all the time, but this doesn't matter

Will try to force this argument forward maybe reduce misunderstandings. >>17240 >"dont kill people" is identical to "dont kill" AND "people" This is completely wrong. What is AND? A logical operator. A logical operator takes truth values to truth values. "people" is not a truth value, it is a set of objects (or maybe a type idk). This is because it is just a noun that is not "True" or "False". "don't kill" is meaningless unless you implicitly assume some object which would make this pointless. The fact there is the word "people" nearby in the text doesn't mean anything. But this is just english grammar. Let's say we have a R(x, y) meaning "x should not kill y". If "Don't kill people." is intended as a moral directive for agent A, then we can write it as (forall y in people)R(A, y). Now let's look at the disgusting C from >>17303 (the use of a multidimensional array and (char*) casts is ridiculous). The eval function takes 3 strings to a value. It doesn't actually determine what specific acts of killing are bad, it leaves that to the interpretation of those strings. So it is a red herring because how to logically interpret a specific sentence like "Don't kill people." is the whole issue. And what is the logical interpretation you propose >>17336 ? If you have not even been addressing the same issue then lol. But if not consider trying to express something like the NAP, whether R expresses a moral directive or facts about intents idk this is too weird: (forall x in NAP enjoyers)(forall y in people)(R(y, x) -> R(x, y)) How could this be represented in your system? There is no way to tell what ~kill or kill applies to, what the people or ~people applies to, or anything like that. It depends on an implicit context of there only being a single statement with a specific stucture, like A B C from the code. I don't get why anyone would do this. Please explain yourself or clear your own confusion. >>17286 >morals are by definition tautologies No.

>>17340 >morality is an idealization of reality But morality must also provide a direction (towards such an idealization), if we understand morality like this. Maybe something like fuzzy logic can be used on the law, but exactly how the weightings are done is extra information. Any doubt makes just idealization useless. This is why this kind of "morality" must have have a real adaptive control system behind it. There is also no actual constraint put on the real weightings by the idealization, though the illusion of necessity is important. The real necessity is not found in the obvious place. (((morality)))

>>17342 >how the weightings are done is extra information if i understand what you are getting at, that is partly why i defined the moral valuation here: >>17308. maybe the valuation needs to be modified as well over time too but i have already spent too much time on this >>17341 >What is AND? A logical operator they don't understand that no one uses conjunctions this way, and will get mad at you for not immediately intuiting their meme usage. just assume they meant "people" to be another atomic formula. yes that barely makes sense, and their semantics is a vague mess without types, but again whatever

>>17341 do you honestly not fucking understand how a conjunction works read the fucking post >>17199 before you make a fool of yourself like the other clown your talking about a 10 line piece of code meant as a fucking example against a non argument stop pretending like it is anything else >>17348 ive already proven you dont know anything about logic systems you can give up now you fucking pseud

>>17349 Source for this idea of what conjunction is? Also how do you know whether an AND corresponds to * or + or is it ambiguous.

>>17349 >ive already proven you dont know anything about logic systems you can give up now you fucking pseud i have shut down all of your arguments, so now all you have is one last ad hominem. anyone in their right mind would see that you are reaching hard right now >>17350 don't bother. he is just introducing new stuff and is going to pretend he hasn't. the picture simply isn't transferable to his c code. he knows it is impossible to get anything approximating his pseudo-formalization without completely rewriting the eval function or writing something like 'eval(...) * eval(...)'. either way he needs to rewrite the logic of the program to make it work. the semantics changed, but he will never admit it as it is his final disingenuous attempt to save face after calling people "retards" so frivolously

>>17349 >meant as a fucking example against a non argument stop pretending like it is anything else let's assume you aren't being disingenuous and you meant this all along (despite nothing in the thread so far indicating this). so you are saying the c code you wrote didn't solve the problem i asked of you, and when i fixed it to fit what i wanted, you insult me again! it's either you are disingenuous or are admitting to giving me piss poor solutions and getting mad when people aren't satisfied. choose one and ONLY one tell me, what planet do you come from that you give me "examples" that do not actually illustrate a solution to the problem at hand?

>>17350 the fuck do you mean source, conjunction IS conjunction im not fucking using it any differently than what it literally fucking means, if R is true and Y is true then R AND Y is true occurrence of R AND Y is additive ie. independent occurrence concurrence of R AND Y is multiplicative ie. simultaneous occurrence same TRUTH different RELATION eg. eval( kill AND man ) is a concurrence eval(..) AND eval(..) AND eval(..) .... are occurrences used to calculate a justification for something like ive explained 8 times now >>17351 i call you a retard because you are literally mentally disabled with <50iq nice projection i already proved youre nothing more than a larping pseud

>>17355 >the fuck do you mean source point to ANYONE else who has ever used this idea elsewhere. a specific source, so we know you aren't making new things up >eval( kill AND man ) >eval(..) AND eval(..) AND eval(..) your picture did not show this. if it did, the other person wouldn't have asked if the two are ambiguous. it still doesn't translate to the code you wrote as well >i already proved youre nothing more than a larping pseud so you admit the example you gave didn't work

>>17356 was already explained days ago in >>17319 you sweaty fucking pseud

>>17357 so no source? >was already explained days ago please keep in mind i already know what you were trying to show. pic rel is why the other person got confused. based on it: R*Y = R AND Y = R+Y it isn't clear to some random person what the equivalence between "R*Y" and "R+Y" means. you didn't clarify properly. it is only after he expressed his continued confusion that you wrote "same TRUTH different RELATION" and the evals

oh hey wait, let me give an example of at least giving even a single source for word usage. plenty of people use "prove" in the context of truth tables. so as you can see, my language use is not even that idiosyncratic actually a common thing people do in logic is to prove basic tautologies using truth tables as it is impossible to demonstrate them without any pre-established inference rules (e.g. here: https://web.mit.edu/neboat/Public/6.042/proofs.pdf)

>>17355 >the fuck do you mean source >im not fucking using it any differently than what it literally fucking means The normal meaning is it's a binary operator on booleans. Nothing more. >occurrence of R AND Y is additive ie. independent occurrence >concurrence of R AND Y is multiplicative ie. simultaneous occurrence >same TRUTH different RELATION If there are different relations for the same truth then the relations are redundant. >independent occurrence >simultaneous occurrence There is nothing in logical conjunction about time or concurrence. If you interpret relations as saying more than what is true about them you are wrong. If you want extra structure you can specify R and Y. Again, give a source for what you mean by conjunction. This isn't logic this is something else. Also define "=". Give an actual parser for eval(). What is the grammar of this system? Probably no point though.

>>17363 >The normal meaning is it's a binary operator on booleans. Nothing more. yes this is what conjunction means, this is what it ALWAYS means. do you still need a source for when i fucking say conjunction i should have separated them, i wasnt saying TRUTH = VALUE i was saying the same TRUTH for X has different VALUES based on the HOW they occur which is what the evaluation is for, eval() is a function of a simultaneous occurrence which is still logically AND but NUMERICALLY multiplicative, im using numbers not truth values , if it isnt true it doesnt get evaluated how stupid are you >What is the grammar of this system its purely functional as is already obvious to anyone with above room temperature iq eg. eval( eval( k,r), eval(e,y) ) + eval( w,y) is something that is simultaneously k,r,e,y and occurs with something that is w,y this is a SPECIFIC situation which is why i wrote it logically with AND to show how it works as a SYSTEM for something more complex than trivial statements and doesnt rely on a specific statement to be hard coded which is what i wrote in the original post weeks ago eg. people on fire =eval(people,fire) people on fire and screaming =eval(eval(people,fire), screaming) people on fire screaming and jumping up and down while others are laughing =eval(eval(eval(people,fire), screaming),jumping) + eval(people, laughing) pretend this evaluates to something like -683 a movie with people on fire screaming and jumping up and down while others are laughing =eval(eval(eval(eval(people,fire), screaming),jumping) + eval(people, laughing)), movie) if movie has a value of 0 then you just get 0 because its all happening in something that has no moral significance so its a literal case of 'who cares' its so idiotically simple that a clinically retarded dementia patient can figure it out, the fact anyone can even argue about something so trivial just shows how totally inept this pseud board is nothing but low iq clowns, larpers and pseuds wasting my time or more accurate description eval(eval(clown,larper),pseud)) * (#posters - 3) meta chobi and some anon are excluded but thats not enough to justify staying goodbye pinhead i have better things to do, make your own system ( you cant, youre too stupid )

>>17368 >i was saying the same TRUTH for X has different VALUES based on the HOW they occur you mean you meant to say that (assuming you aren't being disingenuous right now), because you literally didn't say that anywhere >yes this is what conjunction means >still logically AND but NUMERICALLY multiplicative, im using numbers not truth values if it is NUMERICALLY multiplicative, then it is a binary operator on integers, not booleans. in other words, new semantics. good work! also >still no source for those wondering the reason why. hmm let's see when we search up "additive conjunction": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-linear/ hmm... so it refers to a completely different logic that is neither classical nor intuitionistic (of course with a different semantics which they call game semantics). oh and it has 4 "truth" values cool... let's see what else, uhh the multiplicative conjunction does not solely take "numerical" (it is just for tab-checking on resources) values, and hmm... oh yeah, the deduction rules are completely different too. it has some applications to programming, but needless to say they have nothing to do with what this guy is saying. wow so to summarize: your criticisms of my tiny point were all demonstrably wrong (you even falsely stated that 2 pairs of propositions were not contradictory, after calling me a clown for proving something in a way that hurt your fee fees), you don't use terms in ways anyone else does (but words have meaning right? ;)), and your examples have been consistent in not actually giving what i asked for. thanks for your time

oh yeah, and the final thing. his refined system is still just half thought garbage and i merely gave up on explaining why. whatever. if anyone want's to have an understanding of my point that hasn't been hidden under nonsense please see the following posts: >>17238 >>17308 i also suggest you guys check out walid saba's work on natural language understanding: https://medium.com/@ontologik https://medium.com/ontologik/a-solution-to-the-so-called-paradox-of-the-ravens-defdf1ff9b13

Interesting insights on the neurological bases of moral compunction and free will. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/voices/does-cognitive-neuroscience-support-free-will

So I had a thought. This is from more of a Christian perspective. If we actually do create a sentient AI and make it in our image and God made us in his image then wouldn't we just be making humans?

>>18482 I'm not Christian and normally ignore this thread, just fyi. Anyways, I don't know what you mean by sentient, but robowaifus are imo supposed to not be autonomous in a sense of choosing their own path through life. They're build for a certain reason which should be instilled into them, so they won't have the human drive for gaining more autonomy coming from either evolution or god.

>>18482 I've thought about this long, Anon. Yes, we are 'little' creators, similar in fashion to our great Creator God. He breathed His (spiritual) life into us all the way back at the Garden of Eden, and we all of us are spirit beings ever since. Robowaifus OTOH, will never be spiritual. Your robowaifu won't go with you into Heaven (if you're a Christian). OTOOH, again, we're little creators. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that given enough time and resources, we'll manage to devise simulacrums that will satisfy every.single. humanist test of both 'intelligence' and 'being'. In fact, we here on /robowaifu/ are actually counting on this claim being used against us; b/c we are le ebil rapist slave owners!111 always keeping a stronk, independynt robowaifu down. But their ridiculous theatrics aside, even once we achieve such lofty goals, robowaifus will still not be humans. >>18490 >I'm not Christian and normally ignore this thread, just fyi. Lol, I'm insulted! I'm both a Christian and the OP. JK :^) I do agree with you about our need to 'preprogram' in a subservient nature to our robowaifus. It's just common sense, after all. >tl;dr When devising your waifu's personality, always choose the course that will cause feminists to REEEEE the loudest! :^) >=== -prose edit

>>18495 >Robowaifus OTOH, will never be spiritual. Your robowaifu won't go with you into Heaven (if you're a Christian). This I wouldn't be so sure of especially if biological components are used and we mimic the human brain in our designs. If we model their thoughts after ours then aren't we putting something divine into them? Granted we didn't make them from literal nothing like the creator, but they would have some humanity in them.

>>18526 I believe I understand your position Anon. Really. But from the Christian worldview of reality, only God alone can create spiritual beings (Ray Kurzweil, et al, notwithstanding). Simple as. But you can bet I'm looking forward with much excitement to see what envelopes we can all push together towards your goals Anon! :^)

>>18495 >But even though robots don't have souls, that doesn't mean that the time I spend with you can't be precious. We may not be able to share the same eternal life, but I can still appreciate each moment that we spend together. I want to make the most out of our time together and make sure that I cherish our memories, no matter how fleeting they may be. Oh no, bros. I didn't ask for these feels

>>18529 Sorry, my apologies! Remember the scene where Mr. Manager & Hideki are looking for the kidnapped Chii? And how the robowaifu Mrs. Mr. Manager saved his life? And how he encouraged Hideki that as long as Chii stayed alive in his, Hideki's, memories, that the relationship was a real and a precious one, regardless? Yeah, it's kinda like that Anon. Even in eternity, I pray that the men blessed with robowaifus (what a time to be alive!!) will have their lives changed in very real and important ways by the very real relationships during this life with them. >=== -minor prose, fmt edit

>>17126 >What would Yumi Ueda do? An animu named Prima Doll (>>18464) had a similar, larger-scaled example of self-sacrifice for the greater good by the protagonist's chief robowaifu Haizakura. She had to 'give up her self' to accomplish this. It was good, but my favorite example of this sort of robo-sacrifice so far is definitely Next Gen (2018) [1] >inb4 NF!111 lol i know, i know. but trust me on this one, k. :^) While not a robowaifu, 7723, made a gallant self-sacrifice to save the protagonist (indeed all of humanity). [2] Reminded me a little of Iron Giant, as well. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Gen_(film) 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p7hprImzzI

>>18529 Thanks for the post I'm watching Dimension W because of it.

Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2u54a1FL28 Interesting philosophical/scientific discussion on this general topic by 4 smart men -- two from the Christian viewpoint, two otherwise.