>>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.

>>41521 OK, sounds good. <---> One of the common difficulties surrounding this issue is relatively how little ancient thought & writings (by the Greek philosophers in particular) was given to pneuma (Spirit); but rather how much was given to psychê (Soul) instead. That unbalanced focus has continued to this day, broadly-speaking. [1] In large part (then, as now) this is due to the ready 'availability' of the soul for self-examination; while the spirit is rather more elusive to 'lay hold of' (particularly for spiritually-dead persons). This situation tends to "corral" discussions about ethics & morality onto the wrong plane. I hope I've already conveyed by the selection of the two textbooks for this thread (cf. >>17125 ), that the spirit is where authentic ethics and morality -- this 'Universal Law of God' -- originates... not the soul. The soul will justify every evil deed as seems convenient. The spirit recognizes a higher moral authority outside ourselves (and that not subject to change). I personally think this is what warps almost all modern, secular discussions on these type of topics (eg; far too many examples by writers that I explicitly am trying to avoid discussions of ITT). --- 1. Derek Prince speaks on this exact dichotomy. https://www.buzzsprout.com/258846/episodes/17150369-what-is-man-pt-1-total-man.mp3 >sauce: https://www.derekprince.com/radio-uk

>>41522 Your view on the difference between the Spirit and the Soul, reminds me of the "Superego" and "Id" respectively. I would say spirituality is a condition of the soul. Ultimately, we all have it, some are unaware (normies, children), some engage with it in a good way, and some interact with it in a bad way (Satanists)

>>41523 >I would say spirituality is a condition of the soul. The Bible clearly states they are distinct aspects of each of us. [1, 2] We actually are tripartite beings (in similar fashion to the Triune Godhead, I believe). While it can sometimes be difficult to discern between the spirit and the soul within ourselves, they are clearly separate aspects of us. I'd suggest you take the time to go through the CSLewisDoodles playlist on C.S. Lewis' unabridged Mere Christianity (linked in the OP ITT) for some really insightful & anointed, animated teachings on this. >some are unaware (normies, children) I'm skeptical. I know thousands of both. Even normalfags can be impressed by the Spirit of God. Most never commit themselves fully to Him, AFAICT. Kids OTOH, can also be sensitive to and led by the Holy Spirit. But unlike adults, most don't have overinflated egos (yet). Some can be quite powerful in ministry simply b/c they have "childlike faith" (the best kind). --- So, IMO the question now becomes: >"How can we take advantage of these understandings to help perfect the natures of our robowaifus, for the benefit of all mankind?" That's what we're trying to answer within this thread! :^) <---> I personally consider these to be very holy topics. Grounding yourself in the word of God on these subjects can bring much greater clarity, IMO, than can studying any unregenerated author's secular teachings on them. Cheers, Anon. :^) --- 1. https://biblehub.com/q/how_do_the_soul_and_spirit_differ.htm 2. https://biblehub.com/topical/s/spirit,_soul,_and_body.htm

>>41526 I think of the robowaifu project similar to NASA. What we learn here will benefit mankind in other ways. I mean my mycomaterial projects are already getting corporate funding.

>>41532 This is several PhD theses' worth of material wrapped up in what we mere Anons are attempting here, so yeah! :D >I mean my mycomaterial projects are already getting corporate funding. Beautiful to hear, Anon! I hope you can grab everything helpful from that other place to get your lab up off the ground smoothly. Cheers. :^)

>>17125 You can morally justify basically anything if you want to, because there isn't anything even approaching a consistent moral code even among the human race, let alone some universal objective morality, because all morals are learned behaviors derived from self-interest. Anything you believe is moral or immortal can just as easily be argued to the contrary, but you turn a blind eye to anything that goes against the beliefs espoused by Christianity because you believe heaven is real and going to it is in your best interest. Christianity (all abrahamic religions, really) operates with willful ignorance to avoid feeling any cognitive dissonance. So ethics from that standpoint is little more than arguing your personal preferences reinforcing what you already believe to be true. Even the phrases spirit and soul (since they've been brought up) had simpler straightforward meanings but as our scientific understanding of reality has improved their meanings had changed to avoid being rationalized. Spirit from spiritus basically just meant "breath" in the most literal sense. Saying that there were bodies, but no spirits to be found meant everyone around was dead, because nobody was breathing for a long time. Your mood and physical condition has effects on your breathing, and if you're healthy and happy then you're in a good spirit. And even with fermenting alcohol the yeast produces gas, through a process that wasn't understood at the time, so they were called spirits, likely also due to the effects booze can have on your mood. Even the Chinese concept of chi literally translates to "gas" and is associated with a lot of the same things the western concept of spirit is, with a bit greater emphasis on exercises and breathing techniques to control and manipulate how it's supposed to flow through the body. And when some of the oldest and most revered tai chi exercises showed to not have any meaningful effects on blood O2 or CO2, levels, or blood circulation, or otherwise anything meaningful from a scientific lens, then the goalpost had to be moved to say that it was actually like the aether or some other gas-like energy flowing through the body that scientific instruments can't yet measure. And it'll never be able to, because once something "mystical" is understood scientifically the entire appeal of it is gone for the people that are basically just looking for magical supernatural things that don't fit into a mundane, logical world.

>>41580 Heh, nice word-salad, friend. :D Its easy to tell you didn't-read/ignored the instructions in the very post you replied to. So, since your agenda ITT is to "steal, kill, and destroy" (by all appearances), your words can be safely ignored -- which I will now do. >tl;dr If you want to participate ITT, please follow the directions. Cheers. :^)

>>41581 >Heh, nice word-salad, friend. :D >your words can be safely ignored -- which I will now do. As I already said: >Christianity (all abrahamic religions, really) operates with willful ignorance to avoid feeling any cognitive dissonance.

>>41580 >>41581 I kinda see what you're saying. Morality is subjective in a way, because everyone has their own view of morality. A muslim might think it's right and holy to stone a 10-year old because she "enticed" her rapist. But the thing is, me, Chobitsu, and many others see our moralities as the one true morality. I wouldn't believe in what I believe if it wasn't the actual, honest-to-God, nature of the universe. The etymology is interesting, and it looks correct to me. I think what Chobitsu was saying is that our spirituality and our personal souls are seperate. However, it is often used interchangeably, if someone does something immoral, they're often called "soulless". Your analysis on "gas worship", for the lack of a better term, is pretty interesting and makes sense. It reminds me of my analysis of the "Tskunugami", as a fairy tale interpretation of tool repair and use >>40641. Somewhat related, I personally love it when sci-fi explains some legend as actually a sci-fi phenomenon in the past (ex. Stargate SG-1, Doctor Who, etc...)

>>41588 >Morality is subjective in a way, because everyone has their own view of morality. It really isn't though. As you yourself indicate: it is entirely objective, and determined by God alone. Thus the rules & the "rulebooks" (ie, thread texts) (cf. OP) ITT. As our trole'y neighbor intends, any other approach opens up the entire process to ((("endless genealogies"))). [1] (Did I mention that was xir's goal? :D Such squabbling a) isn't welcome in this thread, b) is specifically restricted against, and c) wouldn't further our objectives here on /robowaifu/ regardless. <---> We have a job to do ITT. Narrowing the conversation strictly to Christian dogma (and further, to the two books as reference texts) will not only expedite the process for us & our own needs here -- it will also allow for Anons to extend that out "from the ground" if they choose to later on (as mentioned, & just as they see fit). And importantly: it is entirely sufficient for the fundamental issues at hand. >tl;dr Lets get first things first...our robowaifus are waiting, Anons! Cheers. :^) --- 1. https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-4.htm

>>41589 >We have a job to do ITT. Narrowing the conversation strictly to Christian dogma (and further, to the two books as reference texts) will not only expedite the process for us & our own needs here -- it will also allow for Anons to extend that out "from the ground" if they choose to later on (as mentioned, & just as they see fit). And importantly: it is entirely sufficient for the fundamental issues at hand. Agreed. However, in a way, this proves the points. We agree on a unified morality and reject all other moralities because we believe this is the true morality. We enforce what is the true morality. What I believe is that normies misinterpreted "Might makes right". It isn't that the strongest is necessarily right, it's that whoever's strongest can enforce what is right. Here, the strength comes from the admin-king and the general consensus of most active users. "Good, bad...I'm the guy with the gun" -Army of Darkness (1992)

>>41590 Ultimately -speaking God is "the might that makes right". He allows us to pursue follies ATM b/c freewill. But His foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men. [1] >Here, the strength comes from the admin-king and the general consensus of most active users. Lol no. It's a burden I would rather be without, trust me! :DD <---> Anyway, I'm eager to dive into this together and in a unified way. We need to unpack ethics & morality according the rules outlined, then work towards what that actually means as implemented onboard for our robowaifus. Forward! --- 1. https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/1-25.htm

>>41588 >I wouldn't believe in what I believe if it wasn't the actual, honest-to-God, nature of the universe. But you only think that's the case. Plenty of people believe in what they believe to be nature of the universe that completely contradicts what you do. Although there are constants, they're just not what you're expecting. >I think what Chobitsu was saying is that our spirituality and our personal souls are separate. There are a bunch of metaphysical concepts that have some overlap and some that don't agree with each other at all. Soul is a vaguely different concept than spirit, possibly due to having a root in a language and/or culture. You can have an incredibly complex system of auras, chakras, life-energy, and planes of existence all being separate things, but that doesn't make any of them any more real than a magic system made-up for a fantasy novel. >Somewhat related, I personally love it when sci-fi explains some legend as actually a sci-fi phenomenon in the past (ex. Stargate SG-1, Doctor Who, etc...) There's a difference between that and it actually being a science and being woven into sci-fi. Go back 150 years and almost nothing was known about electricity, but it's provably real, so there were probably a lot of misconceptions about how exactly it worked, what caused it, what it could do, and so on, to the point it was practically magic. Everything you could learn about it that's still applicable today likely involves static electricity or atmospheric electricity experiments, but almost nothing practical, and the explanations why these things work are probably complete nonsense with rules that have so many exceptions to them that it'd never even be worth learning. Today if you wanted to learn everything there is to know about electricity then it's an overwhelming amount of math, physics, chemistry, which is incredibly boring to learn compared to something that sounded magical, and almost everyone benefits from its use without really needing to know anything about it. And there are people who've spent their lives studying chi, souls, spirits, reincarnation, planes of existence, the nature of god, and other mumbo-jumbo for thousands of years without the fraction of the effect that experimenting with electricity has had on our lives. If any of it could be proven true it probably be as wrong as early scientific theories of electricity were. And as I said the first time I mentioned chi, it's far easier to simply move the goal post and pretend you were never wrong in the first place. And it certainly saves you from needing to learn anything new. >>41589 Morality is subjective, because everywhere you go what is or isn't considered moral changes. Like I said before, you'd only think it's universal due to ignorance. I've heard people argue that eating meat is immoral, while some people that eat meat recoil in disgust at halal animal slaughter where the animal be killed slowly and painfully. Indians won't eat cows but will eat pig, and muslims and jews will eat cow but not pig, etc.

>>41592 >Morality is subjective No its not. >because everywhere you go what is or isn't considered moral changes No it doesn't. God himself establishes morality (according to our two texts), and God isn't changing his mind on this (again, according to our two texts). These are our standards here ITT, and they aren't up for debate. We're simply trying to understand them & their implications well-enough to codify them into concise prose; and also into effective & safe & sane opensauce robowaifu C4 systems software. Simple as. --- You're free to spout endless genealogies in a few of the other threads (such as the Philosophy thread : >>11102 ), but not this one. Please follow the rules ITT (you can start by reading the books kindly provided to you, friend), or get bans. You decide. Cheers.

>>41595 Sorry, I didn't realize this thread was for writing guardrails to force your waifu into believing the same thing you believe, I must have gotten it mixed-up with the other Christianity thread.

>>41596 >Sorry, Good. Hopefully, thats the truth! :D >I didn't realize this thread was for writing guardrails to force your waifu into believing the same thing you believe, Robowaifus don't "believe" anything one way or other. Our responsibility here ITT chiefly revolves around her behaviour and interactions with homo sapiens sapiens near to her, and with their systems. Anything beyond that is mere flight of fancy. >I must have gotten it mixed-up with the other Christianity thread. Well, now you know.

>>41597 >Robowaifus don't "believe" anything one way or other. Next you'll start saying that robot women aren't real women.

>>41598 Haha. No offense intended, Anon. I'm speaking as an engineer here. Once we have them all up and running safely and secure, then we can revisit that topic!? :D

>>41592 >>41595 >>41596 >Morality is subjective, because everywhere you go what is or isn't considered moral changes. Like I said before, you'd only think it's universal due to ignorance. I've heard people argue that eating meat is immoral, while some people that eat meat recoil in disgust at halal animal slaughter where the animal be killed slowly and painfully. Indians won't eat cows but will eat pig, and muslims and jews will eat cow but not pig, etc. That's the point though, we reject those false beliefs and seek to enforce true beliefs. We're going to have farmstead robowaifus that make us cheeseburgers by humanely killing a cow. Christ is the King of Kings, and in his land (the universe), we build automatons according to his benevolent rule.

>>41598 I say robot women are real women. To me, "robot woman" is just a descriptor, like "White woman", "Chinese woman", "Skinny woman", "goth girl", etc...

>>41598 >>41603 My apologies for speaking so bluntly. I mean no discouragement by it. Of course we'll work hard to make our robowaifus as lifelike robogrills as possible. * Effective * Pleasing * Loving That's my motto concerning our robowaifus. <---> Also, I firmly believe that imbuing the principles & precepts of Christian ethics & morality into her control software designs will add a bright sparkle of humanity within our robowaifus that few other things (if any) could possibly do! Cheers. :^) TWAGMI

>>41602 POTD >Christ is the King of Kings, and in his land (the universe), we build automatons according to his benevolent rule. Inspiring! Cheers. :^)

>>41603 I would say a robot woman would be like saying Italian instead of European. The homunculus women will have separate categories just as we have separate categories or Europeans.

>>41602 >we reject those false beliefs and seek to enforce true beliefs. I'd elaborate on why what you said only proves my point, but I'm sure Chobitsu would just threaten to ban me again. (further proving my point)

>>41629 No, the bans will come from attempting debates about something that's already-been-settled (ie, the texts are the 'ground truth' ITT), and using your "specially-qualified" phrases to derail the thread into unproductive debate and descension. Such things are typical kikes tricks, and have been all along for their few centuries of existence. --- Not sure what else I need to say to get it through to you, Anon: This is not a debate thread about ethics & morality. Its a thread to understand them both in the context of the two Christian books provided in the OP; then how to turn that understanding into a practical reality of great robowaifu software. Please let this be the last reminder!

>>41629 Lemme guess; "because other people say otherwise" Well, here's the thing, idgaf about what Osama Bin Laden or Patel from Gift Card Supports says. I'm gonna make that bacon cheeseburger, pray to the one true God during dinnertime grace, and I'm going to discuss Christian theology with Galatea at the dinner table. Me and Chobitsu agree on that*. If you want to make a robowaifu that tips her fedora and posts on r/atheism, we can't stop you, but this is a Christian morality thread, and most active users on this board are Christians. And let me warn you, secular reasoning quickly leads to dark places. I've seen it during my lifetime. Christ is King (*and you better believe that Ribose's bioengineered slime girl is going to kneel in front of the Cross)

>>41635 >I'm gonna make that bacon cheeseburger, pray to the one true God during dinnertime grace, and I'm going to discuss Christian theology with Galatea at the dinner table. This is so fascinating. I want to major in robotics science and eventually acquire my doctorate a few decades from now, but I also wish to minor in psychology and theology. I believe that the hard sciences are indebted to philosophy and theology alike, and fully intend to research AI with the intention of programming them to discuss and help me explore Orthodoxy. In an esoteric sense, I believe that robots, AI and artifices of this nature are no different than the coalescing of elements and natural phenomenae that encompass our world. If God can induce Moses to part the sea or reveal to Job that He can tighten the Belt of Orion, how is it infeasible for Him to attribute Providential meaningfulness to our vast array of machines? Ultimately, if we are in the divine image of God, do we not honour and uphold His glory by being creators unto ourselves?

>>41641 I cannot claim to speak definitively, but I believe you have Holy insight

>>41641 >I want to major in robotics science and eventually acquire my doctorate a few decades from now >but I also wish to minor in psychology and theology. That's really admirable, Anon. Work hard! >do we not honour and uphold His glory by being creators unto ourselves? I personally think that for each of us, it all boils down to motives. And "out of the heart flow all the issues (springs) of life", so guard your heart! We're trying to delve into such topics specifically within this thread, insofar as they affect our robowaifus 'hearts & minds', and their 'motivations'. We need to resolve approaches to doing this before we can really make much forward progress at creating truly social (and loving!) robowaifus. Why not help out? Cheers, Anon. :^)