I don't think "Stuff that sounds real cumputery and shit if you've seen Matrix" is what bots are going for these days :P

We are talking in binary XD If you didnt notice. But I think it confuses everyone else :P

01011001011011110111010100100111011100100110010100 100000011000
01011011000110110000100000011010100111010101110011 011101000010
00000111001101101000011011110111010101110100011010 010110111001
10011100100000011100100110000101101110011001000110 111101101101
00100000011101110110111101110010011001000111001100 101100001000
0001101101011000010110111000101110

Anyway, moving on.

Hume was an empirist, but while there are lots of funky things we can feel in the world (colors, shapes, feelings, stuff), he didn't believe we could ever see or feel ourselves which is the subject to these things. And thus we couldn't assume the um, ourselves (having bad time with words here) is constant and not changing, and thus we couldn't say the world was a constant. So he basically believes that anything we can see exists, and nothing else. Causality doesn't exist, because we can't see it. And we can't see laws of nature, so they don't exist either. Can you see where this leads?

He basically happened to kill whole empirism thing with his tough questions (though Kant managed to explain some of them, at least) and extreme view to the subject. So, hence we can't ever be sure that slainvet indeed is a human and not a bot, because we can't see the actual reasoning; we just see the text that could mean anything.

P.S: Philosophy is fun. Time to study more of it.

Oh god no. You will be the worst person to study that. *hands over ears* lalalalala

Ah, allright. I got the binary bit. I just assumed you were throwing zeroes and ones about at random, not writing in any actual language. Which made me think that you were trying to sound computery, "because computers are really just zeroes and ones," as if there are actual zeroes and ones inside computers :P


Ah, okay. I got the idea that what he was saying was that, eg, the only cause and effect we can be real sure of, is the one going on in our mind; that when you see some cause, you excpect some effect, because that's what happened when you saw something similar earlier. I either didn't get that he was arguing that casuality didn't exist at all (just that we can't know for sure), or it has something to do with me only having read a tiny bit of what he's written. I'll argue it's the latter, for the sake of seeming smarter.

I don't mind studying philosophy. Some of it's quite interesting. What I mind is the exams in such courses, as all the exams I've done previously, on university-level, are like "Solve this, and answer this bit, and write a program that does this thing!," while my philosophy-esque one was "Answer this!," but really you fail if you just answer it and don't go on about various vaguely related stuff as well :P

Edit: I can't type.

there is ALOT of text in this forum so... im going to break the stereotype (lets see a bot do that) and write a short simple and properly written message oh and also not use any quotes i never did like shakespear (unlike a bot i dont make much sense )

It happens.

I can't think of any way to prove I'm human, but even if I'm not, does it make any difference? I mean, we can still be friends, even if I am a robot, and we all react the way a human would, so it's no different, that is, if we aren't human. So basically, If we are robots, maybe robots are just the normal life form for the planet Earth.

Oh, and, by the way, I like this thread, it's a nice coplex question

the day we start making friends with artificial intelligence is the day i toribash the crap out of my computer
left arm up
pac extend
space
lower arm!!!