I'm a BOT

.

Thing is, so are you.

We are ALL robots.

YOU may think that you are thinking but the reality is you are only reacting to outside stimulus. Period.

For instance - You have a re-action to this thread so far. I maintain that whatever you think right now - you couldn’t think any differently.

[size=50]…[/size]

YOU ARE A ROBOT…Thing is, are you aware you are a BOT?

.

I just thought something different from what you maintained I couldn’t think differently too. Sorry

.

No - no NO don’t you go there. DON’T YOU GO THERE!

EVEN your different or second thought was just as robotic, perhaps even more so…

[size=50]…[/size]

.

So you made this thread in response to outside stimuli, and you had no choice in whether you would post it or not because you are ‘‘programmed’’ to post it. What about a person that is blind and deaf, would he only think and therefore be when he smells something or is touched?

Sure i do not control the flow of my thoughts and i can only think of 1 thing at a time. But the important thing is i can think of what i want.
Would it not be simpler to assume that you couldn’t think any differently because you wanted to think this way. :unamused:
I am sure that you wanted to make this thread, because if you did not …well you would not have made it, that means you had a choice you decided on.

If I don’t control what I’m thinking, who does?

.

[size=50]…[/size]

I don’t want to get philosophical on you but, Who wants?

Who…what part of you wants?

…again…ah, I know that this is not a place for philosophy but humor me if you will.

.

One word “I”.
I want.

I’ll skip ahead a bit. Whenever I refer to as myself, or I, or my, I am not referring to solely my consciousness. I am not limited to just my consciousness. If this were true, I couldn’t claim ownership to having consciousness if my claim of ownership is rooted from the core of being consciousness. I am my entire body, my unconscious and or subconscious thought process, and everything else that occurs. Thus, I choose what I want, not anything else. Perhaps my unconscious thoughts control me, but that doesn’t mean my unconscious thoughts are not a part of me and thus not a part of my will. It is indeed, that they are part of me and part of my will.

My brain makes me conscious and i am sure it is the source of my wants, but i do not believe in a creator who engineered it. A machine is a thing without a free will so i won’t call myself a biological machine. Btw your picture scares me… I summon you Flying Spaghetti monster!

Thought is basically reaction, yes and that reaction limits the next thought.

So you’re a Dennett style reductionist materialist about mind and the self, but you’re still religious?

Does…not…compute…

What the fuck makes me think of black and white striped flamingoes riding motorbikes then? I have never seen that particular combination of things/events.

YOU are just programmed to think that.

It a reductive program that generates a proposition “I am a bot” because it has to have many sequential attached such as "a bot is [such and such]; " I am [such and such]; “some of I is bot”. ; “not all bot is I”]; [all of I is bot because …]
When finally the proposition i=bot, can be programmed, the bot can be said to become the simulacrum of identity. The simulacrum of I can be said to have a virtual self. The bot could refer to signs or referral (namely cognitive signs~recognized them in a cognitive list , but it can not recognise higher perceptual signs such as the pictorial representations you have posted.

Therefore you can’t conceivably ba a bot.

Why can’t you recognise pictorial representations?

Because the program wouldn’t be able to handle a philosophical issue of the solution to the thought/preception/sign formation problem which as of today has not been satisfactorily solved in basic cognitive science.

If it had been solved, it is not openly discussed, because it has not been published.

If it’s kept under wraps for security or other reasons,
You may be a loose cannon type of bot, which does not regard questions of national security or corporate patent. In high regard

Therefore because the aforementioned, the probability of you being a bot is almost non-existent.

If you are , after all a bot, then how come your answers are logically unsupported?

But even factoring in illogic as a form of deception why would you want to deceive in an informal post as this?

The probabilities of an illogical, deceiving bot is analogical to descartes “Evil Genius”

Why bring back “evil genius”?

Perhaps as a form of legitimise the program’s format?

This would give another element of uncertainty.

Would the ultimate goal be to re-associate two different kinds of programs? To re-establish a kantian synthesis to a pre marxist ideology?

(To bypass “reading into” type revelatory truisms"?

As if they never happened?

(To displace the notion that "anything is possible? Even self deception?)(Virtual)

My reaction to the OP was that it contains a false dichotomy. Thinking is reacting to a stimulus.

Thinking = reacting to stimulus
Reacting to stimulus != thinking

I’m thinking sets and subsets are useful in this kind of reacting.

How might one go about falsifying this claim?

Try it again and think differently to see if anything changes.
:mrgreen:

.

[size=50]
…[/size]

I do agree - Thinking is reacting to a stimulus.

I tried to state that in my original post upon this thread.

Thank you for adding to this thread.

.

EVERYTHING is “reacting to a stimulus”.
Thinking is a particular TYPE of reacting.

…just like a human is a PARTICULAR TYPE of “bag of chemicals”.