This literally makes no sense. You have contradicted yourself.
Even if beauty is a “bug in our brains” then it still exists. It might be subjective, but it still exists.
And no, it’s not just a flaw or side effect of our pattern recognition. I would recommend looking into some neuroscience and psychology journals of the appreciation of beauty and art. It’s really quite interesting and I think would be very educational for you.
This is also a silly statement. If we only make “dumb AI” then they might not be able to appreciate beauty. But then the AI would not be ‘replacing’ us which was the basis of your argument - the fear of us being replaced by AI and the appreciation of beauty being lost. ‘Dumb AI’ would maybe not appreciate beauty unless that was their explicitly purpose, but dumb AI by definition cannot replace us because we are general-purpose organisms. ‘Smart AI’ could replace us, but they would be able to appreciate beauty. Smart AI is by definition sentient, conscious, self-aware. Those properties allow us to appreciate beauty, and therefore would automatically apply to smart AI.
Now that I think about it, you seem to be very cynical and pessimistic about the future of AI and the future in general. Is there any particular reason for this?
We are made of stardust, and to dust we shall return.
~ Jamie
Not really. That you feel beauty doesn’t mean it exists. That’s a discussion about what exist means, I agree it might exist for you.
I have that info from somewhere, it’s not just my theory.
Beauty is very subjective, what you call art I call trash. → there is no beauty, your brain makes it up
Beauty makes no sense for me. It makes sense in the way that this berry looks beautiful and this rotten mushroom doesn’t, beyond that it’s useless. Ofc there are more examples, e.g. babys are cute.
That’s exactly what I think isn’t true. A perfectly rational being would not care about looks. Why would it? There’s no benefit. It helps us simple beings to distinguish good food from bad food and to protect children and stuff like that.
I do not fear it, I WANT that. I want to be a cold, emotionless machiene only doing rational things. That’s good, objectively, I think.
I have to disagree on that… There is a benefit in beauty. It makes us happy.
Yeah, sounds pretty plain and simple, but it totally makes sense. I have a shitton of stress and problems at my current job (well, usual day-to-day stress and problems, but still^^) - but when I walk home, breathing in deeply, smelling the scent of fall, watching the leaves dancing in the air, feeling the damp mist on my skin… I regenerate. The problems, the stress, the anger drop off of me. I know for sure that my appreciation of beauty keeps me alive, keeps me healthy at least, and that’s quite a big benefit
I’m not sure about that, but I think emotions can “make sense” as well - like, it can be a totally rational thing to, dunno, do some lout shouting in the forests to lower your stress level or whatever. I’m not so sure if emotions and rationalism always contradict. Have to think about that a bit more
That’s such a wonderful attitude I like the way those philosophic discussions develop here, it’s just great to be able to peacfully talk with a bunch of disagreeing people!
Yes, for emotional beings it does. It’s utter useless if you are hyperrational.
Me neither. Some emotions might be manifestations of rationally good things.
Like eating enough is good. What if it feels good cuz you know it’s good?
I just dont see this being applied to a rational being. Just dont shout?! If that “helps” it just triggers something in your brain, similar things can be done without shouting if you were a computer and had full control. You prolly wouldn’t even need to do that since stress doesnt exist for you then.
I’m not. You’re not. We’re human beings, and I think (!) it might be a better idea to cope with humanity than trying to emulate being something we’re not. Things that work great for computers or robots don’t neccessarily work great for humans, things that work great for trees or birds or fish don’t neccessarily work great for humans. I think (all just my humble opinion, as usual^^) that it just doesn’t help trying to be hyperrational, just because, as human beings, we have emotions. Might be annoying sometimes, but they’re there - a computer just doesn’t yet have emotions, so it can be hyperrational. But we can’t…
It’s just like saying “I’m gonna view the world in monochrome now.” - well, as long as you’re a human being (without eye problems), you just can’t, because human beings in general just see colours. You can use special glasses, decide to live in monochrome VR worlds or whatever, but still - you take off the glasses, and the colour is back.
Sigh, that’s a terrible example, but I hope you can see where I’m going with that bad analogy^^
Fair enough. I guess I was wrong. It seems most definitions of “exist” specify ‘objective’ reality, which is disappointing. I always included subjective existence, in that even if an experience is real for just one person then it is real - just because others can’t perceive it doesn’t mean it isn’t real. I guess that thinking is wrong, which is sad because a huge percentage of people use the same logic as you to cause real harm to others. Just in our own experience having people tell us that the transgender feelings we have do not exist, because they are only in my mind, or telling us that we are wrong about being plural because it’s something subjective and we can’t prove it. People are able to weaponize that logic and reasoning against others.
Causing harm is obviously a bad thing, so can you help find a solution? Our solution was to define ‘real’ as including subjective experiences, but it seems you’ve dissuaded us of that. What arguments or reasoning would you use to win against someone using this definition of ‘real’ against us?
Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus? What are your thoughts?
~ Jamie
I’m not sure if this is a genuine question or a damn good argument agains my definition of exists.
The physical processes that make up your feelings exist, which make these feelings real and valid.
This is quite hard, but maybe you just don’t need to use the word exist as I use it in this case?
No one can experience objective reality. The typical example are colors, they only “exist” in our brains, it’s just how we experience wavelengths n stuff, but they don’t really exist do they?
Maybe you can dismiss their feelings as non-existant too?
I think the ship stops being the same ship as soon as you replace a single part, but that’s stupid if you apply it to the real world and how we use the concept of existance. Maybe existance is just information, so I’d still be me if I copy my brain? But we change constantly, me now is not who I was years back, most of my matter has changed.
This is very philosophical, I’m too sober for this…
“You could not step into the same river twice.” - Heraclitus of Ephesus
However the ship of Theseus is much simpler to answer. No matter how much of the object has been replaced piece by piece, the object as a whole is still a ship, and still either belongs to Theseus or is at least attributed to him in some way. It might not be the same ship as before, but it is always the ship of Theseus. If you remove a piece of wood from the ship and replace it, that old piece of wood is no longer part of the ship, the new piece is. There is no intrinsic property of the components parts that is the ship. You could even destroy the ship entirely, and create a new one from different parts and the Ship of Theseus would still be the Ship.
It’s a genuine question. The same reasoning that you’ve used to define beauty as subjective and therefore ‘not exist’ is used to systemically oppress and kill people. Yes that’s getting a bit real for a philosophical thread but it’s an objectively real example of this reasoning used to cause harm. If you want to use this line of reasoning, then I would like your help to find a solution to the harm it causes.
How would you prove to someone using this reasoning that they are objectively wrong? How do you win the argument?
If the argument cannot be objectively won, then my conclusion would be that the line of reasoning itself must be wrong.
~ Jamie
That’s the point. It’s a philosophical thought experiment. There’s no objective. The point isn’t to find a single answer. The point is to consider that maybe there is no single answer.
I like your interpretation, but it rubs me the wrong way. You’re defining “Ship of Theseus” to mean that Theseus owns the ship, and therefore any ship Theseus owns is a “Ship of Theseus.” The thought experiment I thought was about a singular entity and how to define it, but you’re kind of stepping outside the thought experiment, if that makes sense? You’re applying more of a legal definition, rather than discussing how to define a singular entity. Unless I’m getting it completely wrong?
~ Jamie
I think I take the stance that there is no ship
There’s just a bunch of matter,any definition we apply to it beyond that is purely subjective, because it’s still just a weirdly shaped lump of star dust
If you take some star dust out and add more star dust, it’s still just a lump of star dust
I think that your definition is missing something. We don’t have “Stardust” it’s all just atoms, and atoms are just protons, electrons and neutrons (hadrons and leptons). Hadrons and Leptons are made up of quarks.
So it’s all just quarks.
If you take that approach then there is no AI, no humans, no small lumps of German cheese, nothing but quarks.
But you clearly don’t interact with just quarks, you interact with objects which are composed of lots of quarks.
I like the way those philosophic discussions develop here, it’s just great to be able to peacfully talk with a bunch of disagreeing people! 
Are you saying that one of those is somehow not a ship?