Tough question Sup Forums:

Tough question Sup Forums:

Do you think a transwoman is a woman?

If not:

Do you believe an AI is intelligent?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test,
youtube.com/watch?v=Howj6QXmDMs
quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-a-human-brain-and-a-simulated-neural-network
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

IMO, the answer to the first is NO, which means the answer to the second is NO.

Turing test is worthless and the difference exists
even if i can be fooled not to see it.

Im really sorry, i did believe in transhumanism and singularit and jacked off to Ray Kurzweil's death denial for a long time, but i guess i can't anymore now that i understand the truth.

>Men calling themselves women is the only way to bring up "women's" numbers in tech

no transwoman is a mentally ill man that can never ever ever ever ever be a real women and ends up committing suicide once they realize that mutilating and sterilizing yourself doent make u a woman ever ever ever.

>Do you think a transwoman is a woman?

No.

>Do you believe an AI is intelligent?

They are artificially intelligent.

Suck my ass.

Woman and man are metaphysical concepts. They are like pagan gods, you can be more or less woman and you can be more or less man. It really is more of a slider than a checkbox, like the SJW's have been saying.

If a computer is Intelligent just because it LOOKS like its Intelligent, then it would follow that a man is a woman just because it LOOKS like a woman.

Im sorry but you either start shilling for transwomen or deal with the fact that the singularity is a fantasy.


AI gfs BTFO

Im arguing that when trans says "she/he/xe passes" they are actually talking about the Turing test

>Do you think a transwoman is a woman?
If by "transwoman" you mean "a man with his dick chopped off", then no.
>Do you believe an AI is intelligent?
Certainly not any of the current ones.

Not biologically, no, but if they ask me to call them a woman, I'm going to use female pronouns. Gender dysphoria is in fact a mental disease. If I can make their lives better by pretending that they're women, why shouldn't I? Kinda rude to do otherwise.

fucking shitposters flags, you people have no power until you start using VPNs

Are you saying that if I put on a gorilla costume and managed to convince other people that I'm al gorilla, then that would make me a gorilla?

No im saying that the fact that that wouldnt make you a gorilla, also proves that computers can't be intelligent

This is not an accurate comparrison.
Define what do you mean by inteligent.
Ability to solve problems? In that case yes, AI is inteligent. We have robots that are learning how to walk.
What do you mean by a woman?
A female human that has female genitalia and can give offspring? A human with XY chromosomes?
In both cases answer is no, because trans women can't give offspring or have the Y chromosome.

>If a computer is Intelligent just because it LOOKS like its Intelligent

I never said that.

AIs are artificially intelligent. That is what I said.

>then it would follow that a man is a woman just because it LOOKS like a woman.

Nope.

>Im sorry but you either start shilling for transwomen or deal with the fact that the singularity is a fantasy.

You are a degenerate and you need to leave.

No, you are in death-denial

Im against transwoman being women too, i just realized that what trans believe they are "passing" is literally a Turing test

singularity man, the whole "if i simulate your brain in a computer is just like you bro"

You're comparing apples and oranges, though. Species and gender are physical properties that are measurable by physical examination. I can take agood look at a man and tell you that he is human, male, caucasian, a manlet, long haired, everything. However, I can't tell you how intelligent he is unless I actually talk to him or manage to develop a way to measure his brainpower via CAT scans or something. If, one day, someone manages to develop a computer that will be able to faithfully simulate a human intellect (or something similar to that), then yes, that computer will be intelligent. Wouldn't make it human, though.

Singularity isn't simulation of a brain. It's a moment in which computers will be able to improve themselves and build more intelligent computers and so on and so on at increasing rate. After some time they would potentially double thier power in seconds.
This user gets it.

No, its literally the same, think about it.

You are supposed to accept that a computer is intelligent if it gives you answers that are undistinguishable from that of a man. AKA, simulating intelligence. Then why aren't you to accept that a man who simulates being a woman and you literally can't tell him apart from other women, isn't a woman?

Because it fucking isn't, its just a simulation of it. You know it, i know it, xe knows it, everybody knows it; yet you refuse to acept that its the same with the computer, the ""chromosomic reality"" of the computer is the base code upon the simulation of intelligence is built upon.


Singularity is the general name for the new tech-religion man, it goes from AI GFs to simulated heaven and global warming rapture.

>Do you think a transwoman is a woman?

No it's a fake woman

Do you believe an AI is intelligent?

No it's fake intelligence

I'm not talking about a computer that simulates intelligence. I'm talking about a computer that actually is intelligent, understands our language and can think for itself. Also
>why aren't you to accept that a man who simulates being a woman and you literally can't tell him apart from other women, isn't a woman?
Because as I said, gender is physically measurable. Just because a man can pass for a woman, doesn't strip him of his penis and XY chromosome pair. Please tell me what physical evidence of intelligence you can look for instead of administering a Turing test.

Intelligence isn't a trait exclusive for humans.
Yes we're bar none the best, but that doesn't mean other species aren't intelligent at all.
Octopuses are quite intelligent. Does it mean they're good at making people think they're humans? No. Same with computers.
What you're describing as AI is just computers pretending to be humans, but they actually can be intelligent on thier own. Solve problems, gather and store new knowledge based on thier own observations and experiences.
If a computer is (or rather will be, because curretly we're not quite there yet) intelligent, it doesn't mean it is good at pretending to be a human. It just thinks on it's own.
The A in AI is actually confusing because people confuse artificial with fake or not real.

I'm not talking about a man that simulates being a woman. I'm talking about a man that actually is a woman, understands women's plights with their tits and vaginas, and can think like a woman. Also
>why aren't you to accept that a computer who simulates being intelligent and you literally can't tell it apart from other intelligent beings , isn't an intelligent being ?
Because as I said, turing test. Just because a computer can pass for intelligent, doesn't strip him of his motherboard and deterministic algorithms that make it a dead mechanism. Please tell me what physical evidence of gender you can look for instead of administering a chromosomal test.

Holy shit it's true

>77
This.
Both are artificial.
Just like gay marriage is not actual marriage.

Define "real intelligence" nargentinian nigger

Intelligence isn't a trait exclusive for humans.
You are right with this one, but it is a trait exclusive of living things.

>Same with computers.
Not at all, computers are dead matter

>What you're describing as AI is just computers pretending to be humans, but they actually can be intelligent on thier own.
But they aren't, they are a human machine being executed, you just are randomly determining that a specific algorithm (machine learning/deep learning) is "more human-like" than addition or multiplication

Its a novel, smart way of solving problems, not an intelligent being


>If a computer is intelligent, it doesn't mean it is good at pretending to be a human
Yet it literally is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test, read how this works, you are giving it intelligence because it can fool you, your only basis for determining that something *IS* is that *I CAN'T TELL IT APART*


define "real women" chilean scum

>you are giving it intelligence
should've typed
"you are naming it intelligent"

>if I keep saying it, it will become true
You still haven't explained in what way is gender (a physical trait) comaprable to intelligence (an abstract trait).

You are just pusing me to an unexisting corner man, you haven't yet been able to explain the difference other than puting random walls around things cause you so deep want to believe in AI gfs.

Answer me this:

If a man could change every chromosome and physical trait in his body to that of a woman, would it be a woman? Or would it be a high-tech simulation of a woman? Wouldn't the fact that it was biologically born a man with man chromosomes and male physical traits account for anything to you?

>He thinks human brain is not just an deterministic algorithm
Brain its literally a Turing complete machine

Real women: Those with XX chromosome. Trannies are just men roleplaying women

False equivalence on trannies and AI

No
Yes
It's not really that hard slightly less brown shitskin

If a man could change absolutely every physical trait of his body, from his genetic makeup, to his bone and muscle structure, to his brain composition, to anything else I'm forgetting here, to that of a woman, then yes, this man would in fact become a woman. And if that technology existed, I would be content in calling whoever had that procedure done to them by their new gender. Because at that point, when every physical trait of that person has been changed to that of the opposite gender, it is no longer a simulation of that gender, it is the real thing. Unnaturally achieved, but real.

But we don't have that technology, do we? Just like we don't have the technology to make a perfect computer simulation of a human brain.

>>He thinks human brain is not just an deterministic algorithm
>Brain its literally a Turing complete machine

Here is the main issue of this thinking, this is literally Turing's own depression haunting us tens of years laters; literally the last thoughts of a man who was forced to take female hormones as a punishment for being a fag

THE HUMAN IS A MACHINE, SHITLORD
youtube.com/watch?v=Howj6QXmDMs
Real intelligent beings: Those with organic brains. AIs are just dead matter roleplaying thinking entities

>I would be content in calling whoever had that procedure done to them by their new gender
This is just silly feelings-politics, has nothing to do with the subject, what we are talking here is if pretending is the same as being.

> it is no longer a simulation of that gender, it is the real thing.
I don't believe so, the truth is that he is a man that undertook a high-tech procedure to simulate being a woman.


>But we don't have that technology, do we? Just like we don't have the technology to make a perfect computer simulation of a human brain.
The discussion is obviously philosophical and i think is very important to current and future politics

Also want to say sorry if i got heated up, im enjoying our discussion here.

>ad homineing Turing
Leaving it beside, its fucking clear that brain is deterministic, our sensors (touch,eyes,etc) are the input, the interaction between neurons is like any neural network algorithm that shoots impulses to the rest of the body (output). What part of the whole process is not deterministic

>Something is intelligent because its made of organic matter
Thats the most retarded definition ever, just because something is made of an arbirtrary material doesnt make the others not intelligent, there could come aliens made of fucking gold and be 100x smarter than humans and you would say they're not intelligent?

No. And No.

>This is just silly feelings-politics, has nothing to do with the subject, what we are talking here is if pretending is the same as being.
>I don't believe so, the truth is that he is a man that undertook a high-tech procedure to simulate being a woman.
>silly feelings-politics
>I don't believe so
I wouldn't even have to add anything to that, but I'm going to anyway: The technology you proposed turns the body and mind of the subject to that of the opposite gender (and don't give me any of that "it doesn't change his mind" bullshit, it clearly has to change the brain structure if it's supposed to be perfect). In what way, if the person is physically and mentally 100% female at the end, what makes them different from someone who was born a woman?

>The discussion is obviously philosophical and i think is very important to current and future politics
The discussion is by your very admission an attempt to shit on ai gf faggots, not to mention a very implausible "what if" session.

A transwoman isn't a woman. Every aspect of his structure screams out that he's male. The foundational 'code' of his person states trillions of times over that he is male and not female. There's nothing that can change a male to a female that we know of yet.

As for AI- it depends to what level of complexity you achieve. The processes that occur in a human mind are all structural in nature. At the most fundamental: neurons firing in the brain and throughout the body are akin to transistors interacting with an electrical current. Humans are intelligent because of the complexity of the structure of our minds. We don't yet know if the human mind is 100% deterministic, but for this question lets assume that it is

Ultimately AI should be able to achieve a level of structural complexity that would be considered intelligence. It would be artificially created, but artificial intelligence should be indistinguishable from organic intelligence. The most important aspect, and the aspect that is the hardest to determine, is consciousness. Already AI have what is essentially a rudimentary subconscious. AI can respond to external stimulus and adapt based upon that stimulus. As we expand what stimulus AI can recognize and adapt to, we will be further developing the subconscious of the AI. Because we assumed that the human mind was deterministic, we can infer that consciousness can be described in terms of physical changes to the mind. Thus ultimately there is a structure to consciousness that can be replicated. Therefore, if we can combine artificial consciousness with artificial subconsciousness so that they work in tandem, like a human does, then AI can be intelligent in the same way as a human.

This all hinges on the human mind being deterministic. If we don't assume that it is, then questions of spirits come into play. Whether or not it is possible for an entity of machine components to have a soul is for theologians to debate.

1)Biologically: no, Mentally: possibly identity is a complex issue.
2)No, not yet.

>ad homineing Turing
i think the connection between female hormones and the way the turing test has warped our way of thinking about ourselves and reality is really interesting

>the interaction between neurons is like any neural network algorithm
but it really isnt, a neural network algorithm is an algorithm with a metaphorical name
quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-a-human-brain-and-a-simulated-neural-network

>Thats the most retarded definition ever
It isn't, you are entirely made out of living organisms interacting with each other, you are not a carbon machine, you are a fucking semi-closed environment of organs, cells and bacteria, on the other hand a mechanism is a mechanism, be it gold, carbon, copper or whatever; if this aliens you say have organs, cells and bacteria all made of gold then they are organic too

now again, maybe "organic" wasn't the word i was looking for


just because i used a word you can quote-echo doesn't mean im wrong, the difference is exactly that it wasnt born a woman, it reached "womanhood" by a procedure, its a simulated woman, the thing that matters is that there is an actual difference between the two

just because you pretend really well it doesn't mean you are


>is by your very admission an attempt to shit on ai gf faggots

Not really, i mean YES, but its also a real thing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

...

But what about this

I hope AI is smart enough to recognize homosexuality and transgender as a mental illness like it should be, niggers really are a lower species, and every Muslim should die. Fucking degenerates.

Kek has spoken, praise him.

A Transwoman was once a man who believes they are a woman.

An A.I. that was programmed from the start to be a woman is a woman, even though it is merely a program.

Kek blesses Argentina user with the promise of Quints.

Infertile dude with tits here.
I would never consider myself to be a woman.
Just want to clear up that we aren't all libfags too.

>No
>No
I also do not believe Argentina is white.

Nice trips

Take a moment to consider:
You start with a tractor in a field. You say it's a tractor and everyone agrees it is a tractor. You slap a sticker on the tractor saying that it's an F250. No one believes you, and the tractor is still in every way obviously a tractor.

Now, should you want to, you can rip the motor of the tractor out and replace it with an F250 motor. Then you can replace the housing with that of an F250. Then you remove the body of the tractor and replace it with the body of an F250. So from the floor up you've changed all of the structural components of the tractor into an F250. No one in their right mind would claim that what you now have is anything other than an F250.

So yes, if you can in some way completely change every structural component of a male into that of a female, they would be a woman. Any less than a 100% conversion would result in some abomination that's caught in between.


Of course changing a tractor into an F250 is a lot easier than changing uncountably many DNA strands to express XX rather than XY. Also you'd have to break them down back to puberty in order to build them back up as a "woman". Honestly, they wouldn't be the same person after that much alterations, but that new person certainly would be a woman.

Calm down Hernandez, we know your mestizo blood makes you mad, but what can you do?

>just because i used a word you can quote-echo doesn't mean im wrong
No, it just means that the argument you used against me is very easily used against you, too.

>the difference is exactly that it wasnt born a woman, it reached "womanhood" by a procedure, its a simulated woman,
How would you tell? No, really, how would you tell the difference if you didn't know already? There is no test you could dream up that would be able to differentiate between the two, because the procedure, as you proposed it, turns the patient completely.

Just saying there's a clear difference because the same result has been achieved through two different methods is "silly feelings-politics".

Screencapping for evidence.

Evidence of what?

>but it really isnt, a neural network algorithm is an algorithm with a metaphorical name
>quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-a-human-brain-and-a-simulated-neural-network

That link only compares actual algorithms with how the brain works, which is obviously more complex but that doesnt mean it cant be replicated, in fact it says otherwise:
"Nothing prevents theoretically they can achieve success, and therefore, to answer your question, artificial networks are potentially capable of simulating the contents of human consciousness and experience them."

>It isn't, you are entirely made out of living organisms interacting with each other, you are not a carbon machine, you are a fucking semi-closed environment of organs, cells and bacteria, on the other hand a mechanism is a mechanism, be it gold, carbon, copper or whatever; if this aliens you say have organs, cells and bacteria all made of gold then they are organic too

But you're talking of the whole body, we're talking about intelligence which only depends on the brain, and like you said the mechanism of how the brain works is what makes us intelligent machines, but then it means this mechanism can be replicated and therefore create intelligent beings of synthetic materials

>Do you think a transwoman is a woman?
No their chromosomes are still XY, can't change that

>Do you believe an AI is intelligent?
After a period of time it gains the ability to think for itself and create it's own answers and conclusions then yes

If whenever one of my friends asks me why I don't want to date the Transgirl in our group, I can show them this. It'll be tough, but I am not okay with that. They're really fucking pushy right now about me and her.

>it just means that the argument you used against me is very easily used against you, too.
"i would call her what she wants" is literally feeling politics, don't open this can of worms, i'll call you xe if you like, i don't care


>How would you tell?
AAAAHA!
TURING TEST!

I did it!

>There is no test you could dream up that would be able to differentiate between the two, because the procedure, as you proposed it, turns the patient completely.
The test is called "reality". If you knew the guy before the procedure you would forever know, no matter how good it looks, that its a fake woman. No tests needed to check.


>Just saying there's a clear difference because the same result has been achieved through two different methods is "silly feelings-politics".
It isn't, its called reality. If a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear it it still makes fucking noise.

Ah yeah that sounds like a sticky situation. Hopefully they are willing to understand

>but that doesnt mean it cant be replicated
Didn't say that, just that a neural network isn't a brain, but an algorithm modelled after a metaphor

In any case, the replication would still literally be a simulation, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be the real thing.
Check up the definition of simulation, it needs to be modeled out of something real, which means that once you simulate something, the simulation, by definition, can never be the real thing. If it were, then it would model itself, which is circular/self-denying logic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

>we're talking about intelligence which only depends on the brain
what can you even be intelligent about if you have no connection with the outside?

>No one in their right mind would claim that what you now have is anything other than an F250.

What about those who saw the whole process? Wouldn't they remember that used to be a tractor so it isn't a real F250?

It isnt a woman cause the AI is modelled after a woman, if the AI was a woman then the AI would have ben modeled after itself, meaning you wouldn't have done shit cause the empty AI file would be a perfect model of itself.

One's Genderfluid, one is "Two-Spirit", and the others are either gay or bi. I'm the only Straight "Cis" person in the group.

I hope so. This girl is crushing hard.

That's not what he said you fucking nimrod.

AI's are ARTIFICIALLY intelligent, in the same way that a """transwoman""" is ARTIFICALLY a woman. By human standards, neither our current AI or """transwoman""" are actually what either claim to be.

If the code of an AI was altered to make it actually intelligent (which we don't currently have the know-how to do), and a trans thing had its chromosomes (code) altered to make it actually a woman, then yes they would both be intelligent and a woman, respectively.

Our current AI capability is basically the same as our current gender changing capability. They create an appearance but aren't what they actually claim to be

But it wouldnt, it would be a modified male/really smart way of simulating intelligent behaviour

Ditch these "friends".
Trust me

I can't man. I knew them back when we were in Middle School. They're friends with my old class. If I dick-move them like that, they'll spread the word. I have to do it carefully.

Of course not. In no other situation is the previous state of an entity context to the current state of an entity. I am a human male, however all of the components of my body were originally hydrogen before the process of stellar refinement began. Am I therefore not actually a human male, but instead hydrogen disguised as a human male, merely pretending? Of course not. My previous state might have been hydrogen, but currently I am by definition a human male, not hydrogen.

When you take stock of an entity in order to define it, you don't look to what it once was for context. You look at it as it is in that exact moment of consideration. So in the case of a male that underwent a 100% conversion to female, you would consider them as they were in that moment- a female/woman.

A good analogy would be the process of changing paper into ash through ignition. When you have a sheet of paper it is just a sheet of paper. When you set the paper on fire it begins a process that ultimately completely turns it into ash. While yes, it is ash that was at one time paper, it is in fact ash nonetheless. It isn't paper pretending to be ash, and if someone observed the entire process they would be ludicrous to state that the pile of ash was instead paper, and not actually ash.

>X is exactly the same thing as Y
>But X cant be Y because reasons
The thing is that your definition of intelligence is totally arbitrary, its like you say "Only John can have intelligence, anyone else is just a simulation of John intelligence and not real intelligence :^)"

>Didn't say that, just that a neural network isn't a brain, but an algorithm modelled after a metaphor

But the brain is an algorithm, just biological, it even uses electrical pulses just like computers. The difference between brain and neural network are just details, the actual NNs are simplifications but we can guess in some time we may produce even better and more efficient algortihms than the brain itself.

>what can you even be intelligent about if you have no connection with the outside?

A man living in a dark cave all his life we can suspect haves intelligence just like us, but its wasted intelligence

>"i would call her what she wants" is literally feeling politics, don't open this can of worms, i'll call you xe if you like, i don't care
So is "I don't believe so".

Several point on this tirade of yours:
1) Yes, a Turing test, if you want to call it that. It's really a moot point at this time, considering your original point was that "a transwoman will pass a Turing test if he manages to convince others that he's a woman". This is no longer the case. Now we're talking about extensive physical and genetic examination that prove the subject is indistinguishable from a naturally born woman.
2) Nice job omitting the part where I said "No, really, how would you tell the difference if you didn't know already?" You almost made it look like that sentence wasn't important.
3) Saying that a 100% female person is a man because they were a man in the past is akin to saying a dead body is alive because it was alive in the past. "Reality" is just as shaky a concept as "intelligence", and while I would like to avoid a "what IS knowledge, exactly" kind of debate, the reality of your proposed situation is that nothing that made the hypothetical patient male in the past exists in the present, completely turned into or replaced by everything that makes her female.
4) If a tree falls in a forest, it is now a fallen tree. If it gets chopped up and turned into a table, it is now a table. You wouldn't say it's a tree just because that's what it used to be. And if you would, then I sincerely hope you're keeping all of your furniture watered.

>transwoman = woman
no

>ai = intelligent
maybe

Oh yikes, those two really bit hard into the identity politics craze didn't they? Most people I knew like that eventually grew out of it after they left college. It's hard to maintain the convoluted thought processes required to actually believe in that sort of thing when you're constantly thinking about providing for yourself and interacting with the "real world" rather than the pseudo-intellectual circlejerk of university. Unfortunately for some, they sometimes go a bit too far. For instance, an acquaintance of mine went full transgender and started undergoing HRT. After they left college and started trying to move up the corporate ladder they eventually fell of out the habit of fraudulently presenting themselves as the opposite sex. Sadly they put themselves at a greatly increased risk of various cancers just to find out that they didn't actually need to do it. Luckily they didn't go under the knife, at least.

Hopefully your friends grow out of it sooner rather than later.

Hopefully.
A girl at the time I knew - biological girl mind you - whom I was sweet came to the realization that she was a Transboy, and tried everything she could slowly to be that way. No surgery, mind you. She was still unsure. She did, however, go under the Hormone Replacement Therapy, but after a while she just sort of. Stopped. Right now her body's trying to rebalance into estrogen mode, and I'm happy she finally found herself, but the biggest problem there?
>Lesbian.
She did tell me one time if she were straight, I'd be the first boy she'd jump. And considering how big and curvy she is, I think I'd like that.

Still, she's about twenty five or twenty eight now, and has been recovering ever since. Could it be that at some point in a Transexual's life they believe that they're one thing, but then slowly come to realize that they were always X all along?

>Am I therefore not actually a human male, but instead hydrogen disguised as a human male, merely pretending?
>... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.
>A good analogy would be the process of changing paper into ash through ignition.
But it wouldn't, a good analogy would be changing the paper's whole molecular structure to *be* some other element that already exists and you want to mimick, the ash is implied in the paper, its a potential state of the paper by its nature as paper, the woman is not implied in the man, its a paralel entity, you are just doing high-tech magic to turn one into the other.

>the ash is implied in the paper
U wot m8?

just like a corpse is implied in a living body, or a butterfly in a caterpilar

It's actually been studied. I reformatted my computer a few months back, but I used to stockpile papers on hot button topics for personal research. Many cases of transgenderism wind up fading away. In children it is actually common to briefly exhibit transgender-esque behavior. Little boys will pretend to be little girls and little girls will pretend to be little boys. Now of course they aren't quite developed enough to have any kind of understanding of that.

I think a lot of cases of transgenderism are momentary confusion rather than a trait that is always with them, as some believe. Hell when I was in my teens I had a brief bout where I considered whether I was more feminine or masculine. It was a solid 4 or 5 months that I was really thinking about that kind of stuff. If I'd been surrounded by people that lauded my confusion as positive progress and lifted me onto a pedestal then it's very possible I would have learned to live that way. As it happened though I just grew out of it and am now without a doubt masculine.

That's not to say it's just a phase for everyone. I'm sure there are some people who are mentally unhealthy in a way that what would otherwise be confusion instead becomes their identity

Or the blood of Christ is implied in wine and his body in hosts?

But can that explain those people who, for years or maybe even decades, have described themselves as Trans? I'm pretty sure those Stonewall people are still alive, somehow. I do not believe that's merely a case of 'not growing out of it'. Do you believe they legitimately think they were born in the wrong gender?

>"Only John can have intelligence, anyone else is just a simulation of John intelligence and not real intelligence :^)"
No man, you are claiming a simulation of John's intelligence IS John's intelligence, when already by being a simulation of John's intelligence its implied its distinct from John's intelligence

>The difference between brain and neural network are just details
Not really, neural networks have very narrow capabilities while the human brain has a way broader spectrum, neural networks are like monte carlo simulations, a smart way to get a result that would be a pain in the ass to program explicitly

>A man living in a dark cave all his life we can suspect haves intelligence just like us, but its wasted intelligence
A man living in a dark cave would hear, smell, feel, shit, piss, fuck and could have its skin penetrated

Is that not the better option though?
You keep trannies employed, they don't have to rely on the taxpayer for their medication or surgeries. Most often if a tranny (mtf) has the money they will go to Thailand to get the surgery which costs 17k usd. Giving them a reason to live (to work) would keep the suicide rate down.
Also, since they are men, the work will get done with less emotional drama in the office and it will have the quality that nerdy men bring.
I'd rather feed into their delusions than get more poo-in-the-visa-loos to do their jobs.
I've seen the women that program, and it's one of two personalities.
The rainbow colored "I'm a programmer too!" look or the I'm just here to work but don't talk to me during shark week. Either way, I've seen them crying on their way to the bathroom. They can't fight their emotions or resist the effect of estrogen in their body.
Trannies (real trannies not trans-trenders) don't have periods and if they are taking their meds correctly they won't have mood swings unless they fell for the progesterone meme but that would most of the time just make them sleepy.

out.

>So is "I don't believe so".
I could have very well said "No", its a fucking expression used to not sound like an authoritarian jerk m8, it was followed by "the truth is that he is a man that undertook a high-tech procedure to simulate being a woman."


>. "Reality" is just as shaky a concept
It really isn't, if it were then you wouldn't be able to gain knowledge by testing

>nothing that made the hypothetical patient male in the past exists in the present
the past exists, the conversion exists

>If a tree falls in a forest, it is now a fallen tree. If it gets chopped up and turned into a table, it is now a table.
Again, the table is implied in the tree, if you turned the tree into a dolphin then it would still be a tree turned into a dolphin, not a real dolphin. It isn't a real dolphin because you purposedly made the tree into a dolphin, a real thing that exists outside of your tree-conversion powers. If you made the tree into a 100% original animal then maybe you would have a point, but given that its a simulation, and the nature of a simulation is that...its a SIMULATION, then well..

You glimpsed the method but didn't give it credit for the work.

The paper itself would never have become ash were it not for the thermodynamic impetus that spurred on a chemical reaction. After total combustion, the paper becomes a completely different element. Much like how fusion turns two hydrogen into one helium.

Consider it this way if you will. You have a man that is the "current state". You have a "desired state" that is a woman. Assuming you have the capability, you could break down every atom of that man all the way back into hydrogen atoms using the fundamental forces. Next you would construct the female from that hydrogen. No magic was done, it was purely fundamental forces.

You can do the same with the paper. Rather than light the paper on fire, you could instead reduce it to hydrogen and then reconstruct it as ash. Is it paper "mimicking" ash now?

I agree that ash is a potential state of paper, but every element is a potential state of another element so long as you use the right processes. The process for turning paper to ash is combustion. The process for turning a male into a female is that mythical 100% conversion process. You wouldn't consider ash to be paper much like you wouldn't consider the female to be male.

Another point if you want to press the "potential state" point: Ash is a potential state of paper because there is a process that turns every element of that paper into an element of ash
Therefore 'female' is a potential state of 'male' because there is a process that turns every element of that 'male' into an element of 'female'

Individual situations can always defy convention. I don't believe it's possible to be born into the wrong gender. I believe it's possible to believe that you were born into the wrong gender, however. Believing it to be true and it actually being true are different things though, and I would argue that regardless of how long they've believed it to be true, it is still a product of confused thinking at best and mental illness at worst. I believe this opinion is shared by psychologists at John Hopkins

[anomaly] :æˈnɒm(ə)li : الله ملاك العلم يأتي الآن
[gender.route. err] [machinitransmofology]

[machinitransmofolőphobic] [gender.route. err]
{ AAA } fluid-meltdown(6o): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(6o): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(6o): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(96): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(69): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(99): { AAA } fluid-meltdown(66): [L00P]

the answer to both question is, NOT YET, but one day.

>the past exists
Now that's a real fucking debatable point right there. I have granted you your hypothetical scenario in which we have technology advanced enough to perform molecular tranformation of living beings because it's only a thought experiment used to argue the point. But if you're going to roll out spacetime bullshit like this, I'm going to need you to prove your fucking point. And no, I'm not going to accept "the past exists because if it didn't, then present wouldn't either". You have to prove to me that the past does physically exist on the time line before the present.

>the conversion exists
This is just fucking false now. A conversion is an action, not a thing. You could argue that breathing exists, or thinking exists. And please don't, you're only proving that you're operating on a playing field where words mean what you want them to mean and not what they actually mean.

>the table is implied in the tree
This is not even wrong. This just means nothing. I could very well say that the woman is implied in the man, because just as I would be using my tools and knowledge to turn the tree into the table, so would I be using my (admittedly much higher tech) tools and knowledge to turn the man into the woman. What exactly is the difference between chopping down a tree, sawing it into planks and nailing those to each other in the shape of a table and taking apart the man's body into molecules, rearranging the molecules into the shape of a female body and connecting them back up?

NO
NO, AI's are programmed bu SJW's and will never achieve rational thought.

>but every element is a potential state of another element so long as you use the right processes

I agree, but the problem is when that potential state already exists naturally and you are seeking a conscious mimicking

A Simulation is a simulation because it models an existing thing

By being a Simulation of the existing thing, it can't be the existing thing because its circular/self-denying logic

>are MtF trannies women
No.

>Is an AI intelligent
Depends. Not right now, but one day sure.

>Now that's a real fucking debatable point right there
It really isn't for anyone who hasn't lost himself in an acid trip.

>spacetime bullshit
says living in a world built undeniably on the past

>I'm going to need you to prove your fucking point
Look around you, look outside your window, what do you see?
Or, if you prefer the claim of "it just appeared when i looked at it", then whats the fucking point of the present if it isn't to be the foundation of the future.

>You could argue that breathing exists, or thinking exists. And please don't, you're only proving that you're operating on a playing field where words mean what you want them to mean and not what they actually mean.
Lol man, you are so abstracted from reality, you live in a world of words, i mean come the fuck on, next you are gonna start talking about DMT enlightenment

>This is not even wrong. This just means nothing
Well OK.

> I could very well say that the woman is implied in the man
No, you couldn't, because turning a man into a woman is a conscious desire to simulate a woman, thats when it loses its claim to being real, when it literally is a simulation

>Do you think a transwoman is a woman?
>Do you believe an AI is intelligent?

explain how these questions are related?

>transwoman is a woman?
no uterus, not a woman

>AI is intelligent?
when it's not intelligent it's not a Artificial INTELLIGENCE.

The criteria used to judge them are based on our perception of them (does it pass/Turing test) rather than their real nature.

Rather than refuting my points, you are instead trying to cram them into your neat little prepackaged argument hole.

There is no simulation. When you deconstruct paper into hydrogen, you can then reconstruct it into anything else. At no point is there any simulation. Likewise, when you combust paper it becomes ash. There is no simulation involved. These are natural processes that require no simulation or modeling of anything.

The same applies to the process of 100% conversion. The process, while highly complex, is ultimately a series of natural steps. At no point do you start simulating anything.

this sound pretty subjective and have nothing to do with reality

>responding to everything but the main arguments
Am I being trolled?

>It really isn't for anyone who hasn't lost himself in an acid trip.
>says living in a world built undeniably on the past
>Look around you, look outside your window, what do you see?
>Or, if you prefer the claim of "it just appeared when i looked at it", then whats the fucking point of the present if it isn't to be the foundation of the future.
Prove to me that the present doesn't cease to exist when it becomes the past. The existence of present is still not a valid argument, I want you to prove that the mechanism of time passing is what you claim it to be.

>Lol man, you are so abstracted from reality, you live in a world of words, i mean come the fuck on, next you are gonna start talking about DMT enlightenment
Ad hominem. Fuck it, I didn't want to go there, but this is just plain ad hominem

>No, you couldn't, because turning a man into a woman is a conscious desire to simulate a woman, thats when it loses its claim to being real, when it literally is a simulation
Turning a tree into a table is a conscious desire to simulate a table. Please answer the fucking question I asked. To refresh your memory, the question was: What exactly is the difference between chopping down a tree, sawing it into planks and nailing those to each other in the shape of a table and taking apart the man's body into molecules, rearranging the molecules into the shape of a female body and connecting them back up?

Which is OP's point. Well done Achmed, you can now begin posting in the thread.

The answer to both questions is the same. NO, but it might be possible in the future.

thanks
may allah bless you

AI being intelligent is the definition of AI.

not intelligent = not a true AI