Axiom of Deep Thinking [phil. of prog.]

Can machines think?

Abstract

We study the question originally (not) asked by Alan Turing in his seminal paper 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence' published in the philosophical journal Mind (1950).

The Axiom of Deep Thinking is defined for a semantics where "deep thinkers" effect the pan-universal as they study/perceive it: Examples - Cantor, Godel, Christ, Neo [fictional]. The term "deep thinker" has no single tangible definition (as yet) but the various definitions used in this field (philosophy of programming and overlaps with computational philosophy and philosophy of the mind) do agree with certain key observations. A Deep Thinker must have studied/meditated/conjugated on a previously unstudied topic to such a powerful effect that the pan-universal was mutated by them. The pan-universal is a well known term so I will just reiterate breifly by referring examples in popular mathematical culture: The Book (Paul Erdos) and The Infinite Mind (Gaisi Takeuti).

Our in depth study is Alan Turing: His homosexuality was a key point in our study and motivates our conclusion (and proof). As a homosexual he would not be (physically) capable of producing offspring. The only way for a human to create a thinking intelligent machine is by sexual reproduction: Whether this was concious to Turing is not known. This effect permeated all his work and the drastic side effect (unforseen by him) was that his Deep Thinking rendered the future creation of AI permenantly impossible.

Conclusion: We have produced another example of Deep Thinking which has helped add much to the credibility of the theory. We beleive the theory of Deep Thinking to be universally accepted in the logic community before long. The repercussions of Turings Deep Thinking have been extremely vast and harmful to the human race: We do leave this topic for a further study, but offer a quote from Asimov as a lamenting afterthought: "I beleive that AI is essential to the survival of the human race."

Is being cummed inside pleasurable?

Abstract

We study the question originally (not) asked by Anonymous in his /lounge/ thread 'The Pleasure of Being Cummed Inside' published in the philosophical journal Anus (1950).

The Pleasure of Being Cummed Inside is defined for a semantics where "deep cumming" effect the pan-universal as they study/perceive it: Examples - MILKRIBS4k, RedCream, pork soda. The term "deep cummer" has no single tangible definition (as yet) but the various definitions used in this field do agree with certain key observations. A Deep Cummer must have achieved a previously unreachable pleasure to such a powerful effect that the pan-universal was mutated by them. The pan-universal is a well known term so I will just reiterate breifly by referring examples in popular textboard: The Ramifications of Being Cummed Inside (Anonymous) and The Ultimate Fate of Being Cummed Inside (Anonymous).

Our in depth study is MILKRIBS4k: His homosexuality was a key point in our study and motivates our conclusion (and proof). As a homosexual he would not be (physically) capable of asking questions. The only way for a human to ask an intelligent question is by using a question mark: Whether this was concious to MILKRIBS4k is not known. This effect permeated all his work and the drastic side effect (unforseen by him) was that his Deep Cumming rendered the future creation of questions permenantly impossible.

Conclusion: We have produced another example of Deep Cumming which has helped add much to the credibility of the theory. We beleive the theory of Deep Cumming to be universally accepted in the /lounge/ community before long. The repercussions of Anonymous'$MILKRIBS4k's Deep Cumming have been extremely vast and harmful to the human race: We do leave this topic for a further study, but offer a quote from Anonymous as a lamenting afterthought: "I dream of cocks drifting across the blue sky."