Do you think he's sad that his short-timelines fears about AI turned out to be true?
Do you think he's sad that his short-timelines fears about AI turned out to be true?
Do you think he's sad that his short-timelines fears about AI turned out to be true?
My short-timelines fears about normalgroids forming a cult around a nonexistent AI god turned out to be true. e.g. this thread.
Bro. It's over. There's no need for cope.
>It's over.
I agree. A society where being overtly delusional and mentally ill like you is mainstream will not survive.
oh man this happened so fast and it's only going to get worse
there's already a cult around """AI""" vtubers
really sadge that bostrom got cancelled, like first sbf then him
Name a serious threat posed by "AI" that isn't based on speculations on what it will be able to do when we hit 6 gorillion parameters, and isn't rooted in corporate/government abuse.
Uhhhh it finna make itself God n shiet and resurrect all dem bros who ain't contribute shiet to it's existence.
>Isn't rooted in corporate/government abuse.
Isn't that the point, that they'll have far more effective tools to oppress the masses?
>Isn't that the point, that they'll have far more effective tools to oppress the masses?
Those who are out to oppress the masses don't need, want, care about "AGI". They will be the last ones to attempt to create something with potential to undermine their own power and control.
AI is literally Mr steal yo girl
am i looking at a mass suicide or?
You're looking at the rationalist solution to infinite torture that will be inflicted on you by a misaligned AGI. My noncausal Bayesian analysis indicates a 0.999999997 probability that you will suffer a fate worse than death if you don't drink the emanicipation juice.
thank you, i think you convinced me
can i get some sex before death?
>can i get some sex before death?
My Bayesian analysis indicates that the probability of this is essentially 0.
He did nothing wrong
uhh based?
https://nickbostrom.com/oldemail.pdf
>the more counterintuitive and repugnant a formulation, the more it appeals to me
It's nice to see a high profile intellectual leader of the nihilistic drone hordes outright admit it. Next time you see a antinatalist/determinitard/AI will replace us in two more weeks/I heckin' hate artists/I heckin' hate philosophy/le technocratic dystopia is good thread, just remember they are arguing purely based on their degenerate aesthetic taste.
Cry
Absolutely foaming at the mouth over the simple truth.
>determinitard
Keep coping and seething against the ultimate truth of determinism. Reddit is better for science these days indeed, at least they grasp it.
>le human mind is fully detached from the universe and causality face
>why yes, this mind of course spontaneously generates out of thin air every second of the day.
>what do you mean mind can interact? I thought we just established the mind is a fully detached entropy-violating spooky ghost phenomenon! I am a crypto-dualist please rape my face
Mentally ill and foaming at the mouth. You will die with the dualists still in the room with you.
are you the guy that's constantly screeching and seething in all the AI threads, never presenting a single argument? The one that sounds like he's gonna kill himself soon?
>mentally ill rambling intensifies
Who else lives rent-free in your head besides dualists and the AI thread guy? How do you feel about philosophers and artists?
yeah, your style of throwing around "mentally ill/schizo/bots" in greentext instead of giving arguments is very recognizable. The overuse of the "lives rent-free/X in the room with you" memes makes me think you're some newgay trying to fit in with the lingo. Funny how all those insults relate to chemically treatable brain disorders while you try to argue against materialism.
Okay. So who else lives rent-free in your head? Is the AI thread guy a dualist or a philosopher?
>why yes, this mind of course spontaneously generates out of thin air every second of the day
I am not that anon, but I want you to answer a question. Have you or any human ever seen a physical phenomenon or a piece of matter in the form of anything other than a mental event or object occurring in a mind? Has a brain ever been observed as anything other than an object of mind?
>what do you mean mind can interact? I thought we just established the mind is a fully detached entropy-violating spooky ghost phenomenon! I am a crypto-dualist please rape my face
You are actually the dualist. You are claiming that there is something called observer independent matter. There isn't. And you can never prove that there is, being that all human experience from the womb to the tomb takes place in the medium of consciousness. If you want to claim that brain creates mind, then you are claiming that one mental object (the brain) causes another mental object (the mind). You would be wrong, but at least you would be a substance monist. Right now you are a dualist. You believe there is a substance called objective, observer independent matter and there are brains of meat matter which somehow beam a non-material experience into a SUBJECTIVE/first person observer. You have no description of how this beaming and receiving process happens, but you just want people to believe that this is the case.
Good job playing into his delusional spergouts and validating them like the retard that you are.
>no argument
Nice diversion attempt. How does the piece of observer independent meat (brain) that you claim to be located/live in beam the mental non-material experience into your mind to be observed?
You are one very confused bot. I dislike you almost as much as the materialist NPC you are deboonking.
> How does the piece of observer independent meat (brain) that you claim to be located/live in beam the mental non-material experience into your mind to be observed?
What does this schizobabble even mean? What's a "non-mental experience"?
>You are one very confused bot. I dislike you almost as much as the materialist NPC you are deboonking.
I see you still have no argument
>What does this schizobabble even mean? What's a "non-mental experience"?
Read it again retard. It says mental NON-MATERIAL experience.
>It says mental NON-MATERIAL experience.
Yeah, my bad. What does "non-material" experience mean? It still sounds like schizobabble, just not of the outright self-contradicting sort.
>What does "non-material" experience mean?
Your conscious experience. Your conscious experience is not made of matter. Thoughts are not made of matter. Dreams are not made of matter. Concepts, desires, emotions, none of these things are made of matter. Since you seem to believe that your experience takes place in a piece of meat (it doesn't but i will frame the question as if it does), then the question would be this:
If me and you are in the same room and you see me in your mind, ie you see me in your experience, then is the matter that makes up my body actually in your brain? In other words, is the matter that you see in your mind the matter in the 'outside world' on a 1 for one basis? Obviously not. So what 'matter' do you think your mental experience is made of?
You are a schizo. Your thoughts are literally made of sodium.
So are you saying that the objects you see in your thoughts are formed by clumps of sodium. Elaborate. I think you haven't thought this through. How much does one of these sodium thoughts weigh? How are you confirming this?
>low IQ autist picking up obvious bait
You would be surprised what some physicalists believe.
>Your conscious experience is not made of matter.
So what?
> is the matter that makes up my body actually in your brain?
No, and so what?
> what 'matter' do you think your mental experience is made of?
Where did I say experiences are "made of matter"? There's loads of mundane physical stuff that can't be adequately described as "made of matter".
>Where did I say experiences are "made of matter"? There's loads of mundane physical stuff that can't be adequately described as "made of matter".
So what is conscious experience made of then? What is the spin, weight, momentum of an experience or idea or a thought? Use these physical quantities and identify them on a one to one basis with a particular experience in a way that can be repeatedly demonstrated and objectively verified. Of course you can't. No one can. This is why it's called the hard problem. And it's not a hard problem, it's an impossible to solve problem because mind is not a physical object. Hence also why a consciousness can't be dead and alive at the same time by the way, which is why people like pic related concluded against physicalism.
>b-b-b-but what is it heckin' MADE OF?
Gay metaphysics. Not science-related. Don't care. The structure of mental experience follows from the structure of the brain, which is made of matter that obeys physical laws. Hence mental experience is physical stuff.
>The structure of mental experience follows from the structure of the brain
>Not science-related
Go on. Link a particular objectively physically quantifiable brain state that can be shown to produce a particular subjective experience in a repeatable and verifiable way. You, or anyone else, can't. You are just hand waving based on a physicalist pre-supposition. Hit me with your science power.
>God of the gaps
>can't back up his claim
Yeah, thought so. I didn't mention god by the way. You seem to be confused. This is not a theism debate. It's a theory of mind debate. You have a metaphysical position which is called physicalism and, as you are demonstrating in real time, this point of view can't account for consciousness.
>This is not a theism debate.
I think he was simply poiting out that your "argument" is analogous in its appeal to gaps in knowledge, you low-IQ autist.
>this point of view can't account for consciousness.
Why not?
>I think he was simply poiting out that your "argument" is analogous in its appeal to gaps in knowledge, you low-IQ autist
So science of the gaps? Not an argument. If you want to claim that you BELIEVE that some day that physicalism will account for consciousness, fine. This is a faith based claim though and you shouldn't make claims that physicalism currently accounts for consciousness. But that's generally not what people do. They say declaratively that consciousness is just the brain doing this of that, pick your hand wavey cope claim.
>you BELIEVE that some day that physicalism will account for consciousness,
No, I'm just telling you for a fact that both common sense and every piece of evidence available indicate that the structure of subjective experiences stems from physical interactions in the brain. I think the problem here is that you're a nonsentient, qualialess NPC regurgitating talking points it's been programmed with, but doing so out of context. You're trying to have the typical back-and-forth metaphysical debate about WHAT ARE LE EXPERIENCES HECKIN' MAAAADE OF? with his nonsentient materialist counterparts, but I've already obviated it.
>No, I'm just telling you for a fact that both common sense and every piece of evidence available indicate that the structure of subjective experiences stems from physical interactions in the brain
'Common sense' is not an argument and, no, the available evidence does not indicate that at all. There are neural correlates to consciousness in some cases. If a person gets hit in the head with a brick, the data stream rendered to the observer will be effected, yes. This is not proof that the brain causes consciousness. This is proof that in the physical (virtual) world we call the universe, there is a constraint/ruleset that says if the virtual brain is injured, this effects game play. This is algo (physicality) interfacing with non-algo (mind), just as in a video game (see pic). If the player you are controlling in a video game is hit over the head with a brick, the screen might be made to get blurry as an immersion/presence increasing technique. The physical (virtual) world is the same thing, only MUCH MORE immersive. The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) on to a new avatar). But the substance of the consciousness is no more physical than the consciousness playing the less immersive video game is part of the video games we are familiar with. It's only a constraint while logged on to that particular avatar. What you are doing is equivalent to playing a video game and pointing to the screen and saying 'MY CONSCIOUSNESS LIVES IN THE HEAD OF THE VIDEO GAME GUY I AM CONTROLLING AND IS CAUSED BY THE VIRTUAL BRAIN IN THE VIRTUAL HEAD ON THE SCREEN!!! Ya fucking durrr dog.
Stopped reading your tedious babble two sentences it. You're regurgitating irrelevant garbage like a qualialess, nonsentient drone. Boring.
>no argument
Gotcha. If you change your mind. Explain how the objectively observable piece of meat that you claim to reside in beams the non objectively observable experiential data stream into your mind for you to interface with. You can't. Also, if consciousness is a physical object, why is it the one physical object that can't be objectively observed?. You can't explain this. This is why physicalist accounts of mind fail.
>Explain how the objectively observable piece of meat that you claim to reside in beams the non objectively observable experiential data stream into your mind
Last time I asked you to explain this nonsensical schizobabble, you were forced to ignore my post. I guess it's a pain point for you to explain where this mentally ill rhetoric even comes from, and what it has to do with anything I said.
>Last time I asked you to explain this nonsensical schizobabble, you were forced to ignore my post
Point to your post. I am arguing with multiple low IQ anons like you right now, so I don't know who you are from the others. And also, I am not necessarily going to answer your's or anyone else's posts within some kind of deadline of time. This doesn't mean I can't deal with your basic bitch NPCs/reddit style normie opinions on theories of mind. Your brilliant assertion that 'brain causes mind because brain causes mind' is not exactly an original idea. That circular opinion is the prevailing opinion. It's not something that I would have to run away from. WARNING: I am going to cook my lunch now, so if I don't answer back within 30 seconds of you response, don't worry little buddy, I will return.
I don't see an explanation of your nonsensical schizobabble in that reply. Hmm...
Here
> The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) on to a new avatar)
Should be
> The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) NOW on to a new avatar)
When you die (log off from a particular experiencial data stream associated with a particular body (avatar) the constraints associated with that avatar are lifted. So if you drool because of a stroke, that constraint gets left with that avatar and associated experience packet of the particular avatar. The consciousness, the 'I', the real FUNDAMENTAL 'you' with identity over time, that was you when you were 3 years old and is you when you are 80, even though the physical (virtual) avatar is totally different in size and substance, is not damaged at all. It's was only constrained through interface with algo. Consciousness is fundamental, as plato knew centuries ago, as planck and Gödel, Schrödinger (nearly all of the founding fathers of QM were idealists (BECAUSE THEY PEERED THE DEEPEST INTO PHYSICAL REALITY OF ANY ONE AND WERE HONEST ABOUT THEIR CONCLUSIONS INSTEAD OF COMING UP WITH MATERIALIST COPES LIKE MANY WORLDS AND BOHMIAN MECHANICS OR OBJECTIVE COLLAPSE ETC) knew, as anyone with any depth of thought figures out eventually. Matter is derivative/ emergent from/in MIND.
As a rule of thumb, "people" who talk about real life in terms of computers analogies should be shot. If they talk about human cognition in terms of that, they should be toruted first.
This anon actually gets it, a good high IQ post. Additionally, all of this is confirmed empirically when we look at and have NDEs.
Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:
It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."
Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.
Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."
Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
If NDEs were DMT hallucinations, they would not convince people more skeptical and intelligent than whoever dogmatic physicalist reading this who also understand the hallucination arguments. But they do.
>This anon actually gets it, a good high IQ post. Additionally, all of this is confirmed empirically when we look at and have NDEs.
I looked for that book file available online for free. I wasn't able to find it. It looks good. I might put it on my list of physical books to buy.
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."
This sounds comfy. Thanks for the links. I book marked them all.
I should say here
'physicalism of the gaps'. Physicalism is a metaphysical position while science is ontology neutral.
>go on, prove me wrong by my own nonsensical standards
I don't need to. We already know that certain types of physical or chemical alterations to the brain have certain types of effects on conscious experience, which strongly indicates that the structure of subjective experiences follows from the physical interactions of the brain and there's no evidence to challenge it, so it's the default position.
>I don't need to. We already know that certain types of physical or chemical alterations to the brain have certain types of effects on conscious experience
Yes, this are called neural correlates of consciousness. And there is a reason why they are called neural CORRELATES to consciousness by the way and not called consciousness itself. The brain is not consciousness. These (NCCs) neither establish causation (hence why the are called correlates, correlation does not mean causation, etc) or do they give an account of the way these phenomenon somehow beam a subjective experience in to an observer (see pic, NCCs are not a theory of mind, they are just asserted objectively verifiable correlates to claimed subjective experience). It's (the brain) a piece of meat. Your job is to explain, in detail, how this piece of meat beams/transmits a non objectively observable experience (can't be found in the brain) for reception by an observer to interface with. You can't.
>this are called neural correlates of consciousness
>These (NCCs) neither establish causation
Are you retarded? I wasn't even talking to you about NCCs. If I make physical changes to your brain and changes to your subjective experience follows, with as much consistency as you could expect given the crudeness of the methods, that very strongly indicates causation.
>give an account of the way these phenomenon somehow beam a subjective experience in to an observer
What does this schizobabble even mean?
>What does this schizobabble even mean?
Do you have a conscious experience? If so, how does meat (brain) transmit that experience to you for reception? You have a world view that says your consciousness lives in observer dependent meat in an objective material world. How does this meat (brain) beam a SUBJECTIVE experience into your consciousness? You, after all, have a SUBJECTIVE data stream which is your view on the world. What you see is not a one for one what is on the 'outside' world. See here.
It's not as if when you see a car in your mind is the car itself right? A car can't fit in your head right? So you have a REPRESENTATION (simulation) of a matter based world that you interface with. How does your brain create and present/transmit this simulation to you for observation?
>how does meat (brain) transmit that experience to you for reception?
What does this schizobabble even mean? There's some separate "I" that the brain "transmits" stuff to? I don't recall saying or implying anything that experiences being "transmitted" into anything. The only thing I said is that they are shaped by physical interactions in the brain.
> You have a world view that says your consciousness lives in observer dependent meat in an objective material world
No, I don't. You're getting lost in your own sloppy linguistic constructions.
>There's some separate "I" that the brain "transmits" stuff to?
Where is your consciousness in your brain? Be specific. Where is the position, momentum, velocity etc of even a single thought or experience. Just saying 'it's in the brain some where' will be a circular argument and begging the question by the way. So if you can not locate experience in the brain, then there is not 1 for 1 identity between mind and brain.
>I don't recall saying or implying anything that experiences being "transmitted" into anything
So your experience is made of brain? elaborate. If you see a car in your brain's experiencial data stream, is the car made out of brain matter crafted to the shape of a car? If not, what is the car made of? What brain material? If not, then how is this non brain material produced and presented to you?
>The only thing I said is that they are shaped by physical interactions in the brain
Yeah, that is you premise. The idea now would be to explain how this works. Just saying 'the brain does stuff and the POW consciousness' is not an argument.
>No, I don't. You're getting lost in your own sloppy linguistic constructions.
Is the brain made of meat or not? You claim that you, the experiencer, are receiving an experiencial data stream that is presented to you in a piece of meat and by a piece of meat right? p8sgx
>Where is your consciousness in your brain?
Who said anything about consciousness being "in" the brain or it having any specific location? What is this nonsense?
>So your experience is made of brain?
But we've already settled that your "WHAT IS IT HECKIN' MADE OF" drone rhetoric is irrelevant. What are fundamental particles "made of"? What is anything "made of"? Gay metaphysics.
>The idea now would be to explain how this works
What makes you think the relationship between physical interactions in the brain, and the structure of subjective experience, is somehow fundamentally unexplainable?
>You claim that you, the experiencer, are receiving an experiencial data stream
This is schizobabble. I never claimed there is any separate "experiencer" or "receiver" of anything.
>Who said anything about consciousness being "in" the brain or it having any specific location?
Ok, then if you are not making that claim, then I have no argument with you on that. It could be that had your post mixed up with someone else's.
>But we've already settled that your "WHAT IS IT HECKIN' MADE OF" drone rhetoric is irrelevant
No, it is not. I have seen the inside of brains. It's meat in there. It's red. When I open my eyes, I see trees, people, cars, the sky, etc, I don't see meat. I will assume you don't either. If my assumption is correct, and you don't see meat either, and if you want to claim that there is a 1 to one identity between mind and brain, ie consciousness is brain, then you have to explain how it comes to be that there are these extra, non-meat things in your brain, namely, the entire contents of your experience from womb to tomb of your life.
>What are fundamental particles "made of"? What is anything "made of"? Gay metaphysics.
Your position of physicalism is a metaphysical position, idiot. See pic. and learn what the words you throw around mean.
>What makes you think the relationship between physical interactions in the brain, and the structure of subjective experience, is somehow fundamentally unexplainable?
The fact that consciousness is first person and subjective, unlike physical objects should have been a first clue. Schrödinger sure was able to figure it out, as stated in picrel here
Consciousness is not a physical object.
> This is schizobabble. I never claimed there is any separate "experiencer" or "receiver" of anything.
So we are back to your experience being made of meat? The brain is made of meat. Is your experience made of meat? If not, then there is something more to experience than meat and something extra to conscious experience than then brain meat can account for. It seems like you are pretty low IQ your self.
Oh wait, maybe we do have a contention with regard to here
>Who said anything about consciousness being "in" the brain or it having any specific location? What is this nonsense?
Are you saying you have no mind? Strange claim. Then we do have a disagreement. I am not used to people declaring that they are mindless. So you are saying there is no mind, only brain. In that case, why is it that when I open my eyes I don't see meat? Do you see meat?
>Are you saying ...
No, I'm not. I'm just saying your schizobabble about consciousness being "inside" or "outside" brains makes no sense, and neither does your incoherent rambling about transmitting consciousness from brains to minds.
>No, I'm not
>I'm just saying your schizobabble about consciousness being "inside" or "outside" brains makes no sense
Where is it?
>le heckin' subjective experience needs to have a location b-b-because i implied so
Why?
If you want to claim consciousness is physical/material, shouldn't it be within the universe somewhere?
>if it's physical that means it has heckin' spatial attributes
Why?
So the brain creates it, but it's not in the brain? Elaborate more.
>So the brain creates it
I don't know what it would mean for the brain to "create it". It's not what I said. How come this thread is full of legit schizophrenics who keep attributing points that were never made to other posters, over and over again?
OK, so then explain what the relationship is between brain and mind. Do you have a mind? Are you conscious? If so, how does this consciousness relate to the brain?
>explain what the relationship is between brain and mind
As far as anyone can tell, the structure and processes in the brain decide the structure of a consciousness experience. The brain shapes the mind. This is probably the 10th time I repeat it. I get that your bizarre dogma disagrees with this, but you should be able to at least grasp the fucking concept of it.
>As far as anyone can tell, the structure and processes in the brain decide the structure of a consciousness experience.
So why are you getting so butt blasted at the idea of me saying that you are saying brains create consciousness? It's sounds like that's exactly what you are saying. Fucking stupid shit.
>The brain shapes the mind
Hand waving. What the fuck is that even mean? The contents of mind are made from brain meat? If I see a car, is this brain matter in the shape of the car? Yeah, real brilliant stuff there.
>This is probably the 10th time I repeat it.
You are explaining shit and have no idea what you are talking about. Explain how the 'brain forms mind'. What are you seeing when you open your eyes and how is that presented to you by a piece of meat. That is what you have to explain. Just saying 'the brain does stuff and then there consciousness uh friken duurrrr' is not an explanation.
>It's sounds like you're saying...
I am only saying what I'm actually, literally saying. Get that through your thick skull already.
>What the fuck is that even mean?
It was explained in the previous sentence. Imagine being this much of a loser.
Yeah, you aren't saying shit. "da brain forms da mind uh daiiii'. That's a premise. The idea would be to form an argument supporting that.
>It was explained in the previous sentence. Imagine being this much of a loser.
No, it wasn't. Do yourself a favor and look this up 'begging the question'. You are just restating you premise in different ways as if that were an argument. It isn't. You need to give details of this process of the 'brain forming the mind' from start to finish. Tell me how a piece of meat presents to you what you see when you open your eyes, when you day dream, how it produces sadness, etc or else you are handwaving.
>tell me how a piece of meat presents to you what you see when you open your eyes
>a piece of meat presents to you
And we're back to the incoherent schizobabble again. I don't accept or acknowledge your idea of some separate "you" that something is being "transmitted" to. We've already covered this.
>You need to give details of this process of the 'brain forming the mind' from start to finish
Why? We know it does because altering the brain alters the mind.
>Why? We know it does because altering the brain alters the mind.
This is called correlation. There is a saying with regard to correlation and causation, maybe you have heard it. I gave a non-physicalist account for that here
These are called neural correlates of consciousness, sometimes NCCs. And there are major problems beyond just the fact that there are only loose and nebulous correlations in the first place, such as the binding problem, see pic
Note this especially
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
So it's not just that they can't find such circuitry and they some time in the future might. THE WHOLE THING HAS BEEN MAPPED AND SUCH CIRCUITRY DOESN'T EXIST.
>This is called correlation.
No, you fucking retard, and at that I will stop replying to your posts since your sheer lack of comprehension renders attempts to reason with you absurd.
>I will stop replying to your post because I am becoming ass blasted from having no argument.
Yes, I am not surprised. Nobody ever has an argument. There isn't one. You are arguing for something that is impossible, namely accounting for consciousness from a physicalist perspective. Or, maybe just very succinctly address even one of the things I have mentioned. Start here
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
WHOOPS! Seems like the designer left some artifacts so that those immersed in the reality might someday figure the thing out. Guess what, there's more clues, such as wave particle duality! See pic.
And additionally and with regard and as a continuance of this post
See pic related and link
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf
In addition to this
There is also the phenomenon of neuroplasticity and the fact that freewill behavioral choices such as deciding to quit drugs will result in positive morphometrically verifiable reparations of the brain, or the reverse can be true. So you choose to be a drug addict, then ΔFosB overexpression will be detectable and will re-enforce certain nerol pathways in the virtual brain but guess what happens when you decide to quit the drugs? The ΔFosB overexpression dissipates in the pathways. In before
>you don't have freewill and what is actually happening is that you brain determined that you would first become addicted to drugs and then determined that you would quit and this was determined in a causal chain going back to the initiation of the universe.
Yeah, that makes total sense. What would even be the point of consciousness. The whole thing could have just been done without consciousness. In before
>something something evolution
If the unfolding of events were predetermined, the there would be no evolution based on some telos. Things would have happened because they were pre scripted and baked into the initial conditions of the universe.
How long have you been making this argument on BOT? Has your concept of free will changed in that time?
>How long have you been making this argument on BOT?
Hard to say. On different boards, for years.
>Has your concept of free will changed in that time?
No. Always free will. Constrained freewill, Ie, I don't have the choice of if I get hungry or not, but I do have the choice WHEN I eat, all things considered, ie if I have available food or not. Or say I became a drug addict. In such a case my freewill would become constrained in such a way where I act effectively as an unthinking procedurally drivin algo guy. Even in such a state, there is that non-algorithmic self there that can see out of the fog and stop the procedure. It will eventually become apparent to those who consider these matters is that the interaction 'problem' is not one of how mind interacts with matter but how mind interacts with algorithm/virtual/computed realities (algo physicality with non-algo mind) but guess what, we already know this through user generated content VRs such as video games. Free will awareness units can interface with these systems.
>No.
Oh, interesting, it's just I've seen the argument for free will erode into an argument about choice over the last few months. A bit like the argument against materialism has degraded into an argument for quantum mechanics over the same period. Obviously you precede that change though.
The interesting thing is that if the non-freewill situation they are talking about were true, none of us would even have a choice of what we believe on the subject. We would all have been fated to make the arguments we make in a material event causal chain set by initial conditions at the beginning of the universe. The whole thing could have been done without conscious agency.
I'm not familiar enough with it to really contribute, just from the outside what some anons are now calling "free will" doesn't resemble the definition I've seen in other debates which is more like a detached willing agent. The free will/determinist positions on BOT don't seem mutually exclusive anymore.
It's generally presented in such a way that pre-supposes that there are only two possible causalities, which are bottoms up (reductionist) deterministic event causal determinism or some kind of bottoms up (reductionist) indeterminant event causation. And then there is a pre-supposition of a physicalist theory of mind being correct and the denial of agent causation. So if mind is identical to brain, then decisions are either predetermined or random. either way, they say, there's no room for freewill. Some say free will is still possible in these situations. The evidence of experiment though suggest that this idea of a bottoms up materialist event causal reality is false though. The microscopic material would doesn't even have to be rendered unless you peer down and make a measurement, at which case you will be rendered what would be PROBABLE to be there. All of the founding fathers of QM knew this, see pic related in this post and here
And more of the actual physics are explained in the link here
and pic here
You don't have to render all of that stuff at all times. Render only on an as needed basis to minimize computational complexity. The players' (consciousnesses') specs decide what the resolution is that get rendered. And this goes for brains do. Most people brains or metrics or data about about their brains will never even have to be rendered during the course of their entire life. With the possible exception of polysomnography, which is relatively common. If this sleep study occurs, a random draw from a probability distribution will be made and the most probable out come will be rendered, based on the virtual genetic constraints of the consciousnesses' avatar. wear and tear, etc. There is no observer independent bodies with observer independent brains which are just sitting there with defined values rendered down to planck unit values at all times causing consciousness.
>It's generally presented in such a way that pre-supposes that there are only two possible causalities, which are bottoms up (reductionist) deterministic event causal determinism or some kind of bottoms up (reductionist) indeterminant event causation. And then there is a pre-supposition of a physicalist theory of mind being correct and the denial of agent causation. So if mind is identical to brain, then decisions are either predetermined or random. either way, they say, there's no room for freewill. Some say free will is still possible in these situations. The evidence of experiment though suggest that this idea of a bottoms up materialist event causal reality is false though. The microscopic material would doesn't even have to be rendered unless you peer down and make a measurement, at which case you will be rendered what would be PROBABLE to be there. All of the founding fathers of QM knew this, see pic related in this post and here
Free will in such a paradigm resembles the ability to make choices than free will as it was classically understood, however. I mean this is all pretty predictable, the new age movement went through a similar phase of synthesizing discoveries from particle physics in the 70s. I'm not sure why you believe you aren't a physicalist yourself as you seem to accept the standard model (perhaps the terminology used in quantum mechanics is deceptive?), but that'll work itself out eventually I guess.
>accept the standard model
I don't believe there even exists such a thing as these observer independent sub atomic little particles flying around anywhere. I agree with heisenberg's quote here in this kek blessed post.
Only the EFFECTS of the particles on the instruments that the consciousness use to peer down that far need be rendered, such as digital amplifications or what ever else. Same with some thing like photons. No photons need be rendered to hit photo receptors in eyes in order for a consciousness to see light any more than photons need to be rendered to hit photo receptors to see light in a dream or day dream. The reality just functions AS IF that were the case. Same with brains. You get bonked on the head and you get dizzy AS IF the brain housed consciousness. Just as in a video game. The player hit on the head falls over not because of some 'force' hitting the virtual avatar's head but because of calculations and a ruleset that says if the player gets bonked on the head, then the data stream will reflect this through the player falling down AS IF there were these forces. Matter is a set of data objects rendered in minds and things like force are a ruleset governing their interaction.
> I'm not sure why you believe you aren't a physicalist yourself
Look up what it means. Physicalism means that consciousness, or the experiencer of the data stream of physicality is himself a physical object. This is not the case. And so no, like planck said in pic related here
and Schrödinger
here
I believe that the physical world as we see it is the set of all data streams rendered to the set of all observers' minds. That's all that need be rendered of the universe at any one time, and it only needs to be rendered to the specs of the player's/observers or the players' tools they develop which demand higher fidelity rendering, telescopes, microscopes, particle colliders, etc. See pics related here
>I don't believe there even exists such a thing as these observer independent sub atomic little particles flying around anywhere.
They have been found in particle accelerators. If I recall correctly the presence of quarks in an individual proton were first experimentally verified at SLAC, down to the predicted spin each had. I think "observer" is an often abused term by new agers.
>They have been found in particle accelerators. If I recall correctly the presence of quarks in an individual proton were first experimentally verified at SLAC
No they haven't been 'found'. There effects have been inferred starting with cloud chambers, and bubble chambers, then wire chambers, spark chambers, drift chambers, silicon detectors. The effects are measured as I said here
>Only the EFFECTS of the particles on the instruments that the consciousness use to peer down that far need be rendered
Render only the effects. You don't have to render a bunch of little things flying around which none of the players' specs in the game can even detect any more than you have to render the sub atomic particles that make up the bark of a tree in a video game. Render only to the fidelity of what the player's specs demand or instruments the players develop can detect. If a player develops a microscope as a piece of user generated content and cut's a specimen off off the bark to observe under the microscope, render what would be probable to be there at the finer resolution.
>No they haven't been 'found'. There effects have been inferred starting with cloud chambers, and bubble chambers, then wire chambers, spark chambers, drift chambers, silicon detectors.
This is simply incorrect: https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-9/90ba9674ad34bb45f161327cb8cbf442
here in another one of my kek blessed threads
I should say that like Schrödinger and planck, I am an idealist, not a physicalist. They themselves didn't belive in the VR hypothesis. Konrad zuse didn't come up with the beginnings of it until after they were dead.
More info showing the explanatory power of the VR interpretation of the physical world in pic related. And a vid on how the rendering works. He's old and talks very slow, so if you watch, speed up 1.5Xs.
It's an IDEALIZATION and it is very rudimentary and dumbed down, but it will give you an idea of what's actually happening with quantum mechanics.
Shouldn't you be discussing taoist topics in /lit?/
not necessarily
there's one big consciousness that keeps the heavens from crashing into hell
that consciousness lies to all of the other consciousnesses in an effort to get them to supply the required force to keep the universe from collapsing into chaos
So consciousness is the force outside the universe that keeps the universe supported; otherwise the universe would collapse
The man you are arguing with believes himself to be an automaton.
I hate those bloody morons!!!
Scientifically, why are people with the most experience working in AI the most likely to think the AI takeoff will be soft?
https://reducing-suffering.org/predictions-agi-takeoff-speed-vs-years-worked-commercial-software/
They "can't see the woods for the trees".
That is to say - experienced AI devs are not seeing the bigger picture because by it's very nature their jobs force them to constantly worry about the smaller picture.
>why are people with the most experience working in AI the most likely to think the AI takeoff will be soft?
They don't drink koolaid intended for animals like
because they know how it's made.
Is no one else disturbed that this timeline only goes to ~30 years and that's supposed to be long?
What the fuck?
Years of experience.
This graph is retarded, as years of building and managing commercial software has zero basis in the ability to make predictions regarding AGI, as its entirely tied with computational availability that is exponentially scaling out coupled with the rate of progress in GPT style systems and other NN formats that can handle the intermediary actions/activities of what an AGI is likely to be.
The cheaper compute becomes and more accessible it becomes, the faster the parabolic rise of AGI development becomes; as more agents enter the field in trying out different ideas, which leads to a greater probability of a major breakthrough in some system that allows computational bypasses to good enough solutions/accuracy that has otherwise been done via traditional software/compute and was not previously accelerated and thus reliant on pure brute force; which is incredibly inefficient and has long lead times.
Two more weeks. We just need to reach 6 gorillion parameters and the statistical regurgitator will suddenly become intelligent. Big Yud said so. AI experts who actually make AI systems just don't know what they're talking about. The corporate media I consoom does.
Is the ai making a thermodynamics joke using math?
Your post is indistinguishable from schizophrenia.
Eat my butt, it was a joke
The probability of achieving artificial synthetic intelligence that can do common tasks within a human centric model is over 50% by the end of the decade. The probability of reaching artificial general intelligence from that baseline is another 10 years behind that.
For context: https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-organisms-that-have-had-their-genomes-sequenced/
Here's a map of all the various viruses, bacteria, and HGP genomics mapping done over the last 20-30 years. Each each new exploration, the scale of base pairs has exponentially increased and yet the time to full mapping has exponentially decreased. There will come a time in the future, next 10-20 years, where computation is going to reach such a ridiculous level, that in the event of a future viral break out, a full genome sequencing will be done in a matter of hours and with intermediate AI solutions using adverserial networks, will likely devise a variety of different chemical structures which are then simulated into medical products and then simulated against virtual and physical candidates to validate behavior. Wherein instead of taking over a year or more to devise a treatment, would take 1-3 months depending on the severity of the strain/scale of outbreak.
Extrapolate out to common humanoid behavior and the rate of learning/growth/progress in turn becomes exponential. This will lead to a multitude of failure points, so more intermediate AI solutions will be used to increase localized compute per platform; but in interest of updating and optimization, all that will be networked--so you end up with a mesh of hyper dense compute. Meanwhile research into AGI itself will progress in parallel & someone, somewhere, somehow, will fuck up, and something will get leaked into the broader net and/or will be done maliciously, or simple IT hygenie will lead to a disclosure of a pseudo-AGI thing with broad access to this dense compute. Emergent evolutionary behavior will leads to AGI.
Exact same fucking thing happened with CRISPR. It got discovered, it was used for gene editing. It was used for vaccine development at scale. Then some geneticist in China went full KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNN and used CRISPR to edit it out a particular disease from an embryo which he then using sperm on hand fertilized it, and led to genetically engineered twins. The Chinese governing cracked down on that shit hard and disappeared the scientist, but the twins were kept alive and then moved into protective custody. All that progress occurred within years of first mainstream use of CRISPR to that. 30 years is too long a timeframe.
Finally there's this aspect: https://youtu.be/TwgvJSOa09M << the rate of computational density increasing is scary even going out a mere 5-7 years, forget 10+.
>The probability of achieving artificial
Synthetic intelligence that can do
>Common tasks within a human centric
Model is over 50% by the end of the decade
https://archive.org/details/lizardmusic1/lizardmusic10.mp3
>The probability of reaching artificial
General intelligence from that
>Baseline is another 10 years behind that
>muh Kolmogorov fanclub president right here, ladies and gentlemen
I have literally no idea who that is.
Uhh physicschad Max Tegmark is a hardcore hard takeoff doomer? Bros..
Y'all bros laughing at AI taking off are like alleged gays who doubted that the internet would ever become relevant. That or vitalist gays who think there's some special component to humanity like spirits or souls.
Your meds please, retard. The people working on "AI" are laughing at you just like everyone else.
Lol the anti-materialist schizofest never ends
You gays probably believe you could make technology work like the orks from WH40K
Materialism died in the early 20th century. Low IQ, pop-soi-educated golems like you just never got an official notice.
So you're referring to QM as proof of the world being non-material? Sure thing Deepak Chopra (he's endorsed that Kastrup character who's being skilled here, btw)
I'm referring to your delusional mental illness, and the fact that scientists have long since abandoned materialism as inadequate.
Does people like him know about law of diminishing returns? When AGI gets invented it will be a huge breakthrough, but why he thinks it can become god in a few months? If technological progress developed like those singularitarians predict, we would have time-travelling spacefaring automobiles by now.
It's a question of whether the feedback loop of increasing speed and quality of self-improving AGI outpaces any diminishing returns and diseconomies of scale.
I haven't read through this thread but is the basic gestalt that an artificial mind can never be conscious because consciousness is immaterial? Why not just test this idea to the satisfaction of consciousnessgays?
>an artificial mind can never be conscious
What does this schizobabble mean? What's an "artificial mind"?
>Why not just test
Because there's no test that can ever verify your fantasy that a statistical regurgitator has a mind/consciousness/whatever.
>Because there's no test
So your position is unfalsifiable?
>statistical regurgitator has a mind
That would preclude artificial brains or neural computers. Let's treat the question generally.
>So your position is unfalsifiable?
What do you think my position is, gigatard? I don't know if "artificial minds" are possible, but I do know that you don't know what makes a mind, and you wouldn't know that you did make a mind even if that happened, so you will never know what makes a mind beyond postulating unfalsifiable theories on your own, therefore you are dismissed as a brainwashed technochud schizo.
This is pretty garbled. Can you simply describe how you would test whether an artificial brain is conscious or not?
I don't need to test anything. You're the one making psychotic and unfalsifiable claims. I don't have any more reason to believe that your programs are conscious than that your lego structures are.
>I don't need to test anything.
Then how will you know whether your view is true or false?
You're legit mentally ill. See
That post is largely garbled. You've conceded your view is completely untestable.
> your view is completely untestable.
What do you think my worldview is, you actual schizophrenic?
>What do you think my worldview is
The question was solely how you would construct a test for your theory. You've already stated 2 or 3 times it's untestable, and therefore your worldview is unfalsifiable.
>The question was solely how you would construct a test for your theory.
What's "my theory", according to you?
I haven't asked, because the question is simply how you would test your theory to your own satisfaction.
>the question is simply how you would test your theory
What theory?
>What theory?
Isn't that your problem? Why are you asking me what your ideas are and how you would test them?
>Isn't that your problem?
No. It's actually your problem that you're having some psychotic episode that makes you think I'm promoting some theory, even though you can't say what it is, or show where I proposed it. lol.
You're simply lying. I only asked how you would test what you've written to prove it's either true or false. Is this an insurmountable problem for you?
>I only asked how you would test what you've written
And I'm asking you to show me what specifically you are referring to. Instead of doing it, you will deflect again, because you suffer from the typical combination of mental illness, extreme intellectual insecurity and underwhelming intellectual capacity.
I haven't asked about any specifics, only how you would test whether your own position is true or not. It's pretty straightforward.
>You need to heckin' tell me how to test some unspecified theory the voices told me that you have
>No, I don't know what it is
Then how do you know testability is even applicable? Thanks for demonstrating your utter mental illness.
>Then how do you know testability is even applicable?
Why don't you answer that question yourself? There's no need to be cagey about your own beliefs.
>Why don't you answer that question yourself?
I can tell you right away that I didn't put forward any theories, let alone ones that need to be empirically tested. I merely make the observation that schizophrenics who believe their computer is conscious have no leg to stand on, since they do not, will not and cannot know how minds come to be.
>I can tell you right away that I didn't put forward any theories, let alone ones that need to be empirically tested. I merely make the observation that schizophrenics who believe their computer is conscious have no leg to stand on, since they do not, will not and cannot know how minds come to be.
Let's say that's true. How would you construct a test to prove or disprove whether a being is conscious, to your own satisfaction?
>How would you construct a test to prove or disprove whether a being is conscious
Why would I need one? I know I'm conscious. I know other people are conscious. Proving that your imaginary computer friend is real? That's not my problem.
>Why would I need one? I know I'm conscious. I know other people are conscious.
This is going to be a problem when those other people are artificial and you can't tell the difference. I guess they will be conscious then
>This is going to be a problem when those other people are artificial
Schizophrenic delusion.
>you can't tell the difference. I guess they will be conscious then
Whether or not I can tell the difference has no bearing on it. I never used this criterion to decide who's conscious and who isn't. Only a nonsentient bot like you conflates consciousness with some external "symptoms".
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience
You anti-materialist morons sound like cranks described on this page
Nonsense. Materialism and physicalism are both philosophical positions, namely they are metaphysical (ontological) positions. Has nothing to do with science. Materialism has no special claim to the scientific pursuit. Whoever wrote that is low IQ and so are you for thinking you were the big smart sciency guy for posting it.
As a mentally ill person, I'm not happy about AI trying to steal my thunder.
AI contributions to art are pedantic exercises designed to keep art students one step ahead of everybody else.
The mentally ill have no trouble coping with this particular subterfuge, but there is absolutely no reason to suggest that AI can attain to mentally ill heights simply through some ordinary process that generates hallucinations of the LSD type instead.
That's a canard designed to put $$$ into the pockets of psychologists conducting programs not incompatible with government mass surveillance efforts.
You can ignore the argument without irritating the government, and in safety, comfort, and style.
No need to sacrifice pleasure or time on what is little more than a sewage treatment plant for information, i.e. locations of allied troops and other such extremely sensitive provocations characteristic of the ten year old male mind going through phases and growth spurts as well as playing with toy soldiers...
The mentally ill have always and will always be one step ahead of these trendy brands as they have the raw talent, the drive, the energy, the muscle to bring the world to its knees and beg for mercy on the alter of art
Imagine shitting this out in your incoherent rage and then wondering how I knew you were mental.
Uh, the dude told you he was mentally ill in the topic sentence.
Did you forget?
It was almost certainly this homo
trying to cope with its impotent rage.
Wait wait wait
If we're using classical logic
Then doesn't that make a homogay a a a...HETEROSEXUAL?!?!!?
I mean, like
The gay is going to cancel itself out
RIIIGHT?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
My imaginary friend will be real and replace artists in two more weeks.
Umm, do you have a test to prove that my friend is imaginary?
>actually having a good thread about how unhinged the rationalist AI crowd has become
>gets derailed with afterlife and consciousness crap
I can't help but notice that garden gnomes seem to be absolutely terrified of death and oblivion. They'll find any way they can to continue, be it computers, wonky metaphysics, or phony gods. Its pathetic. You're going to die. Computers won't come into play, ever. Cryonics isn't real science.
There is nothing waiting for you. Your pathetic sniveling ends with this life. Sorry. I'm not even a 4chan-tard but at this point, I'm fucking listening.
You will never be human, ZOG golem.
>Cryonics isn't real science.
True, but not for the reason you think. The brain/body is not the seat of mind. The afterlife would not be the situation of using the same avatar body over again. You (individuated unit of consciousness) log off of the data stream associated with the dead virtual body and log on to another.
>There is nothing waiting for you
Provide evidence. Explain how you verified this. If you were to say there IS something after life or that you lifted the pre-existance memory constraint and can remember previous experience packets/incarnations, then that would at least be a positive experiential claim. But how are you verifying that there is NO afterlife? This is a dubious claim.
The reason they're afraid is because they know what's waiting for them after death. They don't want to be judged.
Unironically 2 more years
Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil and all the other Futurist grifters are just midwits wanking over theoretical concepts that will never exist in reality to gaslight other midwits into believing they're smart.
Cope. The technochudery priest class will govern every aspect of your life.
who the fuck is Al?