2 ms·

You’re not just the same thing though. It’s sad that we’ve collectively forgotten that as we’ve gotten a better handle on the implementation details of the univ

by willy_k 15d ago

You’re not just the same thing though. It’s sad that we’ve collectively forgotten that as we’ve gotten a better handle on the implementation details of the universe. That’s all science is, reverse engineering an inherent and eternal mystery.

frde_me 15d ago
> You’re not just the same thing though I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... as things a model conceptually could do.
- jplusequalt 15d ago
  >I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... with certainty. Stop anthropomorphizing these models. I understand it, we only have simple monkey brains to reason with and we can't help ourselves but draw comparisons to other things we see in nature. But these things are not alive.
  - frde_me 15d ago
    I just want to note how you expressed your own feeling about the subject "these things are not alive", but without pointing to anything concrete explaining the theory you have behind this And like I'm sure I'd agree depending on the definition of "alive" but then I'm also sure I would disagree depending on other definitions of "alive".
    - pixl97 15d ago
      Hell, in biology alive is a hell of a topic these days. The grey space between dead and alive is much weirder than we ever expected. Really just points out how we're a persistent chemical reaction.
      - mitxela 15d ago
        Someone told me yesterday there's one specific protein in your brain that modulates craving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB The amount of time after experiencing a rewarding stimulus that you want more of it is how long this protein takes to decay. Or so we currently think. I think this is pretty new science.
  - mitxela 15d ago
    > these things are not alive. Evidence?

by willy_k 15d ago

frde_me 15d ago

> You’re not just the same thing though I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... as things a model conceptually could do.

jplusequalt 15d ago
>I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... with certainty. Stop anthropomorphizing these models. I understand it, we only have simple monkey brains to reason with and we can't help ourselves but draw comparisons to other things we see in nature. But these things are not alive.
- frde_me 15d ago
  I just want to note how you expressed your own feeling about the subject "these things are not alive", but without pointing to anything concrete explaining the theory you have behind this And like I'm sure I'd agree depending on the definition of "alive" but then I'm also sure I would disagree depending on other definitions of "alive".
  - pixl97 15d ago
    Hell, in biology alive is a hell of a topic these days. The grey space between dead and alive is much weirder than we ever expected. Really just points out how we're a persistent chemical reaction.
    - mitxela 15d ago
      Someone told me yesterday there's one specific protein in your brain that modulates craving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB The amount of time after experiencing a rewarding stimulus that you want more of it is how long this protein takes to decay. Or so we currently think. I think this is pretty new science.
- mitxela 15d ago
  > these things are not alive. Evidence?