namero999

13 ms·

31.
by namero999 2y ago
At the present state of affairs, "a human brain has consciousness" is the magical bit.
32.
by namero999 2y ago
Of course not. A simulation is not the process itself. So even provisionally granting that consciousness is magically created by the brain (for which we have no evidence), a computer simulation would still not be a brain and therefore not c
33.
by namero999 2y ago
From the FAQ page of the Car Thing (the spotify device) "What should I do with the device? We recommend resetting your Car Thing to factory settings and safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines. Conta
34.
by namero999 2y ago
I appreciate your reply, however I would partially disagree. Consciousness is always there, and we call sensing what is mediated by our sense organs interacting with the external world, that is, perceiving. It's a class of experience r
35.
by namero999 2y ago
The usual fallacy of conflating phenomenal experience with cognition, and using the same term "consciousness" to refer to both of the concepts interchangeably. The whole piece is undermined.
36.
by namero999 2y ago
The work of George Gurdjieff is precisely about this.
37.
by namero999 2y ago
as you prefer, but that's not the definition of conscious.
38.
by namero999 2y ago
It's not a contradiction, it's just precise definitions. Have you ever had the experiencing of noticing how a sound has been going on for a while, only when it becomes really obnoxious or when you point your attention to it? We ar
39.
by namero999 2y ago
Of course there is a difference. You are probably conscious right now of more things that you don't even register, like the movement of your chest while breathing, sounds outside of your window, etc. It's indeed the difference bet
40.
by namero999 2y ago
I concur, was about to express the same sentiment. I will steal this, sorry-not-sorry :)
41.
by namero999 2y ago
Bernardo Kastrup. I think the best resource are his books. He also has several online interviews. The guy used to work at CERN and ASML, turned to philosophy. https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/
42.
by namero999 2y ago
I'll just echo this, in that monistic idealism (especially, as a personal preference, in the declination of analytical idealism) is a worldview able to supersede the incongruous, untenable and for the most part, epistemically moot phys
43.
by namero999 3y ago
Maybe not the best example as the report ends with "I’m doing great now! I think the experience despite being f* terrify was super useful", but I get what you mean. However, serious narrators or researchers usually don't fail
44.
by namero999 3y ago
Nature. If I were you, I'd put him in the car and rent a cabin somewhere in the nature/forest/mountains for a few months.
45.
by namero999 3y ago
As Michael Levin's work shows, one doesn't even need a brain or a nervous system for memory https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-re...
46.
by namero999 3y ago
How's a GPT not rules-following?
47.
by namero999 3y ago
They don't really shrink. They simply move the goalpost. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit ho
48.
by namero999 3y ago
It's fairly easy to "understand it" if we don't try to explain it away. Look, no matter what you hold as true, you reach a point where you have to pick your ontological primitive. An as such, you can't "explain
49.
by namero999 3y ago
The hard problem, in essence, deals with the question of how qualities emerge from quantities. Until we have explained this, then holding materialism is religious. That is, assuming as true something that we have no access to, no explanatio
50.
by namero999 3y ago
What about the handstand? Was it programmed to do so or was it an artifact of the neural net? I wonder if this relates to the fact that some dogs do in fact perform "handstand" (pawstand?) in seemingly random situations...
51.
by namero999 3y ago
Can't vouch enough for MyBatis, using it since forever and it never let me down, or produced any sort of frustration. It strikes the perfect balance: on code level, you still work with domain objects and the db access sublimates away i
52.
by namero999 4y ago
Interesting. I'm not sure chalking up an observation is the rational approach. I'd be looking into the Pauli-Jung conjecture before doing so.
53.
by namero999 4y ago
They are clearly talking about a tech corporation.
54.
by namero999 4y ago
Java has records.
55.
by namero999 4y ago
> Yes, but you learn something. What is wood? Partly it's lignin. What's that? Randomly polymerised phenol-like molecules. What's phenol? A benzene ring (unsaturated carbon ring) with an OH on it. What are C, O and H? Elem
56.
by namero999 4y ago
I actually think we are in agreement here. My stance is that it is fundamental and doesn't need to/can't be reduced, therefore explained in terms of something else. If the question is simply meant in a descriptive way, then t
57.
by namero999 4y ago
Total agreement on the fact that we are as clueless as it gets to explain emergence of experience. That's why I think that the only reasonable avenue forward is to try and take experience as a fundamental building block. We are going t
58.
by namero999 4y ago
Dennett's argument is that consciousness is an illusion. Where would such illusion take place? I'm genuinely convinced that Dennett is a troll.
59.
by namero999 4y ago
It's not sophistry, it was a preemptive question anticipating your response, which in fact showed up: you asked what consciousness _is_. This is the sort of question Babbage would have replied to with his famous remark. "What is&q
60.
by namero999 4y ago
What makes you think that a simulation of a process is the process itself? If you were to simulate on silicon kidney function down to sub-particle precision, would you expect your computer to pee on your desk? So why would you expect consci

More ›