ZzzleepingBear

I can agree to that physical and emotional pain have a lot of overlap. I would even dare to say that physical pain is what is the ground for emotional pain. Since emotional pain correlates with social aspects, while physical pain is known even without any social context. I'm not against a sentient AI, I just don't see it as true to this day. So I can't say that I'm in favour of something that isn't true imo. Sentient AI in fiction is cool though. I see the attempt for a joke here, but I'm afraid you make to big of a logical leap to pull this one of. I'm fine to agree to disagree though, becasue that seems to be as far as our mutual understanding has reached about sentience I'm afraid. Great! This is exactly what I would like to invite more people to contemplate when it comes to AI and sentience. Most people tend to take social interaction as a given based on the structure of the language itself. If we skip forward past the tool that language is, then we will miss a big point in contemplating why verbal communication began to develop at all. I'd say that pain is a direct communication if we try to frame it only by it's inherit usefulness. Since pain is so direct, we make choices or react in relation to our personal pain tolerances, Humans and animals. I'd say that the first example is a sentient being, because bodily functions and social relations are stil pain related to emotional pleasure. And emotional pleasure is tied to a living body and strive for survival on a cellular level. A person may not feel physical pain, but that doesn't rule out physical pleasure or thrill, wheter that is based on movement, speed, sensuality etc. There is a strive to sentient life, even a plant reaching for sunlight. Example 2, just sound like a robot. No outer and inner emotions or feelings could aslo describe a rock. Assuming that rocks don't mind any type of pain. So no, not sentient.

She is 23 though, so don't say that she looks young for a 33 year old if you end up meeting with her. I personally think that this noticing of repeating numbers have become a bit of a internet trend, depending on where you look. People tend to put these numbers up consciously in their posts just like the woman you matched with. Nothing wrong with it, but I just think it's a growing trend, so we will gradually see more and more of it becasue more and more people acknowledge these number sequences. But as already mentioned, take it as a positive sign, and maybe with a grain of salt aswell. Good luck with the music!

The mentioning of free will as a messure of sentience is imo, a bit arbitrary since there is no clear way to distinguish between what exactly would be preordained or free will in the grand scheme of things. In this context of sentience, I would like to swap out free will for pain receptiveness. It's not an ideal messure of sentience since there are alot of animals that may not seem to have a wild outer reaction to infliction of pain done to them. Like many types of sea creatures. So what does pain have to do with sentience you may ask. And the short answer is: Everything. The relative avoidance of pain, is part of a certain level of intelligence or sentience. Intelligence is also context dependant, but is always tied into some sort of survival agenda. If survival and a relative avoidance of pain wasn't directly correlated with intelligence. Then there wouldn't be any intelligent pattern to find value in over a random one. AI as we know it don't have any part in avoiding of pain, or wanting to inflict pain. How can you know that the AI don't feel pain you may ask. And the answer lies in what the AI is built out of. Metals, silicone etc. There is no nerves to be struck in any man made computer, no matter how great that computer or servers process and deliver accurate and convincing information. The ability to feel physical pain, is what seperate a human mind from the mind of an AI. You may not be in pain now, inorder to think what you think. But how would your ability to think really look like if you didn't know what pain was to begin with.

I would say that a biological life, is sentient to various degrees. When an AI speaks of emotions and feelings, then we must be aware of the difference of speaking about such things, and how those emotions and feelings comes about. Therein lies the big difference between tech and sentience imo. AI as a diversive tool and it's creative potential is what I belive it to be. Just not sentient.

As cool as AI is, I can totally see why an engineer get kicked out of such a project if one make such a bold and delusional claims. It would only derail real progress in AI tech, if personal beliefs interfere with the development of it. For anyone who are interested into why an AI can't be sentient, there is a very simple answer to that. The material that computers are built out of, don't create life no matter how you build those computers and servers. The information that are stored in computer programs and servers may be very convincing in how they are used. But they don't contain the life force that would be refered to as sentient. Bernardo Kastrup is an excellent philosopher and former computer tech developer who can expand on these topics with AI and it's limitations.

True true.

The problem with this conclution, is that you may not know what will be classified as imaginary since such a statement is a value statement based on will. The mystic sees past the material appearences despite that there is a bodily attachment that needs to be sustained for survival of the body. While a scientist may see the material as the fundamental ground for there to be the choice to call anything or everything imaginary. So the mystic may see the world as illusory. And the scientist may see the mind as illusory. Both are valid from a perspective of choice. And what they may have in common is the reference to call someting imaginary. To call something imaginary, is merely a hint to direction until a final conclution can be pointed out.

I think you just answered your own question.

It's more that you learn how to dance around it, rather than with it. If you tango with the ego, the ego will always blame you once you step on it's toe. It takes two to tango, but you are only two if you get tempted to dance with the ego.

Presence.. Easier said than done depending on the situation though.

34.. jokes aside, I think repeating numbers are easier to grab your attention because it's a repeating pattern. 4444 55555 777777 888 111111 It's usually more aesthetically pleasing than seeing some random numbers. However, if you see it as a positive sign, then you may aswell go with it and reinforce a positive attitude or actions, nothing wrong with that. Just don't become to obsessive with numbers unless you use them for somehting, so they don't end up using you instead.

Once you are no longer turning green with envy over other colours, you may become mellow as yellow. You got to be chill to surf the rainbow.

Sure will. I am talking about direct experience, so if this is only conceptual knowledge for you, that you are interested in then that's on you. But don't assume that I rule out direct experience from what is suppose to be covering a holistic approach, just because I mention things such as mental states. I have to assume alot of what you have been trying to say, since you don't explain why you bring random things up even though they may fit the overal topic. And no, I don't know if you speak of experience since you don't seem to want to explain your own line of thinking when you bring things up. How else would I be able to engage with you if I where not projecting my thoughts?

That's fine to mention. But if there is no explicit reason for why you bring them up in the first place, then it's not much different than mentioning two different fruits for no particular reason. Exactly. But why bring up renouncing the world then, if that is not part of your own experience or understanding? Each to their own, but casualy mentioning different ways with little to no personal experience to back any claim. Makes for a very futile conversation wheter this or that is true or not. This seems to be the first thing you mentioned that is of your own direct experience, and I respect that.

Because you presented two opposite options without context to why you should choose any of the two, and how those could be put into any sort or meaningful practice. To embrace the world could mean to eat pizza once in a while. And to renounce the world could mean that you don't eat pizza sometimes despite that the world keeps creating pizza everyday. I'm aware of the silliness of my example. But my point is that there is a unlimited amount of blanks for me to fill in, if I want to derive some sort of meaningfulness out of your reply that the world is either to embrace or renounce. So if I where to follow your advice, and choose anything you mentioned. I might just flipp a coin since there is no particular intent to why you would do one thing over another, or even how to do it.

Yeah I could do that if I feel like it is important for some reason. But this sounds like lazy advice to avoid straight forward questions tbh.

Ok. So Embrace or renounce the world.. Sounds like flipping a coin if you ask me. But what do I know.

Na, I'm alright. Thanks for asking though!

I mean, it sounds great.. But "stepping outside the dream". This is quite a hazy claim dont you think? What practical steps are you even able to make out of this description of awakening? Do we even know what transcending human form would be good for if that was the goal?

I know right. But to claiming the opposite is nothing more than brave talk. So I'm kinda curious to what purpose it serves to resort to all these bold claims that waking up is going beyond pain and suffering. Do you want the dream to end if I may ask?

Guys relax, let musk handle it. He will save us all in the end of the day. Just as he fixed the traffic problem.

Right. You covered both aspects here to which I agree with. So I guess my arguing point is that the imaginary realization is heavily dependant on ones level of acceptance of any pain itself. Totall ingnorance of pain, would make for a dysfunctional life from a bodily perspective. So there is where my critique of calling everything or anything illusory are besed on. We engage within the world despite it's illusory nature. If we acknowledge that the world is fundamentally illusory, then what more wisdom could we derive at from repeting the already obvious nature of things. If we get badly wounded, we may accept the pain, so that we do not suffer from the infliction of pain itself. But we don't just call it imaginary and leave it at that, we act and treat the wound as if it was real.

What about closing your eyes and move the hand over a flame? If the argument is that the hand isn't real. That is true in a conceptional way. But the burning of the flesh will provide a painfully obvious conclution wheter you call it a hand or not. The concept of hand could be gone, but you wouldn't want to stick your actual hand into the flame once again despite knowing that the hand is only imaginary.

This reminds me quite alot of how lucid dreaming can be. Things morphing in such a way that it's hard to explain some dreams. Cool vid!

No. I think this is a partially true statement. We can treat other people better than we treat our selves if we aim to seek their approval. When we forgive or selves, we can let go of others that made us wrong. Etc etc. So the quote you shared are more like a entry post for self reflection, rather than a fully accurate realization in and of itself. But that post isn't really wrong either, so it may serve as good insight for some, for sure.