UnbornTao

Robot counselor

🤔🙈

@Ishanga It's peak comedy. Watch it a second time while reading the comments.

@Wilhelm44 @Natasha Tori Maru I don't see how saying more would help if people fail to see the difference in the first place - it's not mainly about content or character. There's no truth in any belief system, and that's essentially what's being sold here. It might be worth looking more deeply into what "belief" actually is.

Yeah, a couple of weeks of debauchery first before joining the hive. Need to burn some karma. "WE'RE SORRY WE UPSET YOU, CAROL."

Sure, I can always be wrong. No problem with that. At the end of the day, the assertion made was that surviving without water or sleep for years is BS - for humans, at least. At the same time, there's also the possibility of discovering the principles behind things. You can't get around those. If an object breaks, its integrity is compromised. That ties into the point about openness needing to be paired with rootedness or groundedness - not just the intellectual stance of "anything could be possible." We can always entertain the notion that Earth might be triangular, for example. You can always come up with ideas that contradict your former ones, but the issue here is that not everything in this context is just an idea. Something deeper or more real can be discovered. Maybe the right word here is something like factual, parameter, principle, or rule: do certain things, and they will produce certain consequences, etc. The claim here isn't that these things point to some absolute reality, or that they're ultimately true - only that they can be said to be objectively occurring, and therefore aren't up to personal whim, interpretation, or the like. In the context of this conversation, scientific hearsay, for the most part. Add to that some personal extrapolations - some of them based on limited experience - plus the domain of what we might call valid beliefs.

What's a loving word? As you say, plants don't know Spanish or German. They may still react to the sounds themselves (or other kind of stimulus), but that doesn't make it language or communication. You can poke an amoeba and it will move away to avoid danger - does that imply anything is being "communicated"? Same as above: a sound, by itself, is just a sound. What context makes it such that a particular sound can refer to something other than what it is not that sound? Acting in response to a perceived stimulus doesn't turn that event into "language," even if there's a relationship between the two. Likewise, when an object falls to the floor, you hear the sound and react - but you wouldn't call that language, nor interpret it as communication in any meaningful sense. We don't actually know what language is.

Called it.

I'm too non-conformist to be original. Just a random occurrence.

Tradition is an obvious example, and yet, at the same time, not following tradition - avoiding it - can be even more conformist. How much of your so-called non-conformity is a reaction against what you perceive as conformity?

What? I love her. She's the one who's making some sense. The only one not participating in the gangbang

Run away and don't look back.

I think not! You know, the meme.

Well, first get a profound consciousness yourself. Don't take for granted that you already have it. It's very likely you're fooling yourself without even realizing it. This applies to virtually everyone - and no, you are not the exception.

Right, we're seeing it from a different standpoint. You do the same with your work to some extent, so this was to be expected.

Hear me out: "Phallic Baguettes" Trademark pending.

Good luck with that. Discerning a cult would be the first step.

The same could be said about any other cult, if you are a faithful enough acolyte It's not necessarily about the content, the character, or the outrageous claims - not even about potential deception and lies (although those are important, too). But they do a disservice. To "conform to the groupthink", it is false spirituality. I didn't expect their followers to recognize that in the first place, to be clear - hence this discussion. We are desperate to be told what to believe, and when someone presents a nicely packaged model of the world a certain way, you eat it up almost indiscriminately - without knowing the difference between real communication and something else. It just invites people to become followers. You end up believing claims that are assumed to be true, for whatever reason. Even if this doesn't negate some value you might gain from it - in the same way that you may benefit from going to church and burning incense.

Great to hear, although that's not really my point. I'm not sure I can articulate it very well. The best I can do right now is pay attention. What are they up to? After the stories, the assertions, the arguments, and all that - setting aside the assertiveness and self-assuredness - what is the communication actually doing? And who is the author ultimately doing it for?

Sounds good. It could still be clarified, especially your first sentence. Since you mentioned vibe, the way that term is used often highlights what is felt rather than what is thought. Would you call feeling a type of thinking in that sense, then? What about basic and ingrained physiological reactions that even less complex animals are able to produce? You think that language exists as an object in the way a rock may be said to exist, and that we just stumbled upon it one day. For example, does every sound communicate? Is the sound of a crystal bowl falling to the floor and breaking communicating something to you? What makes a sound a communication? Could there be communication without language? How do you see communication if it could exist without language? Remember that this kind of language isn't just the words, sounds, symbols, gestures, touch, sight, etc., themselves. Estos píxeles en la pantalla, ¿qué son y cómo sabes que están comunicando algo? ¿Qué los convierte en "palabras" o en símbolos entendibles en primer lugar? Even when using a different language you may not know, you still know that something is being conveyed. Why is that? The words themselves may not be understood, and yet this "possibility" is still operative. Maybe this is more along the lines of what language is. We completely take this experience for granted, and it's hard to imagine what life was like prior to the invention of language, since it dominates our entire experience. It's a bit like imagining the world of computers before the invention of the GUI (Graphical User Interface).

I wouldn't mind it, it could be entertaining. But at the end of the day, it's just a technology. LLMs like GPT still can't reliably provide accurate information without hallucinating. I'd rather have some profound episode than this. Gotta love the buzzwords.

Cool!

Not at all. It's more like thinking that your reaction to the dog bite could come from something or someone other than yourself. Your preferences, for example, are already generated by you in your own experience, both the conformist and the non-conformist ones. It does seem, though, that this preference for nonconformity may well be based on a desire to feel special. And this occurs within a social context, which you yourself generate as well.