Scholar

We need a facepalm emoji. @Leo Gura

I think that is confusing what individuated consciousness is. It is a physical thing, a specific shape within the wavefunction of the universe. Computers aren't anything like that shape, so they will not be individuated. It's not the AHA moment that grants consciousness, it's the other way around.

You can get far with parroting, memory and intuition, but I suspect there will be a lot of hard-lines that will be impossible to cross. The danger here is, of course, that you will get intelligence without consciousness. There is nothing more destructive than intelligence that lacks consciousness. It's kind of ironic, because the last world war was caused precisely by this kind of dynamic. Machine learning has the potential to give power to the least conscious of individuals. Would have been nice if the nazis had been a little less smart and had less "intelligent functions". The kind of potential for destruction now possible will pale in comparison to what we they had been capable of.

You are missing the point. If you aren't conscious, you aren't "Generally Intelligent", you simply have intelligent functions. If you want it to be smarter than you, just hit yourself on the head real hard. That will fix your problems.

It's emulating dreaming, so you can expect the same type of quality, as well as incoherencies, as you witness in hyperreal dreams. All of you literally have a stochastic neural network like this in your brain, and you use it every day.

The term AI is a misnomer because, fundamentally, the AI is doing the opposite of what we consider to be intelligence. A human being, given enough time, can know nothing about math at all and develop all of math from the ground up, simply by analyzing reality, and simply by analyizing their mind. A human being, given enough time, can go from no artistic expression to developing all the artistic expressions we see currently. A human being, given enough time, can create language itself, can create new concepts, new words, new ideas, without ever having seen and heard of any of them. Given enough time, a human being could create all possible words, all possible concepts that can exist within the reality of his mind. AI is precisely the opposite. It cannot do anything without data. This is because machine learning has nothing to do with intelligence in this sense, it is probabilistic, stochastic parroting. It is more akin to intuition than anything else. You could give AI photorealistic images of all objects in the universe. And it would be great at depicting those objects, in photorealism. It could never move beyond that, because in the AI, there is nothing beyond the data. This is the fundamental reason why AI is not in the same way intelligent as a human mind: A human mind does not simply come to intelligent conclusions, a human minds understands why the conclusion is correct. Why? Because the conclusion and the process is part of their being. The idea of "addition" and "substraction" exists in a human mind, it does not exist in a calculator. Calculators do not do math, they calculate. Logic exists in the human mind, as an actual substance of existence. There is no computational system that contains logic, it simply can attempt to mimic the dynamics of logic. In the same way, no computational system has a sense of appeal, because appeal and beauty is actually a substance of existence. It is actually something that exists in the human mind, and it relates to other part of the human mind, which are other, actually existing substances of reality. In other words, experience is essential to general intelligence. Because general intelligence simply means being conscious, being individuated. The more substances of existence, and interrelation between them, a mind can contain, the higher it's potential for "general intelligence" is. Now, this doesn't mean AI cannot achieve great things. It is basically machine evolution. It should be able to achieving anything that the human mind does unconsciously. This is why image generation is possible, it is much like human imagination. When you think "apple", you don't consciously image that apple. You don't construct it, it comes to you as you intend it. The same is true for thoughts. You don't come up with your own thoughts, you don't think them. It's not intelligent to have thoughts, what's intelligent is you realizing what the thoughts mean, what they are, and how they relate to the rest of existence. The AI does not understand why poetry is poetry, it simply learns to mimic it. There is no poetry in the machine, the poetry only exists in the human mind, as he reads it, as the words form a new substance of existence. I suspect genuine AGI will not happen until we create physical artifical evolutionary systems. Individuating consciousness is essential for this, and this will have to happen on a physical basis, in the same or similar manner as the brain does.

I miss the old mods.

Interesting thanks for sharing that.

I'm just picturing someone in an existential panic attack hyperventilating and someone going "Bro just dance some.". They should have just put on some nice music and made her dance!

What if they want to be the witch?

You are projecting. If you could hear me speak this to you, you'd know I am mostly just dismissive at this point. I think you are a weasel, but it's not intentional. The simple truth is, you have a debate-bro attitude, which makes it impossible for you to explore and understand my position in the first place. I also do not have the patience to explore my position with you because it would take exceptional effort on my part, with little willingness to understand and learn on your part. Causative would be a direct causal relationship. Meaning, if X happens, Y follows directly or inevitably as a result of X. Causative influence is when something indirectly might infuence a causal event, meaning it has influence on the causal chain. It is important to recognize, as I already stated, that causality in this physicalist sense is illusiory. It is a result of understanding certain aspects of existence through a certain substance of existence (like math or logic). The causal chain is a functional simplification. In a physicalist sense, a better metaphor would be a causal web, but even that is illusiory. Causation and the difference between causative and causative influence here is a functional concept, meaning it serves a function, rather than being a description of ground truth. Here, we would apply standards of causation and correlation, to then establish an understanding of what we consider causative or correlative. I gave the two simple examples because they demonstrate what we view as causative vs correlative in a scientific sense. The problem is you keep switching back and forth between the functional concepts, and then try to go into a metaphysical concept about causation. You confuse the two, which is why you are so confused about my position. Metaphysical relationships are the relationships that exist between different aspects of existence. They are fundamentally mysterious, and any understanding of them are not them, but rather an illusion of causality as described above. There will never be science that uncovers a causal mechanism between motion/physicality and any other dimension of existence, of which exist infinite. You will never be able to understand why certain physicality (say, a certain state or motion within a unversal or partial wavefunction) is related to non-physical aspects of existence, like: Vision, Sound, Emotion, and so forth. These relationships necessarily will be non-mechanistic, they will be direct, they will be "metaphysical relationships". In essence, all physical relationships are also metaphysical, in the sense that, at some point they become non-mechanistic. They are instantiated into reality through no mechanism at all. So, as you increase your resolution on a causal chain, at some point you will realize that the relationship between individual chain-links are direct. There is no further chain between them, they simply are. That would be the metaphysical relationship, as opposed to the causal relationship. This is childish. The problem is that you think I need to care about whether or not you think I am correct, or whether or not you understand what I am saying. I expect a certain degree of autonomous intelligence, and I expect that, instead of being as contrarian as possible on each step of the way, a person has the ability to come to conclude from my words a functional meaning without me having to babysit them through all of it.

I was going to say, you can't just listen to some music and dance around if you have a bad trip.

You are a weasel. Something being causitive and having causitive influence is not the same as what we mean by a casual relationship. And the examples provided are clear. It's not possible to have a conversation with you, I am serious. You have complete, contrarian smart-ass brainrot.

I suspect this is not a good thing.

This is ridicilous. I have given you a specific example between something that we view as established causality vs something that is considered a correlation. The fact that you do not grasp this simple point is incredible. Jackets in winter are clearly correlative, not causative. We know this. We also consider gravity causative in regards to the motion of apples as they fall from a tree. If you closely inspect the causative chain between the apple falling, there will come a point where you will have to just say "Okay, this happens because... it just does. This simply causes this, there is no further mechanism that makes it so, other than it being the case." This must be the case otherwise you would get an infinite regress of causal chains to explain any causal relationship. And not in terms of a first cause, but in terms of each inbetween causal chain. But this is all irrelevant, because your standard of causality is clearly ridicilous. By this standard, we wouldn't have any established causal relationships at all, and there would be no meaningful difference between a correlation and causation. If I feed 1000 people radioactive strawberries, and they all die from radiation poisoning, we consider this an established causal link, not merely a correlation. In the same manner, when I hit you on the head real hard, and it alters your consciousness, this will also be considered causative because the epistemic standards of causations have been reached. But causation in the sense you speak of, in the sense of establishing a mechanism, can only apply within the same substance. Meaning, you can only have causal mechanisms in the realm of motion, as that is what a causal mechanism is in the first place. This is because causal mechanism are a fundamentally physical notion. When we ask for causal mechanisms, we ask "How does motion translate into different types of motion?". In this sense you can have the appearance of a causal mechanism. Once we have two different substances of existence however, such causal mechanisms no longer are relevant. You will never explain how a certain motion leads to or is linked to the color red. You will never find a metaphysical "mechanism" that links these two things. The relationship between these things is direct, it is fundamentally mysterious. It simply is the case. The same is essentially true for physical mechanism, it just requires a close enough inspection. The illusion of causal mechanisms as a fundamentally driving force is so persistent because it appears to be the case on the surface. If you want to grasp this, you have to identify the Causeless Cause, or Groundless Ground in your own experience. Once you grasp it, you will realize that all of reality is fundamentally impossible. There cannot be an explanation to it, in a fundamental sense. The fact that explanations are possible is merely one additional impossibility.

Honestly, you are so far off the mark and so focused on smart-assery that it's impossible to have this conversation with you, I am sorry.

This is pedantic. Evolution does prioritize survival over truth in the short term, in the sense I was speaking about. If everyone got enlightened today, civilization would instantly collapse, all enlightened people would die and a new generation of humans would replace them achieving greater levels of complexity. It could take a million years until that civilization would reach that level of enlightenment, but once it did, it would be stable. It would not cause the destruction of the system. To maintain the states we are speaking about requires an extremely robust and intelligent system which can sustain such a state. This requires evolution.

I don't understand why I have to explain everything to you as if you were a newborn alien visiting this reality for this first time. If winters occurs, it doesn't magically make jackets appear. The jackets appear because people don't like to be cold. There is no actual relationship between these two things. With something like an atom, when we move the atom, it will always cause the other atom to move in that circumstance, because there actually is a metaphysical relationship between these two parts of reality. Without such relationships, reality couldn't exist. I think it is more useful to frame it as a causal relationship for the reasons I already described. Manipulation of reality is inherently understood through motion, and the brain is nothing but looking at that part of reality through the lense of motion. Because the "true" relationships between things are necessarily hidden to us, it makes more sense to view the relationships themselves as the things that exist, as viewed from a certain perspective. Then, it just becomes a game of which perspective is most functional. As I stated, reality is inherently mysterious. This means, any causal mechanism, if inspected closely enough, will not have any cause at all, it simply will be. All that exists is the relationship itself, it is instantiated directly through the Causeless Cause/Free Will/Divinity. I said it is either lazy or lacks the ability to engage. I don't see you making a genuine attempt at trying to understand what I am saying, it seems more like you attempt to frame everything I say through frameworks that are already familiar to you.

If we have two atoms, and I move one atom, and the other follows suit, there is a relationship between these atoms, not merely a correlation. It doesn't just appear that they are related, they actually are related. In the example of people wearing jackets in winter, there is no relation. Meaning, winter can exist without people wearing jackets. However, in the case of atoms, we always have this relationship, because there is actually a relationship between these two things, not merely a dynamic that makes it appear as if there was a link between these things. There can be a relationship between things, one influencing the other, without it "causing" the other thing. In relationship to the two atoms, it wouldn't make sense to say one atom causes the other atom to move. What causes the other atom to move is the relationship between the atoms. The way you engage with me is either lazy or lacks the ability to actually engage, so I will cease communicating on these points with you now, because I don't see any point to continue this like that. I have observed this with you in past conversations we had, so it is not like it's the first time we are having this communication failure.

I think most followers find this appealling.

The function of this interview is to change american public opinion in favor of disbanding aid for ukraine, and it's obvious this is the case. The timing of the interview and the fact that it happened in the first place is the best indication of this. And of course, the right wing of the US is gullible enough to eat all of the nonsense Putin has been spewing up because it fits their narrative.

I never said this. Dave is not a scientist. I don't disagree with this in a strict sense. But it's wishful thinking. I don't disagree with this. IF x was the case, then y. But X is not the case. Also this is a myopic view. Democracy relies on an informed public. Opinions matter, sense of reality and ethics matter. And most importantly, you are assuming people are reasonable, which is not the case. One of the problems is that reasonable people do not stake out positions confidently, which is actually necessary in a democracy. This is why people like Dave are necessary given the current environment. You are talking about some higher level scientific aims, but Dave is trying to ensure that society doesn't fall for BS like flat-earth or evolution denialism. That's his function. It is limited, but it is there.

I never said people have to be dogmatic about everything. Dave is close-minded against science denialism. It's like a white blood cell that will attack anything that calls into question science in a fundamental way. It's just an immunesystem response. This standard would lead to a complete degradation of the informational landscape, simply because the more ignorant you are, the more likely you will be to assert things with confidence. A flat-earther who will have this absurd theory and assert it with confidence will convince more people than a humble scientist who will, in humility, attempt to showcase why that person is wrong. You cannot stay agnostic about things any longer because the informational landscape is a competitive, evolutionary landscape. This is the very reason why climate denialism has been a thing for so long. It's simply because the other side confidently asserts that they are correct. I am not a fan of magical thinking. You won't get intellectually honest people and epistemically humble people fighting these types of informational cancers. They wouldn't stand a chance against the overconfident assertions of the delusional sophists that are currently convincing the masses of complete parallel realities. Of course, if there was a magic wand and we could make everyone perfectly rational and informed and mature, then I would wield that wand. But that's not how this world works. You can't just replace your immune system with magical nanobots that will somehow be able to detect intelligently what will harm you and what will not. In the same manner, Dave and his popularity are a product of this system. Humble people are not popular. Leo is the best example. Most people find him convincing because he asserts his positions with a complete lack of humility and an almost inhuman arrogance. That's incredibly appealling. There are plenty humble scientists around, none of them will ever achieve the kind of popularity necessary to fight the rampant dimwittery that is going around today.

You guys are totally missing the deeper dynamic here. Dave is a consequence of the current informational landscape, in that sense he is a actually a necessary and important consequence of this system. The dynamic is fairly simple: It is takes less energy to create false information than it takes to falsify false information. Due to the nature of the current informational landscape, in which information is freely distributed and accessible by everyone, there is only one result that can follow from this. Most of the population are laymen in regards to all scientific realms, and therefore it is not possible for them to distinguish between authentic information and false information. This is necessarily so because no single individual could possibly understand all scientific realms. Faith and trust in the institutions is therefore an essential part of the survival of civilization in regards to maintaining a coherent informational landscape. The truth is, most people who believe in scientific facts do not do so because of understanding. The only reason they believe it is because it is A) the first understanding of reality they have been confronted with (in schools: Evolution, Biology, Physics) and B) that understanding giving them a coherent and functional way to understand reality. Because scientific knowledge in most regards is not practical for 99% of the population, they have no ability to truly verify the truth of any given piece of information or even informational model they receive. This means the only thing that could possibly maintain a coherent informational landscape is blind faith and trust in scientific institutions. This does not only extend to laymen, but also to scientists, because they run into the same problem given the vast amount of information that would need to be processed to truly verify all information within the given landscape. The idea that we can make science conscious is a failure of understanding this problem. This isn't a problem that can be addressed simply by changing how science functions. The reality is, people like Dave, mildly informed dogmatists, are an essential part of maintaining the societies informational hygiene. The way science functions as an organism is by balancing structure against degrees of freedom. A degree of freedom, in any evolutionary system, is necessary to claim new information and to advance the structure itself, but too much degree of freedom leads to a dissolution of the structure itself, and therefore a collapse of the entire system. Due to the organic nature of these systems, we can even use the immune system as a metaphor. There is a simple reason why any immune system remains open such as to allow a degree of viral and bacterial agents to infect it. It must do so, otherwise it would become so strict in it's enforcement that it would attack it's own structure. On the other hand, it must be strict enough so as to capture any potentially harmful agent. This means, sometimes it will overreact and attack agents which could in fact be even beneficial. A system cannot be absolutely free, because it will undermine the structures necessary for the expression of freedom. Now, this simple evolutionary dynamic is inherent to all systems which exist, including science. Science is not merely a method, it is a living organism, with living informational memory. It is an organ of the collective organism of mankind. If you are wise enough, you will thank the Divine itself for the existence of people like Dave, who are nothing but a part of the immune system of this current informational age. Evolution has patience. It will always prioritize survival over truth, because in the long term, to reach higher levels of complexities requires survival. If this means sacrificing some potentially novel pathways towards new types of truth, then so be it. We live in a time in which our entire informational landscape is fundamentally threatened by the new informational dynamics that have formed over the past decade. And you should realize by the inevitably of this dynamic how serious of a threat this is. This goes beyond education, beyond people being ignorant. You cannot fix this with mere education. The reality is, most people believe in the things they do because of peer pressure and faith. What will happen now is a new age of dogmatism, a new age of constriction, as a reaction to the degrees of freedom which have destabilized the very survival of this system. For the very same reason why religions existed in the past, they will now form once more. The reason why arrogance is emphasized in this system is because blind confidence is what the population tends to be most attracted to. In a system in which there is no authority, arrogance itself becomes a signal for authority. It also allows you to dismiss information which otherwise would take time to falsify, and due to the dynamic I described, that would be a task doomed to failure.

Existence is absurd.