Carl-Richard

I could agree. I really disliked how he handled the interview with the history professor. I was really angry with him after that. But Destiny opting for "MrGirl is actually the biggest manipulator and narcissist I've ever come across" just seems a little too convenient.

Somehow I do ?

Crack?

As is Destiny, to be fair

If you see something but your camera doesn't pick it up, or your wife, husband, dog or neighbor doesn't pick it up, it's what we refer to as "not real".

Anyways, that would be very stupid, because if you don't trust that the teacher is giving you 100% of what they think to be true, you'll firstly not be willing to listen to this person, and secondly, you'll be in a constant state of paranoia, second-guessing and overthinking. You only have so much processing power to devote to listening and trying to figure out if it all makes sense, and if you're on top of that going to check for cues of deception and overanalyzing every word, you won't pick up anything at all. The way you learn is that you trust the person to teach you what they know, and then you decide for yourself as you're absorbing the information whether it makes sense or not. I had this experience last week where one of my teachers, who I'm very convinced scores high on narcissism, was asked a question during a lecture, and I felt very strongly that she feigned an answer out of fear that we'll think she doesn't know her stuff (she gave a shady dismissal of a hypothetical situation proposed by the student and whether it qualifies for a PTSD diagnosis). That made me go through that whole ordeal I described above. I just wanted to leave the lecture at that moment, but then I just said fuck it, I'll sit through it.

Having problems telling the difference between fantasy and reality.

I don't think anybody will.

@kylan11 @thisintegrated would like to have a word with you

What do you do for fun? Do you meditate?

Finding the lack of ability to turn yourself into an alien would be even less crazy.

The premise is ok. The lack of evidence and hype-chasing like the video above, not so much.

There are two main assumptions here: 1. the idea that the human experience is reducible to the brain, and 2. the idea that the brain is reducible to neuronal connections. 1. Is the human experience really the result of the brain, or is it the result of the process of becoming human; of being born, growing up and being exposed to various impressions? We haven't produced brains in vats yet. In all cases where we observe functional human behavior, we have humans who grew up inside a body, inside a healthy environment. 2. The brain consists of more structures than neurons (glial cells, neurotransmitters etc.). Why should the relevant processing stop at the level of neuronal connections? What about the configuration of the neuron itself, or the interneuronal structures, or the neurochemicals? The neuron is not an island. It's a part of an interconnected whole. The view I subscribe to says that the best inferences we have currently is that biology is what thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions 'look like' from an outside perspective. The experience of abstract thinking does not make sense outside of an organism that is also capable of emotions, perceptions and lower behavioral operations. The higher levels have the lower levels nested inside of them, and you can't reverse engineer any one of them in a reductionistic way. You have to engineer the whole thing. So what conscious AI looks like is what abiogenesis looks like.

Let go of everything or keep suffering. I didn't do that, and I'm still suffering

This is starting to remind me of the discord spirituality cult I was in 5 years ago. If you see something that doesn't show up on a normal camera, what is the obvious explanation there?

That's because you're a psycho- I mean non-duality connoisseur But yeah, colors obviously affect your mood. To say otherwise is contrarian bs. There is I reason why my profile pic is an inverted version of the original.

I'm proposing that is what people mean when they ask whether AI is conscious or not. If you choose to place consciousness as the ontological base of reality (and rocks and plants are equally as conscious as humans and dogs), good for you, but nobody cares What the AI consciousness debate is really about is whether they have a 1st person experience of things that we're experiencing from the outside and tend to associate with a certain human 1st person experience (e.g. human speech with thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions). The debate only seriously occurs once the machine starts displaying convincing human characteristics, as it did with LaMDA and its convincing human speech (which is not really speech, but rather letters on a display).

Are people generally happier on a rainy day or a sunny day?

Which picture makes you feel the most happy?

Do you not even have a general idea of what being funny entails?

Let's say rocks are conscious. Do rocks have thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions?

Metabolism.

Sleeping meditation is also a thing