Carl-Richard

? Now I'm curious

That is overdose territory. You won't have to worry about that ?

They're pretty fresh ?

Have the people at the Asking Anything youtube channel reached out to you for an AMA? I saw they have a section for you in their Discord, and they've had people like Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup on there. https://youtube.com/c/AskingAnything

It would be nice if we were that transparent to ourself

That depends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_microbiota

If you take a huge bunch of just one type of bacteria, they'll sometimes outcompete other types of beneficial bacteria. It's a bit like introducing an invasive species to an ecosystem.

I've never listened to it seriously before, just as a meme. I listen to music for the cool sounds ?

?

What about something a bit more practical?

I started oral antibiotics yesterday as I've had a bacterial infection in my scalp that worsened while being in a warmer country. I could certainly feel it impacting my energy levels the first day taking them. It's such a shame, because I've recently become more aware of the importance of the microbiome for things like cognition and well-being, and I'm probably giving myself a really bad case of nocebo ?

Music was my daily meditation before I knew what meditation was.

The judgement that "it seems like it does" if it passes the Turing test assumes that language is a sufficient measurement for when we can no longer tell the difference. That is what the Turing test is about: linguistic outputs. My neighbor does a lot more things than simply producing linguistic outputs on a computer screen. Turing-proof AI and my neighbor are very different; worlds apart. Maybe an AI will become just like my neighbor one day (metabolism and everything), but as things currently stand, we're far away from that.

You're assuming that there is such a thing as personality types and projecting it onto the model. Big 5 is a dispositional trait model, not a type model. It doesn't deal with strong either/or dichotomies. You're simply given a score on a few universal traits, meaning that if your score on agreeableness is 50%, then that is everything you need to know.

That's a big "if", and that was not what was meant by probability in this case (plausible/reasonable is a better word). In the scenario that was given, you can never know what actually happened. Given that constraint, which one is the most plausible explanation? I think you actually value finding out the most plausible explanation, so you can't say it doesn't matter at all. You can only say it doesn't matter as much as actually knowing the answer.

Why do I feel so hit? ? Btw, since you know stuff, do you know about any cyclical theories of the history of philosophy or world history? I heard the philosopher guy who talked to Destiny recently mentioning his "theory" in passing ("there are three main positions in philosophy: supernaturalism, naturalism and postmodernism, and when one gets too dominant, the other two team up to attack that one, and so the cycle continues"), and it peaked my interest.

Let's say somebody stole the car in your garage. Which one is the most probable explanation?: 1. A man broke a window to your garage, climbed in, opened the garage door, broke a car window, jump-started your car and drove away. 2. An alien from another dimension landed in your backyard with their spaceship, broke a window to your garage, climbed in, opened the garage door, broke a car window, jump-started your car and drove away. Is there no value in caring about how you arrive at the most probable answer?

That is inevitable, but some people get particularly stuck on one of them and it infects their mind for a bit. It's naivety rather than stupidity, because in a sense, it's the right conclusion for that person to make at that moment time. It's the most seductive option when you first come across that mode of thinking; the perfect mixture of simplicity and efficiency, the path of least resistance. Nuance comes with experience and practice. Thanks!

I'm just trying to tell you that doubting everything that is not 100% certain only gets you so far. Again, it's all based on logical inferences, which are limited and potentially fallible means to knowledge. You're looking for 100% certainty, so nothing I say will satisfy you.

You can doubt that your car is in the garage, or that there is more Earth over the horizon, or that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that doesn't mean your doubt is 100% true. A dog is more similar to a human than a computer. Even a single-celled organism is. You can argue that life is what inner experience looks like. But sure, if you don't care about analytically sound inferences, none of this matters.

Lol. In the experiment, understanding is just a metaphor for intentionality (private inner experience), and I doubt that you would dismiss the existence of that, because you would either have to deny that you have private thoughts or claim that you can read other people's thoughts The free will debate is a semantic shitshow lol

It's an inference. No. That's why it's an inference. You're very similar to me (a functional human being), and I understand English, so it's a very safe inference that you also understand it. A computer is not similar to me, and the Chinese experiment demonstrates that if you tried to roleplay as a computer, you don't need to understand Chinese in order to produce Chinese speech. Man, I can't wait to write my new idea for a topic now. It deals with what you're engaging in right now (and many others).

You've probably had one of those moments before a school presentation where you copied a page from wikipedia the last second and had to read it out pretending like you understood anything of it. If you successfully managed to pull it off (which is unrealistic, but for the sake of the argument), that would be one such case of behaving intelligently without having 1st person understanding. Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, because you had the 1st person understanding of feigning understanding, of understanding maybe some of the words but not how they fit together. It's possible that you might've missed some details about the experiment. You need focus on the fact that the person in the room is being fed the Chinese letters one letter at the time, and that the person doesn't even know what each letter means, as the instructions for sorting them into sentences are in English. So there is no understanding of Chinese required at all.

@Mason Riggle You're certainly capable of learning and understanding Chinese, and since your friend is a human like you, it's a safe inference that he understands Chinese. The argument is that when your friend speaks Chinese, he is not merely following a program of algorithmically sorting inputs and producing outputs. However, that is what the computer is doing, and the experiment shows that when you let a person roleplay as a computer who simply runs a program (follows a set of instructions while being fed one Chinese letter at the time), the person is able to simulate intelligence (speaking Chinese) without having a 1st person understanding of it.