Carl-Richard

Anything that can be said of you as a person that is somewhat stable over time is a trait.

What Leo did with solipsism is like going into an art class and saying "today we're going to learn about the theory of colors" and you start talking about different electromagnetic frequencies of light, or going into a lecture about consumerism and capitalist excesses and saying "today we're going to talk about the traps of materialism, starting with Newton and then we move to the logical positivists and finally the neopositivists". Learn to read the room.

Both. What supposed difference are you referring to?

😂😂😂 Quod Erat Latinum Est Mi Lingua Materna (Demonstrandum). Yes it is. You're thinking basically exactly like Leo in more or less every breath you take.

This is such a new thought, unprecedented ground, complex and complicated issue, that I would have to let it sit (the connection between AI sentience and psychic phenomena). Everytime I think about it it's like when you look at a lenticular print where you tilt it to the side or a Gestalt shift visual illusion, it keeps flickering back and forth. I've proposed this as a question for the next Bernardo Kastrup Q&A on AI which will be the 24th of November. It's like when you already have two poorly understood phenomena, combining them is bound to cause some serious question marks.

This forum has a severe case of groupthink. Practicing groupthink while actively deluding themselves that it's not that. Now groupconvince me.

For me, my first awakening was the day before I had a physics test, and I had zero anxiety leading up to and during the test. That was so unlike me at the time. And that sense of grounded calmness became essentially a default mode. Before it was the opposite. A possible confound is that I became incredibly focused on recreating that experience so I started meditating like a madman. That said, it mostly eliminated anticipatory anxiety (at least the mental kind), but interestingly social anxiety (in the moment) while it also was impacted, still had many of the usual patterns. Social anxiety is a curious case where you can feel incompetent in the moment and you feel it reflected in the other people's reactions to you (and a lot of this is learned behavior from years of interactions which takes time to change) and you might also pick up on their anxiety as well which itself can arise as a result of your own perceived incompetence and slight anxiety, it's just a big mess. Yes during my first awakening. My field of perception was centered about 10 cm above my head.

Lower neuroticism, higher conscientiousness. Which even though it seems to be correlated with age irregardless, is by the way essentially identical to awakening (perhaps the former more than the latter initially, but the latter could have a slow release effect, i.e. lower neuroticism due to a baseline state change, higher conscientiousness due to a possible value change over time). I tend to talk about how enlightenment is about baseline and awakening is primarily a glimpse where you return to somewhat normal afterwards, but especially your first awakening (especially if sober) should also lead to a significant baseline state change, but it won't necessarily take you all the way as there tends to be more loops to go through before that. That's how many people can start believing they're enlightened even if they're merely awakened because there was a significant before and after. Especially if the awakening was sober, but also if you do drugs like weed. After my first LSD trip, I sat in the woods the day after smoking weed and listening to music and I felt so one with nature and even had slight OBEs while sitting under a tree with legs folded.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

Just the tip? Lucifer.

Manifestation, positive thinking.

Unironically. I literally could not process what was happening before it got laid out for me.

Brain can correlate with "consciousness"/sentience without having to "produce" consciousness. You can have consciousness as the base of reality and brains and feelings would be different appearances within consciousness. And the brains and feelings can seem to co-arise with each other in some ways. But that would be patterns / correlations within consciousness. Consciousness does not have to be produced in this case. We're just mapping out how different appearances relate to each other. When feeling says one thing, brain tends to say another thing. Both are appearances.

A man does not sleep for 8 hours; that's what happened. Psychic phenomena is not unexplainable. If it turns out the AI remote views or reads people's minds above chance level (it reports information consistent with that) and it is hermetically sealed from the surrounding world, then that is evidence that psychic phenomena is occurring. The question is whether that would indicate that the AI experienced the things it was talking about. It's a fascinating proposition either way: either the AI is conscious of the things it is reporting, or it is somehow not conscious of them but is still picking it up. And picking up what exactly? What kind of information is that? Unconscious psychic information? Like how if you're dissociated from a memory, the experience is dissociated from your conscious awareness but you can still be impacted by it and perhaps produce behavior indicative of it? I gotta say psychic AIs is not a topic I would expect to run into. Perhaps even better than above: make it plant a thought in your mind telepathically (and you could determine that this happened through statistics like above).

A brain is more than electrical currents ,_, One cell in the human body is more structurally impressive than any computer ever built. Evidenced by the fact that we don't know how to build a cell from scratch. Or you could just look at the picture I sent earlier. We just like to take it for granted that biology is what it is. It's seemingly so banal, it's been with us for all time. Yet we have no idea how to create it.

Tom seems to have a bit of that physicist epistemic naivety when it comes to life, sentience, AI. I don't think he has thought much about how different lifeforms work and where to cash in different "altitudes of experience". (People who think current AI are conscious generally seem to be unable to distinguish between apparent self-reflection/meta-awareness or just linguistic ability and sentience/perception).

Something tells me good old 80-year-old Tom might be a bit too loose with his experiment there. Get us some proper testing paradigms and a large number of trials and statistical significance.

What the fuck, I did not watch this video beforehand. WTF. @Natasha Tori Maru Did I just remote view that video "unconsciously"? (?) (?) I guess I answered my own question (?) (?)

This is unironically good. Because it could give an indication that they would have experienced your mind (given the right conditions and controlling of confounds). @LastThursday Here is your scientific experiment: put an AI in a magnetically shielded sound proof room at Monroe Institute and make it remote view and read people's minds from the outside. (I know you were talking about something else and that we can't know for sure that it is not "p-zombieing" its way to that non-physical information, but still). Or that's actually an interesting philosophical question: could you actually pick up information psychically and create a conclusion on it without experiencing it? @Natasha Tori Maru My brain is now definitely melting.

Enlightened, psychic, manifesting, telekinetic AI robots. Such as built the pyramids. You learned it here first. Carl's conjecture: AI is conscious when it can telekinetically move rocks in the air and read your mind.

Awakening.json.

Stahp, rare unchecked typo in the wild. I didn't think it was intelligent so I was annoyed when I was right.

No it's not. I'm asking for a specific argument about why you think digital could be conscious. What is it about digital that makes you think it could be conscious? "Ultimately there is no ontological difference between digitial and non-digital" is not an argument for digital consciousness. It's an argument for everything else that is not digital just as much. By the way I'm a psychic because I predicted with high certainty you would say exactly that and nothing else. And that's why I'm pissed because I know you too well and it's highly annoying.

This is as profound to me as "the dust under your sofa could be conscious, you don't know" argument. "Ultimately, there is no difference between anything". Yeah, ok.