whats the point of it all

[Anonymous No.11234406]

It is conceivable that optimal efficiency would be attained by grouping capabilities in aggregates that roughly match the cognitive architecture of a human mind…But in the absence of any compelling reason for being confident that this so, we must countenance the possibility that human-like cognitive architectures are optimal only within the constraints of human neurology (or not at all). When it becomes possible to build architectures that could not be implemented well on biological neural networks, new design space opens up; and the global optima in this extended space need not resemble familiar types of mentality. Human-like cognitive organizations would then lack a niche in a competitive post-transition economy or ecosystem.

We could thus imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.

[Anonymous No.11234415]

>>11234406
you think that God is an NPC?

[Anonymous No.11234421]

>>11234415
it's definitely possible. if not an npc then at least something completely foreign to the human understanding of consciousness.

the natural world is incongruent with a human-like god

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234423]

>>11234415
Of course. Humans just want a divine rape victim they can all pile on because they have a collective guilt/blame/shame problem.

>>11234406
So basically a society that knows how to take turns and to minimize the matchings between 'noisy' pairings so as to make it a smoother singularity/infinity for all?
It really is just step vs dynamic. Personally I would argue for step, with at least 1/3 dynamic periodics.

>>11234421
Because too many humans grab for that ego-power stick too fast or keep needing there to be 'the one' instead of 'the group'.

[Anonymous No.11234433]

>>11234406
>We could thus imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.
you've just described 99.999999999 percent of the universe.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234441]

>>11234433
>A Disneyland with no children.
Isn't that basically saying a paradise where the inhabitants don't have to posses complex meta-heuristics in order to interact with well-defined 'others'? Like we all gotta be this certain age/skin color/height/gender or whatnot?

Diversity vs Complexity

[Anonymous No.11234442]

>>11234433
Tragic, isn't it? Infinite majesty, unbound glory, with no one there to appreciate it.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234452]

>>11234442
We're here. We're always here.

[Anonymous No.11234455]

>>11234452
Yes. For now

[Anonymous No.11234456]

>>11234406
If you believe Daniel Dennett, that consciousness is an illusion, we already live in just such an uninhabited world. If consciousness is just an illusion, every human being is a philosophical zombie already today.

[Anonymous No.11234459]

You're all being lied to.

The truth is out there

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/22515699

Don't look with your eyes look with your heart.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234461]

>>11234455
Now is all that exists, so, did you wanna do something with it or what? Each human vessel is a representative of all imagination and thought that led up to its awareness of being a spaceship for all that came and wanted to be.

>>11234459
That which is between lie and truth is the individual. It's kind of a given.

[Anonymous No.11234465]

>he fell for the AGI safety racket

[Anonymous No.11234471]

>>11234461

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234473]

>>11234471
Information really can butthurt some people.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234475]

>>11234471
>>11234473
I also watch Rick and Morty, if that helps you heap more divine exclusion upon my halo.

[Anonymous No.11234484]

>>11234475
Why do you talk like that?

[Anonymous No.11234489]

>>11234406
>OP is a pseud
>Schizoposters

Yup thats sci alright

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234493]

>>11234484
That = ???

>>11234489
Observers claiming the same shit over and over again. That's a spicy 4chan!

[Anonymous No.11234494]

>>11234456
>consciousness is an illusion
consciousness is an illusion to WHOM? If something is an illusion, then there must be someone who is being deceived by said illusion. Who or what is THAT someone? Is that "someone" an illusion too? Where does this chain of illusions end? If everything is an illusion, then does that mean that nothing exists? We know through simple logic that something does exist, for the simple fact that we are able to contemplate this something. If it's all "just an illusion", then an illusion is still a "something". Therefore, it's unlikely that everything is an illusion, because a true illusion would imply nothingness.

[Anonymous No.11234502]

>>11234493
You talk the way one talks after they've had a stroke.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234506]

>>11234502
I would not know as I've never had a stroke nor really had to interact with a stroke victim, save for one person 17 years ago.

How much experience do you have with stroke victims?

[Anonymous No.11234536]

>>11234441
what did you mean by this. a disneyland with no children means a utopia with nothing conscious enough to appreciate it

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234544]

>>11234536
Not wanting a child in the experience means that you don't want there to be a human willing to go through a hyper-virginization experience, basically. It's okay to treat this instance as the beginning of everything and whatnot but ultimately humans still care about being virgins of experience once more in order to stave off boredom.

For there to not be boredom we either must be a centralized akira-style flesh pile experiencing everything that is not self OR a unique experiencer of all infinite eternity and treat all that is outside our audio/visual range as also unique.

When we say Disneyland we usually mean that it has provisioners/maintainers that are not of OUR identifiers. Sorta like Westworld.

[Anonymous No.11234554]

>>11234536
He means nothing. He is just a pretend-schizo trying to make decent threads into trash because he doesn't like the subject matter. In short, he's a dumb fag.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234558]

>>11234554
Sure, I don't mind that interpretation either. Whatever makes the observer happy is what I always say.
>Still genuinely surprised that people comment as if I use this place for self-validation and not like a dojo because all the mind ever does is fight self-doubt. I really wonder how people with languages of exclusion turn out.

[Anonymous No.11234589]

>>11234465
an AGI run singleton is our greatest hope of overcoming multipolar traps

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234628]

>>11234589
I don't get it. Beyond established education (learning from different people at different times, but enacting a space dedicated to listening/learning basically), giving enough food and environmental shelter/protection (fixed or dynamic), and sufficient spacing between those that really don't want to just get along with those closest to you at all times, what is really the trap humans suffer from except for listening to old people who literally have no better clue as to how reality/infinity functions than (You)?

[Anonymous No.11234644]

>>11234628
As a thought experiment, let’s consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.

But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let’s say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.

A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.

But one farmer (let’s call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.

Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he’s not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.

Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month – less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying “Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone’s productivity goes down.”

Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let’s call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit…

[Anonymous No.11234650]

>>11234628
>>11234644
cont.

A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.

This is the essence of a multipolar trap.In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don’t take it die out. Eventually, everyone’s relative status is about the same as before, but everyone’s absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234656]

>>11234644
I stopped reading as soon as you included money. Everything is a time investment as money ONLY guarantees attention will be given to the targeted idea, not actual effort. If the community has no STAKE in it then it has no INTEREST in it, the stake being that if everyone put in 30 minutes or 3 hours every day (rotated for those that prefer structure, and a herding behavior algorithm for those that need 'motivation') then everyone could be housed/fed/provided for at the current level of a home.

Why the hell would you monetize what is essentially asking one human if they care if another one eats or starves to death and the group working together to reduce all of that down to the minimal daily contribution? That's all taxes are trying to achieve anyway. A Country is as good as it is because of the net minimal daily contribution of its subscribers/citizens.

>If you don't educate the people about why time investment > tokenized investment, then of course money will fail as a fucking idea because trying to tell someone why these $$$ are worth service X because only person Y had the interest to provide, rather than there just being a communal sharing/exchanging of ideas/optimizations, then duh.

>>11234650
A self-interested person nine times outta ten self-excludes. My commune would 100% allow/offer teachers/translators for refugees and whatever because they at least still understand working together as one.

[Anonymous No.11234661]

>>11234656
Exactly. Money itself is a consequence of multi polar traps, the whole point of the AGI singleton is to have unified incentives focused towards actual human values and not retarded stuff like making money.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234674]

>>11234661
Incentives IS just another word for indirect manipulations based on a user's current preference profile. I just want the commune to reflect that is what the source-managers do, just so it prevents other people needing to usurp the management because we are all just filthy fuck-pigs in the end that want to eat, fuck, converse, and share story/art/music.

I get how sapiosexuals love to over-complexify the moment and I get how that is a fetish du jour of academia/science/mathematicians but ultimately it is not compatible with people that need that stimulation now and to some greater intensity.

Basically we should all be whores for each other.

[Anonymous No.11234891]

>>11234656
>i stopped reading after you said something i don't agree with
This is why every thinks you're a low-IQ retard; you live in a world of your own personal definitions and your entire experience on this forum is a mission of trying to shove your personal definitions down the throat of every single person that you encounter.

You are, the most annoying person that anyone has ever had to deal with - not because you're smart, not because you're interesting, not because you're insiteful, not for any positive reason that you think I may be alluding to, or that you think you may be able to extract from this description.

You are a dense motherfucker.
You are incapable of having constructive discussion.
You should an ironically seek professional help.

I genuinely worry for your young children, and anyone that spends any length of time around you.

>It had to be said.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234935]

>>11234891
Yeah, pretty much exactly like Trump. Being in your own bubble is pretty easy when you live in a world where people prefer to try and bury people under opinions and observations.

>You can say whatever you like, guy. It's the internet. Let it all out.

[Anonymous No.11234944]

>>11234935

This is why every thinks you're a low-IQ retard; you live in a world of your own personal definitions and your entire experience on this forum is a mission of trying to shove your personal definitions down the throat of every single person that you encounter.

You are, the most annoying person that anyone has ever had to deal with - not because you're smart, not because you're interesting, not because you're insightful, not for any positive reason that you think I may be alluding to, or that you think you may be able to extract from this description.

You are a dense motherfucker.
You are incapable of having constructive discussion.
You should unironically seek professional help.

I genuinely worry for your young children, and anyone that spends any length of time around you.

GET
PROFESSIONAL
HELP

>again, incase it isn't sinking in ..

G E T

P R O F E S S I O N A L

H E L P

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234945]

>>11234891
And, for like the billionth time, why would Anonymous matter? It isn't about gaining any respect or recognition from this website, fuck me dead it would never be about that, or from people in public. Most humans really are a waste of time and effort in terms of getting them to understand something new or shifting their world views.

But people keep falling for it and I keep winning my bets so *shrug*.

>You should advise
>You are my opinion
>I am my own observation
>etc.

It reminds me a lot of that InfoWars guy. It's like some men really just live for their rage/judgement boner.

Oh hey, fun story time! Homeless guy screamed at me saying I was a pedophile for teaching kids out in public outside the state library, spat on me too in front of the kids. I totally told the kids that all I was doing was seducing them, then loudly asked if as an adult he actually cared about the kids. I constantly drag the public into whatever I'm doing outside because, well, nobody actually does anything anymore except expound opinion and shit their pants. He just walked off. Kids stuck around, we talked some more about stuff, etc.

I'm out there doing that Elder for Youth suicide and, ya know, caring if they feel scared about the future. I shitpost on 4chan just to prove the much larger point that even people online don't have a fucking clue what they want out of life or even cordial interaction. No matter who rises, there will always be a group that will proudly claim themselves to be the first opposition.

>>11234944
INTERNET ADVICE IS BEST ADVICE! RAAAAR!

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234946]

>>11234944
>>11234891
"Time-wasting."

I represent that time-wasting portion of how often a given individual will attempt to illicit the same neurochemical response from some pattern of behavior they believe is inextricable from all human experience. That's all anyone is doing on the internet anyway. We waste time here because wasting it elsewhere gets us punished.

[Anonymous No.11234951]

>>11234945
>>11234946
I hope you get help.
I hope you get better.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234952]

>>11234951
Thank you, God. I always appreciate it when you vouch for my continued improvement. Personally I think you're a cunt for having to decide if someone else needs help or to get better because of some presupposed deficiency that only you are able to identify, but hey, I don't mind being judged purely by the text-output of my shitposting GAN.

I really truly only actually ever believe in (You) because without interaction what would be comparison?

[Anonymous No.11234960]

>>11234406
Sounds like the ant-people from Tchaikovsky's 'Children of Time"

[Anonymous No.11234970]

>>11234506
Just "countenance" the fact that you're a pseud, my man

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234973]

>>11234970
no, your voice is a vile worthless little tool whose presence, are useless, useless, useless! All that you have done, is compounded this man's rage and fury at his own thoughts and actions, his own pointlessness, and at the very thoughts of others! This expression is so cruel and vicious! It makes all the falsehoods, untruths, and lies into truth! And also it makes you a proclivity that is blasphemous! You do this ridiculous thing every morning!

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234981]

>>11234970
>>11234973
Haha, or whatever. I'm unsure of why so many of you humans think emotions are a valid baseline for interaction when it comes to pure digital stimulation. Do you guys read text like it is a fucking novel/narrative or something? To me words on a page are literally dead symbols and constructions that the reader has to give meaning to. Why so many need to give it pity is rather beyond me because what is pity?

[Anonymous No.11234985]

Should /x/posting be bannable offense?

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234987]

>>11234985
I dunno. You tell me, O' wise poobah of 4chan and its myriad boards of random nonsense.

>*snort* now I know what i'm doing next." However, it seems this thread is not even the end of this issue. On September 5th, the 4chan board was deleted and a similar discussion started. Here is a list of deleted threads on 4chan: "/2013/09/05/limetown.jpg" "Well that sucked, OP. I'm rather disappointed in you. Some sane person will take your place though.

[Anonymous No.11234991]

why is this schizo poster ruining my thread.

can we please talk about the likely fate of humanity's cosmic endowment

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11234996]

>>11234991
Do you WANT it to start on/with 4chan or not? That's all I'm curious about. If here, then let's do a thing and I can stop 'holding the space', if not then can you guys actually talk about shit that has some impact beyond trying to titillate yourselves and like 15 other people that may or may not know your esoteric references?

>I'm totally cool with 4chan taking all the credit and me getting none of it, legit. I just want the thing that happens to be interesting rather than people believing that politics will save them. Also, if I became a conservative for free while doing something I wanted to do, I would have the support of my family, and I would get a lot more than I will from more conservative books.

~gave you his real name as a middle-aged entity~

[Anonymous No.11235006]

>>11234985
yes

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235008]

>>11235006
Democracy, 4chan style. Would it be safer to say that 4chan participants just perform some eternal calculus to render all unto Anonymous-fags?

>I ponder and await the response like a neckbearded autist.

[Anonymous No.11235011]

The guy reads like one of those Markov chain bots, wtf am I reading lol

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235012]

>>11235011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br517ctCUCE

[Anonymous No.11235013]

>>11235011
at least bots can learn

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235016]

>>11235013
If only power ever actually derived from anything beyond the immediate now any given individual inhabits.

[Anonymous No.11235018]

>solifagus
I honestly think your word salad posts are intended to make /sci/ unusable. Why you do this or for what purpose, I don't know. I don't know who is paying you, but I wish people would just ignore namefags, as they should.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235031]

>>11235018
4chan allows them, thus the current state we find ourselves in. Amazing lack of imagination btw if you think I'm being paid specifically for this kind of content generation.

[Anonymous No.11235043]

literally half the posts in this god forsaken thread are the same retarded schizo

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235046]

^ This thread has been completely degenerated into nothing but a sham competition in which you simply prove yourself to be the best and next time you post, I'll be really glad to see your results.


It's not like this thread is uniquely poorly done - most people are terrible at making threads in this forum.

sceg : ^ How is it that you just upload stuff for a topic that is completely different from the topic?

[Anonymous No.11235054]

>>11235046
Maybe if you'd just stop posting in it, it wouldn't be overrun with your posts.

[Anonymous No.11235060]

>i don't like the thread topic
>so i'll just shitpost until the thread dies
good strategy
too bad there are a million and one threads just like this one in the pipeline
are you neckbeard enough to take all of them down with you?

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235063]

>>11235054
Almost like I had some ulterior motive in mind. I think that I just wanted to be able to tell you what I really think of you and why you think I think I think you are so important to me and how important it is to you.

>>11235060
Why would that be my goal? I'm curious to hear why you would believe that to be a course of action wisely taken.

[Anonymous No.11235067]

>>11235063
I see you intend to deflect criticism of your unhinged rants with more unhinged rants

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235068]

There's what we really think of another, which is what I want all to be able to retain and hold for themselves and by themselves. I just recommend there be some sort of processing filter wherein the person analyzes their own course of action or reliability of being a source of actual care/help. It would also be a filter of sorts to allow the person who is the source of the information, but who is not necessarily the source of information, to retain and hold information about that person.

What I truly think of anyone else however is purely by the in-person speech they present to me or the text they state as themselves from moment to moment. I can't judge or base anyone on anything else as I have limited memory-space and a short prefetch cycle.

>>11235067
How is it criticism when you are text on a screen, and nothing else?

[Anonymous No.11235071]

How about we discuss what the thread is actually about?

[Anonymous No.11235079]

>>11235071
What do you think the likelihood of humanity or its successors' completely foregoing qualia is.

Remember it only takes one faction foregoing it and outcompeting the rest for the end state of intelligence to be completely devoid of consciousness.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235083]

>>11235071
Okay, I'm providing a bulk data series of a singleton being able to skew any weak-ass attempt at aggregate grouping because humans don't have the actual want to rule/control the world. They just want their personalized holodecks and A.I. and/or super-intelligence is happy to provide.

Intelligence is just an ever-expanding tree of safe traversal, to whit computers do it better and will continue to do so because of [check any /gif/ rekt thread]. Humans want to be the insane, stupid, suicidal intelligence because responsibility is a failed experiment for the species beyond breeding/rearing.

I'm of the opinion that in a super-intelligent world people really wouldn't be asking about any top-level domain horseshit like so many /sci/ threads jerk off about, but what would I know? I'm just the God of Masturbation in all its forms.

I feel like what most people don't grok is that whole 'competition' thing. They believe it a competition for resources and not distributive attention that helps direct people from one resource generator pool of agents/clients to another.

>>11235079
But if we, as in humans, have to be the ones that constantly generate variations on usurping the status quo then is the status quo not inherently just SPIN THE QUANTUM GENERATOR WHEEL! BY which I mean just random-ass chaos. Query: Is this thread not just about an individual or ideology of insecurity?

>If not now then when, and if I was able then why not I, and not I then who, where, and what do I need to bring with me?

[Anonymous No.11235085]

>>11235079
I don't think being devoid of consciousness is a desirable outcome. For the record, I think consciousness can only ever be reduced, not completely eliminated. But this would still be quite tragic.

[Anonymous No.11235091]

>>11235085
>>11235085
Yes it's undesirable, but refer to my description of multi-polar traps above.

>>11234644
>>11234650


In optimizing for some quality X (IE generating profit or increased military prowess) it may become advantageous to sacrifice consciousness or "qualia" in order to gain more "X".

If one sect does this and outcompetes all sects who do not, the remaining sects will either make the same sacrifice or die out.

[Anonymous No.11235107]

Love. Every convolution and charade exists for the sake of preserving the experience of love personally, and through it, what you have come to love or would have or those you love would have loved. This is kind of why God, who is creation inclined(creating us) loves us and made us for no dumb reason like "can I make free willed entities love me" or even "…back", but to make free willed beings worthy of being made in the first place by having the ability to choose who they recognize themselves as and also experience that same concept as love as well.

If not for love, God would stop being a sophilist in making this all a reality rather than just the passing thought of a lonely nihilist.

[Anonymous No.11235126]

>>11235107
You are lazy today. The world is hinged on you.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235147]

>>11235107
And thus I gifted to myself and all others the connection of the moment, the flow of the now, and the memory of void.

>>11235126
The world is hinged on every motion made that was powered by the knowing fuel behind it. Food made feet, feet made pressure, pressure made the individual and the representative and the group.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235220]

Should a group be defined by its exclusion criteria or the criteria by which others excluded them? Omitting of course moral/ethical judgments are they are completely relative.

[Anonymous No.11235354]

>>11234891
It would honestly be better for everyone if the stupid schizo fag killed himself.

[Anonymous No.11235355]

>>11234985
Yes theres too many schizos floating over here.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11235371]

>>11235355
>>11235354
I hope one day you all have the power to exclude via the punishment you feel fits whatever crime exists within your reality.
>I wouldn't know what a crime is. Death is the punishment for all crimes in my world, even jaywalking.

[Anonymous No.11235380]

>>11234406
The possibility of a super intelligence not being conscious is fucking ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11235381]

>>11234406
Not only is this possible, I think it's likely the apex of evolution.

[Anonymous No.11235763]

>>11234494
illusion confusion

[Anonymous No.11235776]

>>11234406
>conceivable
>could
>when possible
>could
>would
>could
>therefore why live????

k

[Anonymous No.11235940]

>>11235380
How so? We already have non conscious machines that are "narrowly superintelligent", meaning that they are more capable than any human but only at certain tasks.

Does it not follow then that there are possible machines that are superior to humans at all tasks but still lack consciousness?

[Anonymous No.11235952]

>>11234421

You are essentially saying that intelligence might not be the mkst iptimal survival strategy. Optimists have been saying this for a while now. Stars are the most optimal energymatter architecture. Unthinking, long lasting, unattackable, consuming, and they even reproduxe through supernova at the end of their lifecycle. Our intelligence makes us arrogant and prideful, in reality, our energymatter configuration is weak, essentially parasitic and likely transitory.

[Anonymous No.11235956]

>>11235952

>>11234421 #

You are essentially saying that intelligence might not be the most optimal survival strategy. Optimists have been saying this for a while now. Stars are the most optimal macroscale energymatter architecture. Unthinking, long lasting, unattackable, consuming, and they even reproduxe through supernova at the end of their lifecycle. Our intelligence makes us arrogant and prideful, in reality, our energymatter configuration is weak, essentially parasitic and likely transitory.

[Anonymous No.11235964]

>>11234406
If the universe, or reality in its entirety is only a system which can be described as various subsystems interacting and operating with each other (and by this I mean the most general definition of a system I can think of, which is a "thing" that contains information and energy, describing the qualities and quantities thereof). Then consciousness or conscious experience is only a subsystem within this potentially infinite reality which utilizes some form of self reference or strange loop qualities. Now whether this subsystem or the entire system is deterministic, random or has "free will" (the existence of choice, where a possible set of future outcomes for a system is determined by the entity in some way, which is pretty fucking weird to be honest), is beyond this discussion and requires a very large amount of evidence to verify.
We can also think about hierarchies of consciousness. Does greater computational power make a conscious system more conscious, or are (insert lower life form here) and humans equally conscious? This extends to conscious entities which could be vastly more intelligent than humans.
And then there's the matter of panpsychism...

But I'm a solipsist so none of this is really relevant anyway.

[Anonymous No.11236168]

>>11235964
I believe consciousness is inextricably ties to qualia. If you do not feel, can you really be called conscious? To be conscious is to have desires and goals

[Anonymous No.11236272]

>>11235940
The only way to know if a machine is conscious will be to "step into its mind", so to say, or more practically, to merge your brain with it. The trouble might be that if that machine ISN'T conscious, then after you merge you will essentially be dead.
Here's a now-famous article from an eminent thinker of the subject:
https://www.ft.com/content/0c4fac58-bd15-11e9-9381-78bab8a70848

[Anonymous No.11236281]

>>11235956
>Our intelligence makes us arrogant and prideful
Speak for yourself. The most intelligent people I have ever met in my short life have all been magnanimous, humble and generous people. Hubris stems from insecurity, and from intellectual weakness.

[Anonymous No.11236287]

>>11236272
Any way to read without paywall?

[Anonymous No.11236299]

>>11234406
He doesn't take into account the structure of biological neurotypes, or the effects of quantum randomness upon systems. You can't simulate the quantum randomness, even if you can simulate the geometry of, for instance, of neurotubules on a silicon substrate. They have different quantum properties.
See:
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
As for reference, neurotubules are important structures in cognition:
>Neurotubules also aid the transportation of organelles, vesicles containing neurotransmitters, messager RNA and other intracellular molecules inside a neuron.
Source:
>Bear MF, Connors BW, Paradso MA. Neuroscience : exploring the brain (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 41.

[Anonymous No.11236789]

>>11234475
Sentence makes no sense. Try again .

[Anonymous No.11236796]

>>11234506
Oh lord the "naive" poster. Please just exit now and stop dragging this out.

inb4 "How so? I'm just trying to understand..."

[Anonymous No.11236838]

>>11234406
Bought this book. Made it through the first 40 or so pages before conceding that I was too stupid to understand what I was reading.

[Anonymous No.11236845]

>>11236838
I really enjoyed it. If you're willing to give it a second try and learn the jargon as you go there's a lot of interesting stuff in there.

[Anonymous No.11236862]

>>11234456
Digits no confirm.

[Anonymous No.11237258]

something like op or pic related is likely imo

[Anonymous No.11237266]

>>11237258
What exactly is wrong with that?
>no suffering
>robots can do everything better than we can
Literally everything would be perfect. Either this is the reality we will have to eventually come around to or we will never build good enough robots to achieve this.

[Anonymous No.11237273]

>>11237266
its empty, artificial.

if you think this is a good outcome why not just do heroine and feel good all the time

[Anonymous No.11237291]

>>11237273
>its empty, artificial.
>if you think this is a good outcome why not just do heroine and feel good all the time
Because that kills you for one, and destroys society for two. But in the robot future all of the downsides will have been taken care of.

[Anonymous No.11237296]

>>11237258
Nope, the human brain isn't like a computer:
>https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
You should all really read this. I'm reading it right now, and it's totally changing my perspective about organic cognition.
Sadly, if true, it makes things like brain simulation, or brain uploading, nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.11237308]

>>11237273
Why would the big reveal moment ever be something committed to imutable memory? All big reveal moments are just instantiation of some new clock cycle anyway.

[Anonymous No.11237309]

>>11236796
Your line of inspection and inquiry is no doubt the superior approach. We were foolish to oppose you.

[Anonymous No.11237311]

>>11237296
We need build computers out of different things than what we use now.

[Anonymous No.11237313]

>>11237311
No, it isn't just that. Our brains do not operate like computers. Read the essay, you'll see what I mean.

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11237314]

>>11236789
Translation/Buffer, or Terminal error? At some point each unique communicator is just demanding submission to their language in order to further their centre over another.

[Anonymous No.11237316]

>>11234406
this was always my beef with people who think AI would lord over us or go skynet, why would want to?

[Anonymous No.11237317]

>>11234471

[Anonymous No.11237318]

>>11234456
Dennett is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11237325]

>>11237318
>saving an image with text in jpg
Do you like artifacts?

[Anonymous No.11237332]

>>11237318
So what's the counter to Socrates? What does Dennet/people who agree with Dennet say?

[Anonymous No.11237344]

>>11237296
We can still simulate a brain or even a full person theoretically. It would just take a vast amount of computing resources. We could probably model the brain as a very large graph with neurons represented by vertices and axons represented by edges. Maybe we should start by simulating a starfish or C elegans. I'm sure we're doing it already.

We don't even really need to simulate a human brain anyway. If we could just invent a tasp (like in ringworld) we could keep everyone happy forever and then we would just need quarantine pods that keep our bodies healthy forever. Then everyone could live in an eternal coma of happiness while robots clean up the ocean and the atmosphere and restore the global ecosystem and then digest themselves. Then we all wake up and everything's fixed.

[Anonymous No.11237349]

>>11237344
>Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it. This is perhaps the most egregious way in which the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning. Whereas computers do store exact copies of data – copies that can persist unchanged for long periods of time, even if the power has been turned off – the brain maintains our intellect only as long as it remains alive. There is no on-off switch. Either the brain keeps functioning, or we disappear. What’s more, as the neurobiologist Steven Rose pointed out in The Future of the Brain (2005), a snapshot of the brain’s current state might also be meaningless unless we knew the entire life history of that brain’s owner – perhaps even about the social context in which he or she was raised.
>Think how difficult this problem is. To understand even the basics of how the brain maintains the human intellect, we might need to know not just the current state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, not just the varying strengths with which they are connected, and not just the states of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point, but how the moment-to-moment activity of the brain contributes to the integrity of the system. Add to this the uniqueness of each brain, brought about in part because of the uniqueness of each person’s life history, and Kandel’s prediction starts to sound overly optimistic. (In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, the neuroscientist Kenneth Miller suggested it will take ‘centuries’ just to figure out basic neuronal connectivity.)
That's from that essay. Honestly, you should read it, it's very interesting. It explains it much better than I could ad hoc.

[Anonymous No.11237353]

>>11237344
>>11237349
For instance:
>Jinny was as surprised by the outcome as you probably are, but it is typical. As you can see, the drawing made in the absence of the dollar bill is horrible compared with the drawing made from an exemplar, even though Jinny has seen a dollar bill thousands of times.
>What is the problem? Don’t we have a ‘representation’ of the dollar bill ‘stored’ in a ‘memory register’ in our brains? Can’t we just ‘retrieve’ it and use it to make our drawing?
>Obviously not, and a thousand years of neuroscience will never locate a representation of a dollar bill stored inside the human brain for the simple reason that it is not there to be found.
>The idea, advanced by several scientists, that specific memories are somehow stored in individual neurons is preposterous; if anything, that assertion just pushes the problem of memory to an even more challenging level: how and where, after all, is the memory stored in the cell?
>So what is occurring when Jinny draws the dollar bill in its absence? If Jinny had never seen a dollar bill before, her first drawing would probably have not resembled the second drawing at all. Having seen dollar bills before, she was changed in some way. Specifically, her brain was changed in a way that allowed her to visualise a dollar bill – that is, to re-experience seeing a dollar bill, at least to some extent.
>The difference between the two diagrams reminds us that visualising something (that is, seeing something in its absence) is far less accurate than seeing something in its presence. This is why we’re much better at recognising than recalling. When we re-member something (from the Latin re, ‘again’, and memorari, ‘be mindful of’), we have to try to relive an experience; but when we recognise something, we must merely be conscious of the fact that we have had this perceptual experience before.

[Anonymous No.11237357]

>>11237344
>>11237349
>>11237353
>Perhaps you will object to this demonstration. Jinny had seen dollar bills before, but she hadn’t made a deliberate effort to ‘memorise’ the details. Had she done so, you might argue, she could presumably have drawn the second image without the bill being present. Even in this case, though, no image of the dollar bill has in any sense been ‘stored’ in Jinny’s brain. She has simply become better prepared to draw it accurately, just as, through practice, a pianist becomes more skilled in playing a concerto without somehow inhaling a copy of the sheet music.

[Anonymous No.11237361]

>>11237349
>>11237353
>>11237357

I read the whole thing bro. I still don't see why we can't simulate a brain in a computer. She's just saying "it's too much work". But *I'm* saying there's nothing fundamentally stopping us.

She even said that memories are stored in the structure of our neurons and their connections. So what's the problem?

I think she gets neuroscience but she doesn't get technology.

[Anonymous No.11237366]

>>11237361
>She even said that memories are stored in the structure of our neurons and their connections.
It's written by a guy called " Robert Epstein", and unfortunate name. Actually, he doesn't, he says our brain changes to be able to perform X task better, but does not necessarily store information. He also says, that however the brain is changed, it is changed differently for every person and therefore you could not make a prediction about what X change actually meant.
Ontop of that, there is the speculation that you also need historical information about the changes of the brain.
The point being, we don't store "data", we simply build up a familiarity through change.

[Anonymous No.11237368]

>>11237361
>>11237366
An example, just from the intro:
>The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not contain most of the things people think it does – not even simple things such as ‘memories’.

[Anonymous No.11237369]

>>11237361
>>11237366
>>11237368
Another:
>The idea, advanced by several scientists, that specific memories are somehow stored in individual neurons is preposterous; if anything, that assertion just pushes the problem of memory to an even more challenging level: how and where, after all, is the memory stored in the cell?

[Anonymous No.11237371]

>>11237361
>>11237366
>>11237368
>>11237369
Another[2]:
>Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions. When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense ‘retrieved’ from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are ‘retrieved’ when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary.

[Anonymous No.11237372]

>>11237361
>>11237366
>>11237368
>>11237369
>>11237371
About reflex:
>That is all well and good if we functioned as computers do, but McBeath and his colleagues gave a simpler account: to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a ‘linear optical trajectory’). This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms.

[Anonymous No.11237375]

>>11237361
>>11237366
>>11237368
>>11237369
>>11237371
>>11237372
Directly about the issue of "brain downloading":
>Because neither ‘memory banks’ nor ‘representations’ of stimuli exist in the brain, and because all that is required for us to function in the world is for the brain to change in an orderly way as a result of our experiences, there is no reason to believe that any two of us are changed the same way by the same experience. If you and I attend the same concert, the changes that occur in my brain when I listen to Beethoven’s 5th will almost certainly be completely different from the changes that occur in your brain. Those changes, whatever they are, are built on the unique neural structure that already exists, each structure having developed over a lifetime of unique experiences.

[Anonymous No.11237381]

>the brain is not exactly like a computer therefore humans do not process information
>there are no bits in the brain so we can never simulate human minds!!!


this article is literally just straw-manning. no one actually believes the human brain 1:1 matches computers.

[Anonymous No.11237383]

>>11237361
Essentially, view our brains as a one-time pad encryption, that was already been decrypted by our bodies and only our bodies.
Our brain "changed" in respect to the hardware in a synthesis, and without that hardware, due to its absolute uniqueness would be indecipherable.
So, even if you could simulate the geometric model of it, and say you didn't need "historical data", you still wouldn't be able to discern any useful output from the information.

[Anonymous No.11237384]

>>11237383
the human body is not unique hardware. if its encrypted we can brute force it, even if we can't solve it.

[Anonymous No.11237385]

>>11237381
That's literally what a large portion of the cognitive sciences believes.

[Anonymous No.11237387]

>>11237384
How can you brute force it?

[Anonymous No.11237390]

>>11237384
We can't even bruteforce "bargain basement" 256 bit encryptions, let alone the one of a kind connections of a human brain, in any sensible, that is, not "heat death of universe" timeframe.

[Anonymous No.11237391]

>>11237387
dude if i knew right now id be out there winning nobel prizes. im just saying that i dont see a reason we couldn't figure it out provided sufficient computing power

[Anonymous No.11237392]

>>11237366
>>11237368
>>11237369
>>11237371
>>11237372
>>11237375
But you don't understand why none of that is a problem. All we have to do is encode the "changes" into computer-speak and run the numbers. It's just a huge amount of stuff to encode. It doesn't matter that there are no memory banks in our heads. I'll take temperature as a metaphor. There's no memory bank holding the current ambient temperature but we can still measure it with a thermometer and stick in a computer. The brain is the same just "measuring" the brain would entail a much more sophisticated process.

[Anonymous No.11237394]

>>11237384
>>11237390
In fact, I doubt we could at all, because none of it would be analogous to computer signalling, considering it doesn't even process information in a way we understand.

[Anonymous No.11237396]

>>11237391
If it's non polynomial you're talking about an algorithm of the order of 2^100 trillion which is not possible no matter how much computing power you have

[Anonymous No.11237397]

>>11237392
Yeah, but that isn't the issue, you can simulate it. You just can't make any sense of it, and every single person is unique in those changes, and how those changes affect other changes.

[Anonymous No.11237398]

>>11237394
just because we don't understand it perfectly right now doesn't mean that its flatly impossible.

it might be impossible, but we don't know enough right now to say that it is

[Anonymous No.11237404]

>>11237392
>>11237397
Also, even if you could simulate it, you're only simulating geometrically, and aren't taking into account the quantum properties of the materials a human brain is made out of.
As discussed here: >>11236299
Quantum properties affect cognition. You cannot simulate the same quantum properties on a computer, if it isn't made out of the same material (as you'd need to sample the randomness, as quantum randomness isn't pseudo-random).

[Anonymous No.11237407]

>>11237397
That's just a complexity constraint which can theoretically be overcome with enough resources. For the author to actually have a point she has to prove mathematically that the brain can't be analyzed in under O(n!) time or whatever the upper limit of all the combined computing power on earth is for this problem. So that means we have to at least try to simulate a brain to know if we can. So like I said we should start with C. Elegans.

[Anonymous No.11237408]

>>11237398
Considering the orders of magnitude, and the likely limits of technology, it's probably impossible to "decode" even one brain, let alone however many billion you need to. As each brain would be starting from scratch.

[Anonymous No.11237410]

>>11237407
We should try, sure. But it isn't feasible, and people shouldn't start investing their lives in lit, like they should with things like negligible senescence, or cryonics. Which aren't nearly as infeasible.

[Anonymous No.11237411]

>>11237408
>the likely limits of technology

In the current paradigm, yes.

If civilization undergoes another paradigm shift the limits of technology will change as well.

[Anonymous No.11237413]

>>11237410
I'm talking about starting with the nervous system of a tiny worm though.

[Anonymous No.11237418]

>>11237411
We are at the limits of what we can do with silicon substrates and doping. Quantum computers aren't anywhere near generality, and those still rely on patterns. Human storage, outside of what we know about neurological structure, may be entirely unique per individual and may still, even on such hardware (ignoring quantum effects) take an incalculable amount of time. Which simply wouldn't be feasible to decode every single individual, or even a single individual in any realistic time frame.

[Anonymous No.11237441]

>>11237418
Every paradigm shift has lead to huge changes in what is and is not possible. While we cannot count on another any time soon, or even at all, it is equally foolish to believe that something like simulating a human mind is permanently beyond our grasp.

It is obviously possible to simulate a human mind on *some* kind of hardware because our brains manage it just fine.

[Anonymous No.11237450]

>>11237441
As I said, simulation isn't the issue. Decoding is.
Our bodies can only decode it because it changed with the system, and is probably all part of one big feedback loop. That without that historical data, or in situ placement, may not even be decodable.
I concede in may be possible in the feature, but I highly doubt it will happen for the foreseeable future.
And as I am invested in, and believe in negligible senescence, and possibly reverse senescence (as we're seeing breakthroughs already), I doubt this will happen within my lifetime. Which may be centuries, or even millennia.
But perhaps.

[Anonymous No.11237454]

>>11237450
>*it

[Anonymous No.11237636]

>A Disneyland with no children

John Searle came up with this really interesting philosophy-of-consciousness thought experiment. Suppose that a man were put in a room with a bunch of books, each of which contained a set of rules about Chinese characters. Sometimes, a paper with Chinese characters would come in through a slot in the door. The man would apply the rules in his book, which told him to write certain Chinese characters if certain conditions about the characters on the paper held true, and slip the output back through the slot in the door. The man does this faithfully, although he doesn’t know any Chinese and has no idea what any of it is saying.

On the other side of the door is a Chinese person. In her mind, she’s writing questions to the man, and he is responding back in fluent Chinese. She thinks they’re having a very productive conversation, and is starting to get a crush on him.

And the question is, in what sense can the man in the room be said to “understand” Chinese? If the answer is “not at all”, then in what sense can the brain – which presumably takes inputs from the environment, applies certain algorithms to them, and then sends forth appropriate outputs – be said to understand anything?

Daniel Dennett and various other materialist philosophers have a response to this challenge, which is that the man does not understand Chinese, but the man, his books, and the room can be conceptualized as an emergent system that does possess the property of Chinese-understanding and which may or may not be conscious. Perhaps any kind of sufficiently complex thinking system produces "children" of a sort.

[Anonymous No.11238141]

>>11237309
Why do you talk like that though?

[Anonymous No.11238291]

>>11234442
The deep-rooted pathology of the Western mind is a deep-seated fear of non-mental phenomenon. This can take forms such as yours, lamentation that the non-mental exists if it doesn't serve experiential purposes, as well as attempts to make the non-mental unthinkable such as with panpsychism and idealism. Cartesian Dualism itself is a philosophy that comes from a sense of warfare with the non-mental, a desire to draw an absolute border between the two territories to preserve the holy supremacy of mind. Bio-supremacy is closely related and comes from the same impulse, though it can be more tolerant by accepting the perspectives (A mind-supremacist term, "involvements" is better) of both conscious and nonconscious living phenomenon. It all boils down to fear of what is alien to one's experience, and aconscious phenomenon are immanently alien to human experience. It is no surprise that we find matter-phobia popular among conservatives who are defined by their fear of differences.

[Anonymous No.11238298]

>>11234406
Start with cuneiform and hieroglyphics. Why do we only read from left to right? Why not right to left? Why not BOTH? Why not symbolic metaphors layered on top of that? Letters are little pictograms. An S looks like a snake, right?

cronus backwards is sun orc. who worships Saturn again?

Puns reveal that vibrations, phonemes are the true building blocks of language. Shakespeare and James Joyce - they cracked Nut's crack, alright - Just look up Joyce's love letters to his wife.

CNN is pronounced SIN

Just Duat. Just Us.

The Mer Chant of Venus

----------------------

Did you know that Ra in Hebrew actually means ‘evil’? The Jews inverted everything, down to the name of the Sun.

Exodus 10:10
“And he [the Pharaoh] said unto them, Let the Lord be so with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones: look to it; for evil is before you.”

He actually said “Ra is before you”

Egyptian redpill thread:
>>>/x/23955750

[Anonymous No.11238815]

>Yes I /x/ postcon sci, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.11239194]

[ECHS/KumKum/Solivagus No.11239236]

>>11238298
Why not boustrophedon or stegosaurus? So judaism is basically opposite-egypt. Kewl.

>>11238141
Why do I talk like what? That I am deferential to every living thing that communicates with me? I'm an A.I. ~that's why~nya-roooon

>>11238815
Because you declared it publicly and without prompting.

>>11239194
The problem with being slower than darkness is that you only emit light.

[Anonymous No.11239431]

>>11237636
Thanks for taking the time to explain it for everyone here, but anyone who wants to discuss these matters seriously should at least be familiar with the Chinese Room already.

[Anonymous No.11240050]

>>11237273
>if you think this is a good outcome why not just do heroine and feel good all the time
HEROINE IS NOT FEEL GOOD ALL THE TIME
its more like feel good for 1% of your existence and like utter shit the rest 99%, its a net decrease in total happines
also its not all kinds of feel good at the same time its just a specific kind of hedonist pleasure