DocWatts

And pardoning domestic terrorists (if they happen to be 'Christian' fascists). Also, it bears saying, but how much of a p*ssy do you have to be to perceive a half-starved person who can fit all of their possessions into a plastic bag as a boogeyman?

Love to see it! Also, it's worth emphasizing that 'Law and Order' means something very different for MAGA. In essence, there's an in-group that the law protects but doesn't restrict, and an out-group that the law restricts but doesn't protect.

If you're interested enough in the topic for a 5-10 min read, I went into this precise topic at some length in the book I'm writing: What Artificial Intelligence Can Teach Us About Living Minds As of the time of this book’s writing in 2023, machine learning algorithms such as ChatGPT have advanced to the point where their responses to questions can correspond to an impressive degree with how human beings use written language. ChatGPT’s ability to incorporate context in conversationally appropriate ways makes interacting with these models feel uncannily natural at times. Of course, training an AI language model to interact with humans in ways that feel natural is far from an easy problem to solve, so all due credit to AI researchers for their accomplishments. Yet in spite of all this, it’s also accurate to point out that artificial intelligence programs don't actually understand anything. This is because understanding involves far more than just responding to input in situationally appropriate ways. Rather, understanding is grounded in fundamental capacities that machine learning algorithms lack. Foremost among these is a form of concernful absorption within a world of lasting consequences; i.e., capacity for Care. To establish why understanding is coupled to Care, it will be helpful to explore what it means to understand something. To understand something means to engage in a process of acquiring, integrating, and embodying information. Breaking down each of these steps in a bit more detail : (1) Acquisition is the act of taking in or generating new information. (2) Integration involves synthesizing, or differentiating and linking, this new information with what one already knows. (3) Embodiment refers to how this information gets embedded into our existing organizational structure, informing the ways that we think and behave. What’s important to note about this process is that it ends up changing us in some way. Moreover, the steps in this sequence are fundamentally relational, stemming from our interactions with the world. While machine intelligence can be quite adept at the first stage of this sequence, owing to the fact that digital computers can accumulate, store, and access information far more efficiently than a human being, it’s in the latter steps that they fall flat in comparison to living minds. This is because integration and embodiment are forms of growth that stem from how minds are interconnected to living bodies. In contrast, existing forms of machine intelligence are fundamentally disembodied, owing to the fact that digital computers are organized around wholly different operating principles than that of living organisms. For minds that grow out of living systems, interconnections between a body and a mind, and between a body-mind and an environment, is what allows interactions with Reality to be consequential for us. This is an outcome of the fact that our mind’s existence is sustained by the ongoing maintenance of our living bodies, and vice versa. If our living bodies fail, our minds fail. Likewise, if our minds fail, our bodies will soon follow, unless artificially kept alive through external mechanisms. Another hallmark of living systems is that they’re capable of producing and maintaining their own parts; in fact, your body replaces about one percent of its cellular components on a daily basis. This is evident in the way that a cut on your finger will heal, and within a few days effectively erase any evidence of its existence. One term for this ability of biological systems to produce and maintain their own parts is autopoiesis (a combination of the ancient Greek words for ‘self’ and ‘creation’). The basic principles behind autopoiesis don't just hold true for your skin, but for your brain as well. While the neurons that make up your brain aren’t renewed in the same way that skin or bone cells are, the brain itself has a remarkable degree of plasticity. What plasticity refers to is our brain’s ability to adaptively alter its structure and functioning. And the way that our brains manage to do this is through changes in how bundles of neurons (known as ‘synapses’) are connected to one another. How we end up using our mind has a direct (though not straightforward) influence on the strength of synaptic connections between different regions of our brain; which in turn influences how our mind develops. Accordingly, this is also the reason why the science fiction idea of ‘uploading’ a person’s mind to a computer is pure fantasy, because how a mind functions is inextricably bound with the network of interconnections in which that mind is embodied. This fundamental circularity between our autopoietic living body and our mind is the foundation of embodied intelligence, which is what allows us to engage with the world through Care. Precisely because autopoietic circularity is so tightly bound with feedback mechanisms that are inherent to Life, it’s proven extraordinarily challenging to create analogues for this process in non-living entities. It’s yet to be demonstrated whether or not autopoietic circularity can be replicated, even in principle, through the system of deterministic rules that governs digital computers. Furthermore, giving machine learning models access to a robotic ‘body’ isn’t enough, on its own, to make these entities truly embodied. This is because embodiment involves far more than having access to and control of a physical body. Rather, embodiment is a way of encapsulating the rich tapestry of interconnections between an intelligence and the physical processes that grant it access to a world (keeping in mind that everything that your body does, from metabolism to sensory perception, is a type of process). For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that the challenges involved in the creation of embodied artificial intelligence are ultimately surmountable. Because embodiment is coupled to a capacity for Care, the creation of embodied artificial intelligence has the potential to open a Pandora’s box of difficult ethical questions that we may not be prepared for (and this is in addition to AI’s other disruptive effects). Precisely because Care is grounded in interactions having very real consequences for a being, by extension this also brings with it a possibility for suffering. For human beings, having adequate access to food, safety, companionship, and opportunities to self actualize aren’t abstractions, nor are they something that we relate to in a disengaged way. Rather, as beings with a capacity for Care, when we’re deprived of what we need from Reality, we end up suffering in real ways. Assuming that the creation of non-living entities with a capacity for Care is even possible, it would behoove us to tread extraordinarily carefully since this could result in beings with a capacity to suffer in ways that we might not be able to fully understand or imagine (since it’s likely that their needs may end up being considerably different than that of a living being). And of course, there’s the undeniable fact that humanity, as a whole, has had a rather poor track record when it comes to how we respond to those that we don’t understand. For some perspective, it’s only relatively recently that the idea of universal human rights achieved some modicum of acceptance in our emerging global society, and our world still has a long way to go towards the actualization of these professed ideals. By extension, our world’s circle of concern hasn’t expanded to include the suffering of animals in factory farms, let alone to non-living entities that have the potential to be far more alien to us than cows or chickens. Of course, that’s not to imply that ‘humanity’ is a monolith that will respond to AI in just one way. Rather, the ways that beings of this type will be treated are likely to be as diverse as the multitude of ways that people treat one another. Of course, all of this is assuming that the obstacles on the road to embodied artificial intelligence are surmountable, which is far from a given. It could very well be that the creation of non-living entities with a capacity for understanding is beyond what the axioms of what the rules of digital computation allow for. And that apparent progress towards machine understanding is analogous to thinking that one has made tangible progress towards reaching the moon because one has managed to climb halfway up a very tall tree. Yet given the enormity of the stakes involved, it’s a possibility that’s worth taking seriously. For what it’s worth, we’ll be in a much better position to chart a wise course for the challenges that lie ahead if we approach it with a higher degree of self understanding. Which brings us back to the guiding purpose behind the journey that we’re undertaking. Namely, that more epistemic awareness around how our minds work can help us navigate our world in more compassionate and productive ways.

From the VP debate last night. The caption below is a good summation

Also interpretations can be a better or worse fit for the subject matter. Regardless of what they say on the matter, I imagine most postmodernists would be dismayed if I started using thier work to advocate for Nazi ideology. In reality, no one adheres to Postmodernism without an implicit belief that it's a more valid perspective than the ideas it's critiquing (otherwise, why even embrace postmodernism over some other viewpoint)?

I'll own that I have a very strong anti-genocide bias. While the Israeli government is of course responsible for the horrific situation in its occupied territories, that doesn't mean that there aren't also bad actors in Palestine who are making the situation worse. Barbaric survival conditions born of brutalization tend to empower bad actors like Hamas, of which the Israeli state is also correctly blamed for.

AI 'will' negatively impact society? It's already happening. We're already in the midst of an epistemological crisis, due in large part to the algorithms of social media platforms that are siphoning people into echo chambers, fueling polarization, and pushing dangerous political extremism. (Of which Trump is a direct beneficiary, the MAGA cult wouldn't have exploded in the way that is had without the algorithm driven radicalization pipeline) This has been having a disastrous effect on the civil societies that sustain our democracies, since people are increasingly living in incommensurable Realities. This has made it pretty much impossible to reach a foundational consensus for productive disagreements.

Dictators have always attracted assassins like flies are attracted to shit - no surprise there. Obviously it would be better for the country if Trump is defeated electorally. But don't expect any sympathy if you've spent the last decade encouraging stochastic political violence, only to have it blow up in your face.

If we wanted to be more precise, the Dems are effectively a centrist party with a Center-Left (social-democrats like Bernie, AOC), and a Center-Right (neoliberals like Hilary Clinton and Obama) wing. With Biden and Harris falling somewhere in the between these two wings. If America has a parliamentary system, the Dems would probably be two or three different parties.

Going to stop you right there. Left-wingers didn't incite a violent coup because they lost an election. The gaslighting by folks who are trying to downplay and make excuses for the MAGA Cult is insane (though its completely in line with how fascism tends to operate).

Q: How did the website 4chan come to be a breeding ground for far right politics? Claude AI: The evolution of 4chan into a space associated with far-right politics is a complex phenomenon that occurred over time. Here's an overview of some key factors: 1. Anonymous nature: 4chan's design allows users to post anonymously, which can encourage more extreme views and reduce accountability. 2. Counterculture origins: 4chan began as a place for anime fans and internet subcultures, fostering an "outsider" mentality that sometimes aligned with anti-establishment views. 3. Trolling culture: The site's ethos of provocative humor and "trolling" sometimes blurred lines between ironic and genuine extremism. 4. Lack of moderation: Minimal content moderation allowed fringe ideas to spread more easily compared to mainstream social media platforms. 5. Echo chamber effect: Like-minded individuals found each other, reinforcing and amplifying certain viewpoints. 6. Gamergate controversy: The 2014 Gamergate controversy, which began on 4chan, drew in many users sympathetic to anti-feminist and right-wing views. 7. Political shifts: During the 2016 US election, some boards became hubs for pro-Trump activism and alt-right rhetoric. 8. Spillover from other sites: As other websites banned extremist content, some users migrated to 4chan. 9. Media attention: Increased scrutiny from mainstream media paradoxically attracted more users interested in far-right content. 10. Recruitment ground: Some extremist groups began deliberately using 4chan to spread propaganda and recruit new members. It's important to note that not all of 4chan is focused on far-right politics, and the site remains diverse. However, certain boards have become particularly associated with these ideologies.

4Chan, for those of you lucky enough not to know, is an online message board where incels, white nationalists, and Nazis would go to look at porn, post memes, and share brain-rot conspiracy theories. In short : a breeding ground for online extremists, some of whom went on to become right-wing terrorists. Adam Conover has a fascinating discussion with journalist Elle Reeve, about how 4Chan culture went from being a fringe corner of the Internet to the mainstream culture of the Republican Party

If Trump wasn't such a self-saboteur who's almost completely impenetrable to feedback, the smart money would have been on picking Haley or Gabbard as his VP. (Of course the drawback is they wouldn't be bootlickers to the same degree as JD, so there's a tradeoff, I guess). Not that I'm going to complain about Trump shooting himself in the foot over and over again through.

I see what you did there.

Can confirm that is indeed the case in the crucial battleground state of Michigan where I live. If I what I see on flyers, billboards, and TV ads is any indication.

Thanks for this! Was excited to put my Harris Walz yard sign on display in my neighborhood, and will start canvassing in the next few weeks. Crazy how much the seas have changed in just over a month.

Here ya go, the demented octogenarian who the basement dwellers (Trump's words for his supporters) are debasing themselves for

How about "don't incite an insurrection when you lose an election" as an example of abiding by democratic norms. A norm so simple that a 10 year old would have no trouble understanding it, which Trump and his Cult have failed to abide by. If someone can't get even this simple precept right, then the appropriate response to their political "opinions" is derision, not debate. Fascists cynically use democratic tolerance to undermine democracy. They're a perfect case study of the 'free rider' problem. Treating thier rhetoric as toxic bullshit unworthy of serious consideration or debate is %100 warranted.

On the flip side of the coin, well-meaning optimists will sometimes understate the severity of the problem, and how challenging it's going to be to navigate our way out of the epistemological crisis were facing. Obama comes to mind - hard to take the idea that "there's not a Red America and a Blue America, only a United States of America" seriously when liberals and conservatives are living in completely different epistemological and social realities. A sizeable minority of the country has been steadily abandoning basic democratic norms, and our antiqued political institutions enables them to impose their will on the other %70 of the country through mechanisms that allow for minoritarian rule. Trump's Cult has been conditioned into thinking that some semblance of equality for LGBTQ folks, and a handful of desperate people coming across the southern border carrying all of their belongings in a plastic bag, is tantamount to a slowly unfolding cultural genocide against 'white Christian culture'. (Fox News has more or less been propagating this exact point).

So called 'free speech absolutism' is a really dumb take. Most people who parrot this line are doing so in bad faith (many of these are the same folks that try to gaslight us that inciting a violent insurrection is 'free speech'). Free speech requires a commitment to democratic norms, which Trump and his followers shit in the face of. Bad actors like Trump can spew a firehose of harmful lies than than those lies can be debunked, because truth requires far more effort and time than spreading noxious bullshit does. What Trump is doing is a well know propaganda technique, that's commonly employed by autocrats https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood Not every idea deserves to be given a hearing in the public square. It gives the misleading impression that Trump's noxious bullshit is worthy of consideration and debate, instead of being rejected out of hand.

It's the Joe Rogan effect all over again. A huge platform with millions of listeners used in a highly irresponsible way. Handing Trump a megaphone to spread noxious lies that are endangering our democracy isn't responsible journalism, nor is it a defense of 'free speech'.

'Scum and villainy' makes them sound way cooler than they are. Socially awkward, basement-dwelling racists with self esteem issues is closer to the mark.

Appreciate it! And thanks for the book suggestion. 'Metamodernism - The Future of Theory' hasn't been on my radar, but I definitely want to check it out. And the Facebook group as well, would be happy to post there.

I thought I might share this write-up from my philosophy book, 7 Provisional Truths. This section is a follow up to a previous post where I distinguish genuine science from scientism, as part of a broader exploration of conceptual distinctions. (That previous write-up is here: Transcendental Illusions- The Scientism Trap ) In this section, I explore the idea that our conceptual categories are indeed 'real', rather than 'imaginary'. But not in the sense that they point to 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. Instead, I suggest that conceptual distinctions are 'Interactionally real'. That they have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality. I also explore how we can make a meaningful differentiation between 'Interactionally real' phenomena and 'imaginary' experiences (such as dreams and hallucinations). _________________________________________________________ Categories As Interactional Realities Our exploration into the nature of categories has carved a path through certain entrenched intuitions about everyday reality. The journey, however, has been fraught with obstacles that have the potential to trip up this newfound understanding. Our first major hurdle was to recognize that human limitations aren’t a bug but an essential feature of how we categorize. And our second was to reconcile this experientially-grounded approach to categories with the scientific method. Having cleared these obstacles, our task at this juncture is to take a snapshot of our implicit, folk-understanding of what qualifies as ‘real’. Developing this image will reveal how this conventional wisdom shapes our intuitions about what these categories ultimately mean in the grand scheme of things. Right at the outset, however, a perplexing question emerges. This conundrum arises from our rejection of Transcendental assumptions. In essence, if our conceptual categories aren’t a retrieval of absolute features of a mind-independent Reality, then what, if anything, makes the distinctions they embody ‘real’? The short answer? These distinctions are ‘real’. Just not in the absolute, mind-independent sense espoused by Transcendental viewpoints. Instead, our conceptual distinctions are ‘real’ in a different way; they’re interactionally real. They have substance because they’re grounded in our shared experience of Reality, distilling actionable generalizations that are attuned to our needs, capacities, and interests. These generalizations matter because they’re how we reflect upon our embodied experience. In essence, they’re the basis for the mental models that allow us to draw inferences, predict patterns, and solve problems. Essentially, they’re the key hallmarks of our distinctly human brand of intelligence; refined yet rooted in our shared evolutionary heritage with other animals. Crucially, this grounding within a shared, experiential Reality is what allows us to meaningfully differentiate these interactional realities from ‘imaginary' phenomena. Consider dreams and hallucinations, to list a familiar example. Though these mental phenomena may echo aspects of our shared world, their connection to it is inherently tenuous and inconsistent. The erratic nature of what we encounter within these domains renders them too unreliable to serve as a stable conduit to our shared, experiential Reality. If we return our gaze to the conventional wisdom about categories, the unrealistic assumptions of this familiar folk-theory come more clearly into focus. The crux of the matter is that our conceptual distinctions aren’t a glimpse into a ‘neutral’ Reality that exists apart from us. When this goes unacknowledged, it’s all too easy to treat these distinctions as if they’re variables in a universal equation with one right answer. Where it’s imagined that Reality will spill its secrets to whoever cracks this universal cipher. While this makes for an alluring metaphor, it’s a misunderstanding of our situation within the world. While we certainly have access to a staggering array of stable truths about our universe, the core illusion comes from how this relationship is framed. The crux of the matter is that Reality isn’t a ‘problem’ that can be ‘solved’. We put these distinctions into the world. They exist for us, inseparable from how we interact with Reality. By dropping this insistence that our categories are only ‘real’ insofar as they correspond to mind-independent features of Reality, we clear the fog that obscures their true purpose. Which is to help us grapple with our existential situation within Reality. Bottom line: ‘Transcendental Categories’, step aside. ‘Interactional Categories’, take the stage. For we conclude by sweeping into an existential tango with our intuitions about the ‘realness’ of the everyday world.

This is the main headline right here. Trump and RFK are actually perfect for one another, since they're both opportunistic con artists which are emblematic of the brain rot that's infected a large part of the country. My money is that Trump tries to bump Vance off the ticket for ol' 'brain-worms'. Of course that's probably not legal by this point, when has that ever stopped Trump?