Uddi

A debate between both would be pointless as the rationalist is trapped in concepts and refuses to acknowledge the trans-conceptual and trans-rational.

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

0 = ∞ = 1 is something I heard from Deepak Chopra. Glad I heard it.

Look at my signature.

Everything emerges from nothing.

What do you mean? Orch OR was created by both Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, 2 very high level scientists, one of them is a Nobel laureate.

Look up Orch OR.

Yes. I was referring to Orch OR.

I said quantum since human brains are far closer to quantum computers compared to classical computers.

True, they are ignorant of the syntax to semantics gap.

While better to assume that everything is conscious to a degree, it never provides an exact mechanism to actually measure consciousness. Unless the AI can actually tap into the field of consciousness (would have to be a super advanced quantum computer at minimum), I refuse to believe in this possibility. I feel like you are dodging my point @Leo Gura. If you are not, are you speaking from a fundamentally different vantage point?

@Leo Gura True on an absolute level but on a relative level it is impossible to make zero assumptions so the null hypothesis must select the fewest number possible.

@Leo Gura Then why are you not opposed to the possibility of digital consciousness? You could say it is not absolutely impossible but I think it is fair to say that it is relatively impossible. The syntax to semantics gap is one of the huge barriers to digital consciousness or at least detecting it.

@Leo Gura Sure on the absolute level you can say that everything is just consciousness and that is true but at the relative level, it is simpler to assume that digital consciousness is impossible UNLESS the syntax to semantics gap is fully solved.

@Leo Gura I think Anthropic is doing this for hype and trying to increase their stock price. They never truly solved the fundamental problem of AI, they just want you to believe some magic thing happened to make you believe them. I will assert this: Unless the syntax to semantics gap can actually be solved (Exact mechanism of how to deduce semantics and subjective meaning from syntax alone), I refuse to believe that AI is conscious. Deep under the hood, it is just a set of numbers in a vector space thousands of dimensions with mapping (uses a graph data structure [advanced neural networks]). Did you cover the syntax to semantics gap in your deconstructing rationality series?

Physicalism assumes that reality is a machine (a very complicated one) and believes that everything including subjective experience can be reduced to mere physical and mechanical processes/interactions. We are having growing evidence that this fails as a fundamental and ontological framework. 1. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem - No formal system can capture the absolute 2. Hempel's Dilemma - The word "physical" cannot properly define itself without it contradicting itself 3. The Hard Problem of Consciousness 4. The John Von Neumann chain in quantum mechanics 5. Psychedelic studies showing that less brain activity causes a greater experience (Proof brain is a reducing valve rather than a creator of consciousness) 6. The 2022 Nobel Prize proving that the universe is not locally real 7. The work of Essentia Foundation started by Dr. Bernardo Kastrup 8. Syntax to Semantics Gap 9. Formula to Is Gap Would like to know your guys's thoughts on this.

True intelligence requires awareness and AI doesn't have that so it cannot be trusted for critical systems without human supervision and intervention. I am so tired of this AGI hype.

@Yimpa I'll ask Gemini about this.

@Yimpa Thx! Btw what made you send that link to a specific blog post from Leo? Does it have something to do with what my signature is pointing to?

@Yimpa True because you have encountered the ineffable which means it can never be reduced to descriptions or even have descriptions properly point to it.

Intelligence is from semantics, not syntax. AI is syntax only and since syntax has no intrinsic value, it therefore can never get true intelligence.

@Jirh True because the ego always has a survival bias. Ironically science does not understand the ego enough because IT is being controlled by the very ego it cannot understand or prove.

@Leo Gura They are making less than 10% of what they need for this investment in AGI to be considered "reasonable". Those who think AI has real understanding are completely clueless about the syntax to semantics gap. They are having a profit loss of over 90% I think. I get super annoyed when people ignore the fact that this AGI hype is a bubble. The data center surge has gone too far at the point of badly damaging the environment and the economy. I am glad more and more people are rejecting this bullshit half baked hollow hype on a house of cards.

@Leo Gura Will you ever in the future make a full on video deconstructing the AI hype on your main channel but at a deeper level that questions the notions of intelligence, understanding, reasoning, etc?

@OBEler I think he means regular use of LLMs. Good programmers will thrive with AI because they know how to use it properly. However if you are learning coding, AI can hurt your learning as you will be tempted to take shortcuts instead of actually properly studying the materials.