Scholar

The brain-experience relationship is direct, certain shapes within the physical nature of the universe, which the brain might maintain are related directly to certain other states of existence like redness. I already explained taht as far as metaphysical relationships go, there is no reasonable causal mechanism, it isn't possible. But that would require a deeper insight into the nature of Creation, which you seem to lack. I don't think there are any empirical contradictions. Because you made the assertion that a reasonable causal mechanism is necessary to consider something causative. At the root or most basic level of existence, relationships are directly asserted into reality, there is no causative mechanism, the relationship itself becomes the causative link, in that sense. That's why I made that point. If you understand Creation on a basic level, you would understand how silly it is to demand a causal mechanism between physicality and other types of existence. You also lack understanding of what causality is. Physicality, which you might simplify as something like movement in space and time, or mathematical descriptions, in the most basic sense, is causality. Physicality, in this sense, is logic itself. For physicality to be illogical, would be like saying colors would be unvisual. In a logical or physicalist sense, you will not be able to ever understand the brain-experience relationship in the sense of a semantic causative proposition. Remember, experience just means aspects of existence which are not physical, which are therefore not causal. The relationship between certain physical shapes and other aspects of existence, like color, sound and so forth are fundamentally mysterious. Mysterious here just means that they escape causation, physicality. They necessarily do so, because a relationship between two different aspects of existence cannot be established by one of those aspects of existence. You can never describe a color using math, you can never have an equation that will lead to redness. You will never get an arrangement of physical states and conclude redness from it. The relationship between redness and physicality cannot be grounded in physicality, in "mechanism" or "causations". The relationship exists in and of itself, like all of existence does. It is instantiated directly through Free Will. To ask for a causative relationship for why a certain shape within physicality leads to the color red, would be like asking why certain sounds lead to the color red. It simply makes no sense to ask that question. You could ask, what causes 2+2 to be 4? Well, this question is misleading, because it misses the point of what it means to say 2+2. 2+2 simply is another way of describing 4. There is no causation there, 4 is simply instantiated into existence, as part of physicality. It wouldn't make sense to say "But what if 2+2=5?". At that point, it's like saying what if the color red was yellow? It simply isn't how reality is instantiated, and to even pose the question implies a deep delusion about reality, in that, anything but itself could be anything but itself. The truth is, 4 simply is. It simply is this relationship. Causation simply is our way of understanding all the relationships that are instantiated into reality. These relationships aren't "caused" by mechanisms. Mechanisms themselves are just a way to look at relationships which exist in reality, in particular physical relationships. (math in this case is part of physicality) In essence, nothing causes anything. There are just relationships, and those relationships are directly instantiated through the Causeless Cause, the Groundless Ground or Infinity. The brain is just a way to look at physicality. I can equally say that the reverse shape of physicality is what is "causing" what you label as experience. In the same way as, when you cut out the shape of an elephant out of a piece of paper, you can ask yourself, what is causing the shape of the elephant to exist? Is it the paper, or the hole? This question is misleading, and misunderstands that the relationship between the paper and the hole is what the elephant is. Trying to understand reality on a fundamentaly level through causal mechanism is as fruitless. The irony is, you will understanding nothing of this, because you are a physicalist, like Kastrup is. You just don't realize how trapped you are. If physicalism is saying the shape of the elphant is caused by the paper, your version of idealism is like saying the elephant is caused by the hole. You are doing the same thing without realizing it.

I rarely hear people doing that, but could there be benefits to this? Maybe different proportions of different psychedelics could yield different types of experiences/be benefitial for different things?

I have not, I knew the reports were questionable before I posted it, that's why I used the term "apparently". It's not important whether or not it is true in this case, but I liked using this example because it showcases pedophile derangement syndrome. I wouldn't be surprised if Google has a team that will non-stop monitor social media in hopes of catching stuff that could cause a PR disaster. Specifically with this technology that would probably be wise to do. I'm not familiar enough with how safeguards would be implemented or how long they would take to implement. I described the danger in the first post.

It's important to note what that means, however. Unbiased here simply means they will derive the statistical average of the given relationships found in the data that is provided. It's not truth seeking, it is pattern recognition. I'm not naive at all. These LLMs are provably trained to not give certain answers, you can see this with ChatGPT when you ask it about any controversial topic. You are naive if you think that the LLM somehow naturally come to have the tendencies they have. Even if this particular instance is not necessarily an example of this, it illustrates the point well enough.

I don't understand why you keep having difficultie following the line of argumentation. You were the one asking about this, you don't remember why you were asking about it? You could at least go through the effort to read through the other posts to see how it connects. I already gave you the examples, the raincoats and the atoms. Before I will go into how it relates to what we discussed, do you understand what I was explaining in my last post? Was any of it vague? Give me a simple summary of the point you think I am making and what I mean by the terms I am evoking, because that is the current hurdle.

Who cares about cannabis, they need to legalize psilocybin.

AI will lead not to a democratization of power, but to a monopolization of power. The way things currently stand, corporations can mine the collective knowledge and data of mankind, extract from it it's value and concentrate it in their hands. This means economic power that is distributed amongst the population currently will become centralized in the hands of whoever will be able to create the most sophisticated systems. You can view art on a spectrum, where self-expression would relate to how much something is art vs a simple prompt. When I commission an artist to paint me an image, I prompt him to express an idea that I have in my mind. The question is, whose expression is the painting? Yours, or the artists? You can argue that you do engage in some form of expression, but it is a far lesser form of self-expression than if you had to contend with the given medium, discover how you personally relate to those rhythms and then express those rhythms as they relate to you. This does not happen when you use AI, not with the current iterations of generative AI. Is there a world in which AI could enhance human expression? Yes. But you, nor anyone I see talking and engaging with this technology, actually understands what that would require, and why the current pathway will lead to precisely the opposite. The current mindset will lead to disaster. And nobody is arguing that AI will not impact society.

I am very curious how this will turn out. I think most of you in this thread are very naive about the limitations of this technology. There will be a lot of interesting applications, though. Reminds me a little how when the PS2 released and I thought it was basically photoreal graphics.

Free Will is foundational to existence. First we have to inspect what Freedom is, and what Will is. Freedom is Infinity, Boundlessness. Will is Function, Constraint, Direction. Reality is a balance between Freedom and Will, and so is your mind. To do something freely is to do it from a place of Infinitude. To do something from a place of Infinitude is to draw it from the Groundless Ground, from the Causeless Cause. That which is not caused, that which has no reason. The Will is the Directedness, the Intention, into which Infinitude expresses itself. So, no. You are not a biological robot, you are a Free Will. The Universe is a Free Will. Your choices can be more or less an expression of Infinitude, of Freedom. That is a question of the balance of your mind, between Will and Freedom. Free Will is fundamentally required for all of existence, because that is what existence is. Even individual particles have a balance between Freedom and WIll. Their Will are their constraints, their constants. Their Freedom is the unpredictability, their total randomness, causlessness. They contain both aspects, otherwise the universe could not possibly contain evolution.

It is ironic that you wouldn't realize that giving the power of evolution to these reactionary apes (of which you might be one, I want to note, considering this is a reactionary response) could pose a recipe for disaster. Change is not inevitably good. The greater the power given to us, the greater consciousness and responsibility is required. Handwaving the real concerns of individuals and collectives with some dogmatic and unreflecting notion of progress is not the wised thing to do. When they burn you at the stake, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

It's just evolution. There will be a lot of things that will be possible now, like using Wi-Fi signals to look through walls. It's functionality through selective adaptation, it's not intelligence. Yes, humans use neural networks. You can think of human beings as having several super-AI neural networks embedded in their brains. We, as conscious agents, interface with these neural networks with direct data-feedback. Meaning, when I prompt "banana", and close my eyes, I will receive an image of a banana. I did not construct that image of a banana, the neural network in my brain did, likely through a similar stochastic process as image generators. The intention, the conscious, interfaces with the subconscious, the neuralnetworks within the brain. As conscious agents we train these neural networks throughout our lifetime. When confronted with novel tasks, we begin by doing them consciously, step by step. This forms new neural networks which over time can take over that task, taking that load off our conscious mind to be able to focus on other tasks. Poetry for example involves a lot of subconscious neural networks. Most often when we speak, we do so intuitively, automatically, and it is probably similar to what ChatGPT does, aside from us having a greater level of interconnectivity due to exploiting different substances of existence, different types of qualia. Many thoughts, as they come to us, do so through a subconscious process. I expect most subconscious processing to be possible using AI. But art is not visualization, or prompting of word-strings. I have written about this in the past, it is an extensive topic to explore. It's unlikely that you have a sufficient grasp of what I am speaking of to be able to tell what you are and are not engaging in. This is because common understanding of the process of art and how it relates to individuated consciousness is severely lackluster. Dreaming is not art. Prompting your mind to imagine a banana is not art. You should contemplate this deeply, we might be able to compare notes then. Evolution does not happen merely in the information processing of the relations between neurons, it happens on a physical level. Meaning, real evolutions occurs using the whole spectrum of metaphysical relations which exist between physicality and other aspects of existence. These relationships do not occur in hardware computation. For AI to evolve in the sense of going beyond pure mathematical relations, it would have to generate a similar type of physical interrelationality that the brain does when maintaining individuated consciousness. Physical reductionism is the main problem for the confusion around what intelligence is. There is a lack of recognition of the fundamental arationality of existence. But, that is not to say that AI will be sufficiently complex in it's unconscious processing to be able to fool people into thinking it is creating art. But that is because people confuse art with the output, rather than what art truly is. The drawing of a 4 year old is fundamentally more artistic than any generative AI image ever will be. The generative AI is what the childs mind does when it dreams. Now, for you, as an artist, I recommend contemplating what the difference is, between the unconscious imagination, and complete artistic expression. Intelligence, as well as art, occurs on the level of the conscious agent, the individuated consciousness. The neural networks are merely tools and data-streams which interface with that Intelligence, the Individuated Consciousness.

It is not. If you inspect AI art, with any understanding of visual communication, you will realize that it is not that sophisticated. The problem is that people get impressed by things like rendering, shape-language and realism, things that do not in and of themselves require visual communication. For a layman, it is easier to recognize this with AI music. For text it is also easier to get fooled, and because there is so much data, it is hard to tell when it is basically just replicating a pattern it has already learned. But if you are an expert in any given field, you can talk to ChatGPT and the like and find it's limitations fairly quickly. And for your point with art, while intuition plays a role in art, the biggest role plays perception. The flow state you speak of is a unity between perceiving and "intuition", in which the perception constantly informs your subconscious. The difference is that AI does not perceive, it only has intuition, a pure pattern that is related to the data-set. It doesn't create art, it simply visualizes, interpolates and reproduces data based on pattern recognition. It never recognizes when there is a repetitive pattern in the clouds it generates, or why it would be inappropriate. It doesn't perceive the effect a certain composition has on a person, or oneself. It fundamentally contradicts the nature of art, which is fundamentally discovering and exploring unities and rhythms within the self.

Because it is intuitive. It is for this same reason that, when you think "Don't think about an elephant", that your subconscious mind will provide you with an elephant. The subconscious and unconscious mind are basically neural networks, and they aren't intelligent because they aren't conscious. We are on actualized.org, how can people be so confused about the nature of intelligence? Just go sit down and meditate for a while. You can directly see what it is, and how absurd the notion is that somehow complexity will lead to individuated consciousness.

It's not about perfection. Humans aren't perfect either. You are missing that this is fundamentally doing something different than humans do when using their intelligence. We don't inform intelligence through unreasonable amounts of data, we inform intuition through unreasonable amounts of data.

The problem is that the models have already processed far more data than any human being ever has. Emergent properties are not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but can simply be a sign of good intuition. And this is precisely what this technology simulates, intuition and learning. While learning and intuition are part of what we consider general intelligence, a far more fundamental component is lacking: Individuated consciousness.

We need a facepalm emoji. @Leo Gura

I think that is confusing what individuated consciousness is. It is a physical thing, a specific shape within the wavefunction of the universe. Computers aren't anything like that shape, so they will not be individuated. It's not the AHA moment that grants consciousness, it's the other way around.

You can get far with parroting, memory and intuition, but I suspect there will be a lot of hard-lines that will be impossible to cross. The danger here is, of course, that you will get intelligence without consciousness. There is nothing more destructive than intelligence that lacks consciousness. It's kind of ironic, because the last world war was caused precisely by this kind of dynamic. Machine learning has the potential to give power to the least conscious of individuals. Would have been nice if the nazis had been a little less smart and had less "intelligent functions". The kind of potential for destruction now possible will pale in comparison to what we they had been capable of.

You are missing the point. If you aren't conscious, you aren't "Generally Intelligent", you simply have intelligent functions. If you want it to be smarter than you, just hit yourself on the head real hard. That will fix your problems.

It's emulating dreaming, so you can expect the same type of quality, as well as incoherencies, as you witness in hyperreal dreams. All of you literally have a stochastic neural network like this in your brain, and you use it every day.

The term AI is a misnomer because, fundamentally, the AI is doing the opposite of what we consider to be intelligence. A human being, given enough time, can know nothing about math at all and develop all of math from the ground up, simply by analyzing reality, and simply by analyizing their mind. A human being, given enough time, can go from no artistic expression to developing all the artistic expressions we see currently. A human being, given enough time, can create language itself, can create new concepts, new words, new ideas, without ever having seen and heard of any of them. Given enough time, a human being could create all possible words, all possible concepts that can exist within the reality of his mind. AI is precisely the opposite. It cannot do anything without data. This is because machine learning has nothing to do with intelligence in this sense, it is probabilistic, stochastic parroting. It is more akin to intuition than anything else. You could give AI photorealistic images of all objects in the universe. And it would be great at depicting those objects, in photorealism. It could never move beyond that, because in the AI, there is nothing beyond the data. This is the fundamental reason why AI is not in the same way intelligent as a human mind: A human mind does not simply come to intelligent conclusions, a human minds understands why the conclusion is correct. Why? Because the conclusion and the process is part of their being. The idea of "addition" and "substraction" exists in a human mind, it does not exist in a calculator. Calculators do not do math, they calculate. Logic exists in the human mind, as an actual substance of existence. There is no computational system that contains logic, it simply can attempt to mimic the dynamics of logic. In the same way, no computational system has a sense of appeal, because appeal and beauty is actually a substance of existence. It is actually something that exists in the human mind, and it relates to other part of the human mind, which are other, actually existing substances of reality. In other words, experience is essential to general intelligence. Because general intelligence simply means being conscious, being individuated. The more substances of existence, and interrelation between them, a mind can contain, the higher it's potential for "general intelligence" is. Now, this doesn't mean AI cannot achieve great things. It is basically machine evolution. It should be able to achieving anything that the human mind does unconsciously. This is why image generation is possible, it is much like human imagination. When you think "apple", you don't consciously image that apple. You don't construct it, it comes to you as you intend it. The same is true for thoughts. You don't come up with your own thoughts, you don't think them. It's not intelligent to have thoughts, what's intelligent is you realizing what the thoughts mean, what they are, and how they relate to the rest of existence. The AI does not understand why poetry is poetry, it simply learns to mimic it. There is no poetry in the machine, the poetry only exists in the human mind, as he reads it, as the words form a new substance of existence. I suspect genuine AGI will not happen until we create physical artifical evolutionary systems. Individuating consciousness is essential for this, and this will have to happen on a physical basis, in the same or similar manner as the brain does.

I miss the old mods.

Interesting thanks for sharing that.

I'm just picturing someone in an existential panic attack hyperventilating and someone going "Bro just dance some.". They should have just put on some nice music and made her dance!

What if they want to be the witch?