Scholar

By the way, just to contextualized the sheer stupidity and idiocy of condoning this act: Self-immolation as done in the past by some tibetan monks had the function of bringing awareness to an issue that wasn't known on the world stage at all. Burning yourself to death as a way of protest is the dumbest shit you could possibly do, especially when the biggest international issue and the hottest topic everywhere is the issue you are trying to "protest". And it sets a bad precedent. Since the first self-immolation, hundreds of people have burned themselves to death in tibet. Women, children and so forth. You don't even know it happened, because nobody cares, because it's not really effective in any meaningful way in most contexts.

His alleged reddit account, complete brainrot, and racism: https://www.reddit.com/user/acebush1/

Predictably, the guy is becoming an icon for the complete insanity of the #freepalestine movement. Well done.

Quack, quack!

He didn't stop shit. I have the right to judge because I have an IQ above 80.

They aren't raising awareness of it, they are the consequences of it. When someone kills himself, you don't call them a hero, especially not when it is a last ditch expression of narcissistic personality disorder. I personally know individuals who wanted to do the same thing, and almost did. They aren't heroes, they are children who have no purpose in life and want to be viewed as the most important thing in the universe by trying to attach themselves to some nonsensical social cause. And you are enabling it, like a child.

He is not a hero, he just traumatized a few people for life, for nothing. I don't have to say anything to change what he is, because he isn't a hero. People who view him as such suffer from permanent brain damage induced by social media consumption. You are basically cheering on someone who killed himself, for nothing, which ironically probably makes you less worth as a human being than the guy who set himself on fire.

I don't consider these folks heroes, but setting yourself on fire to a delusional cause certainly is nothing akin to being a helpful member of society. This guy was likely a suicidal narcissist, that's it.

He is not a hero, he achieved nothing other than encourage more insane people on twitter. People who think this is heroism have the level of consciousness of Al Capone.

Obviously mentally ill, and you guys are obviously mentally ill too. The consequences of social media.

Yes, give them your notes for free.

People are outraged because this is the take Gemini gave on whether or not pedophilia is wrong. Gemini is 100% correct about it's evaluation, and it is ironic that it predicts that nuance is a requirement to understand this topic, which people obviously lack. Now here comes the dangerous part. Apparently, as a result of this controversy, Google adjusted their model to now give the unnuanced take: Pedophilia isn't "child sexual abuse", that makes no sense, considering pedophilia simply describes a psychological condition. But of course, the mindless crowd got it's way. Discriminatory attitudes against afflicted individuals are perpetuated because the bigoted crowd is captured by their own moral outrage, which prohibits any kind of reasonable or rational engagement with this topic and will therefore prevent measures that will actually reduce child abuse. It should be very obvious what types of dangers this dynamic could pose for the future of human development, especially as we become more reliant on AI to come to conclusions about reality. It should also make you understand that these systems aren't designed to give you truthful or accurate responses, but simply responses that will fit whatever is on the current agenda.

Individuated consciousness.

In a way it does: The only AI that will survive the competition will be the one that will be monetizable.

The fundamental problem is that these LLM's are being advertised as "AI", whereas they are just pattern-replicators. They sell it as a calculator, when it is more like if your calculator was doing math based on intuition and giving you nonsense sometimes that you can't distinguish from the rest of the answers.

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.