Carl-Richard

I've been to the gym on a microdose of LSD, and I felt weaker and more easily fatigued. Might be related to 5HT2A activity elevating cortisol and lowering testosterone.

How does a systems understanding of psychology differ from a non-systems understanding?

Which "you" are you talking to? There is no you or me, only consciousness. Do you see the problem? You're not being consistent in your use of language (and you're also not at all being courteous to what I'm trying to communicate), and that is because you're playing the Advaita guru game: you're not talking about AI sentience — you're trying to teach me about non-duality. Do you acknowledge that this is happening or will you continue to not address the frame?

...wait, did you just invoke statistics, i.e. a spectrum from 0-100%? Where are the misogynist types? ?

Don't just assert that. Enlighten me. I spoiled your Advaitan magic trick. Were you doing something else? Let's do this then (even though you were alluding to another Advaitan escape route, i.e. "logic is futile"): Do you and I experience thoughts? Do we experience each other's thoughts? Can AI experience thoughts? That is the question of AI sentience. Consciousness as a transpersonal field of qualities is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you agree?

There are no thoughts, just awareness. There is no awareness, just is-ness. Is-ness is only a construct and a way of speaking. Absolute Truth cannot be spoken etc. You've fallen into the Advaita trap, my friend. I will now allow you to use concepts in a consistent fashion and communicate like a normal person, which is especially important when talking about AI sentience.

How would you explain how different people report different thoughts popping into awareness (singular): person A reports x thoughts, and person B reports y thoughts?

Ok, so now you're retreating back into transpersonal consciousness again. It's not just a semantic rabbit hole: it's Neo-Advaitan whack-a-mole. How would you explain how different people report different thoughts popping into awareness (Person A reports x thoughts, and person B reports y thoughts)?

Do you have a specific example?

Do you want to continue or do you want to escape to a semantic rabbit hole?: We agree that consciousness is not a thought and that consciousness is not bound to anything. You are aware of thoughts, and I am aware of thoughts, and you are not aware of my thoughts. Is AI aware of thoughts? That is the question of AI sentience. Do you agree?

Lmao

We agree that consciousness is not a thought and that consciousness is not bound to anything. Still, do you experience thoughts? Yes. Can you experience my thoughts? No. Does AI experience thoughts? That is the question of AI sentience. Regardless, to say that you or me do not experience thoughts is absurd.

The paradigm that Leo is talking from is not what we usually experience in our day-to-day 3D consciousness where discussions of AI take place. In this more normal level of reality, brain activity does correlate with certain types of human personal experiences (e.g. feelings, thoughts, understanding), but not transpersonal consciousness (or it's negatively correlated with it). You seem to drag the discussion towards transpersonal consciousness, meanwhile the questions of AI sentience is about whether they have these human personal experiences. So if you claim that AI have human personal experiences and you're not currently living in DMT hyperspace, then the implications of neural correlates is a problem you have to address.

The way I view these models is that they display the order that each stage is unlocked, but that unlocking one stage doesn't mean you've explored the full extent of the other stages (or that your behavior at any moment is fully encapsulated by one stage). So in theory, what you're saying is possible, but also remember that misunderstanding the stages is very common (especially Tier 2). I'm not going to try to judge your stage, but how would you describe the aspects of yourself in Tier 2?

Perceptions correlate with brain activity. Consciousness goes beyond perceptions.

SD isn't the only psychological stage theory, but yes, he took inspiration from SD among other similar theories. He later collaborated with Beck to create SDi. He isn't the first to create a meta-theoretical synthesis of stage theories either (there he took inspiration from Robert Kegan). However, the way he did it is unique (4 Quadrants).

I think this is my favorite Allan Holdsworth song (not for any of the reasons above). Pretty chill.

Does it work in reverse?

Going for a run changes breathing too It changes everything. Breathing is one thing.

They've told me about it in retrospect, but just generally, not from that particular experience.

I might've misrepresented some of the details from memory, so I replaced what I wrote with a direct quote from the dissertation.

You can read about it in section 7.6 of Bernardo Kastrup's PhD dissertation: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf

This also happens online in more close-knit communities like those on Discord, which is good why those things are also discouraged on here.

I suggest you update your concept of sentience by distinguishing it from phenomenal consciousness (qualities of experience). A rock consists of consciousness, in that it has certain qualities (color, texture etc.), and under metaphysical idealism (which you're proposing), these qualities exist outside the confines of biology (brains). However, sentience involves more loaded kinds of experiences which are associated with biology, like pleasure and pain, emotions and understanding, which have a private side (subjective 1st person) and a public side (objective 3rd person). A rock doesn't have that. If you were a materialist, you could more easily avoid making the distinction between consciousness and sentience, because you would believe that neither of them arise before biological life. However, when you're an idealist, this distinction becomes more necessary. The technical term for the split between private and public is "intentionality" and denotes the most basic aspect of sentience (the ability of minds to be "about" something).

Have you read the paper you're criticizing?