@SydSteyerhart Your tweet is what happens when a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect assesses LLM "intelligence".
English
Luke ❤️🔥⚜️🏴☠️
6.9K posts
Luke ❤️🔥⚜️🏴☠️
@LukeJohn82
Gnostic troubadour. Tweets out of season. Fiddling while the world burns.
Beneath the wild peach tree Katılım Nisan 2022
107 Takip Edilen143 Takipçiler
There is no reason for philosophers anymore. We are building superintelligences with godlike capacity for perfect ontological labeling of reality. For human beings to reach the Oort Cloud and conquer all visible space, we do not require 'love of wisdom' but only will to power.
Polymarket@Polymarket
JUST IN: Google DeepMind hires a philosopher as it prepares for machine consciousness.
English
@ProfSteveFuller Please show us a meaning of "generate" that doesn't semantically bottom out in relations of phenomenal relata.
English
Roger Penrose still believes in a Grand Unified Theory of Everything and wants human consciousness to follow as a consequence. Suppose he gets what he wants. It wouldn't stop consciousness from being generated by alternative material means. It might even make it easier.
English
Yes, like rationalism, it's map-territory confusion.
John@ErrorTheorist
Here’s a book arguing that a lot of analytic philosophy consists of empty ideas that don’t connect to the concrete world in a meaningful way. The author claims that much of analytic philosophy is just about conceptual connections or verbal puzzles. Do you agree?
English
@SpeedWatkins @Joeray Choices are acts of the free intentionality of the subject towards the world, not expressions of an inborn "character". But this isn't even strictly relevant; God cannot "save" a subject via forcing the subject's alignment to Him because the subject is essentially free.
English
@Joeray Choices inevitably express our character; a choice whose source is not who we are could not be "our" choice. And we did not author this character, that would require us to be the cause of oneself, but that is impossible. We can do what we will, but we cannot will what we will.
English
It is unjust for God to withhold salvation for choices that are the inevitable expressions of a character we did not author. But our choices are the inevitable expressions of a character that we could not author. Therefore, it is unjust for God to withhold salvation from anyone.
English
@SpeedWatkins You have no coherent view of what God, the human subject and salvation are, which is why you continue to babble incoherently.
English
@birchlse If you start from the semantically vacuous position this question presupposes, that the phenomenal world is a subject-"generated" private "internal" representation, you would end up with an incoherent ontology that blinds you to obvious reality.
English
One could argue the lack of progress in physics (esp. failure to agree on a solution to the measurement problem) has caused debates about free will, consciousness, etc., to get correspondingly stuck, because we don't know what kind of world our mental lives exist within.
John@ErrorTheorist
Here’s a paper arguing that there is no progress in philosophy. The author claims that if Aristotle visited a modern university, he would be amazed by modern physics but feel at home in the philosophy classes, since the debates haven’t fundamentally changed. What do you think?
English
@StuartHameroff Spacetime geometry is a map of the structure of a phenomenal world. "Consciousness", a term which anyhow conflates subject with phenomenal object of awareness, isn't something localised in it; to the contrary, phenomenal space is the very thing that has this geometry.
English
Yes I know that work. Very impressive.
Orch OR has consciousness occurring in spacetime geometry, normally confined to brain microtubules.But when the body and brain die, the quantum information may dissipate but remain entangled to find another set of microtubules in reincarnation.
KeithCEGJ@KCegj4491
@StuartHameroff @ericweinstein Stuart I'm sure knows of the DOPS group at Univ. of Virginia,+45 y of children's past life memories/reincarnation studies & NDEs (Prof. Ian Stevenson/others)-published work. Eric...there's something about "space" that supports these phenomena - so? A theory?
English
@S_OhEigeartaigh Consciousness doesn't even "result from" biological substrates. It doesn't "result" at all, and I can say that with 100% certitude, because the entire semantic content of the word "result" bottoms out in relations of relata that are objects of the nature of consciousness.
English
My colleague Henry is about as decent a philosopher as they come. Prof David Chalmers (h-index of 77, 72,000 citations) is not too shabby either. We should not be overconfident about uncertain things - the idea that consciousness could only ever result from a biological substrate seems overconfident.
Duncan Reyburn@duncanreyburn
No decent philosopher believes ‘machine consciousness’ is (or ever will be) a thing.
English
I have yet to a single even remotely coherent account of what a "LLMs are conscious" is supposed to mean and what the truth conditions of that purported proposition are, and I doubt you can offer one. In fact I'm certain you can't.
ꜱᴘᴀᴄᴇ ᴘᴜɴᴋ@_space_punk_
I have yet to hear a single even remotely well thought out argument for why LLMs arent consciousness. It all inevitably breaks down to "well ive defined consciousness as definitionally something a machine can't have" without any real discussion about the nature of consciousness whatsoever
English
@SIUChasmite "Experience" is in principle a relation between witness and the witnessed, and no amount of monistic hand waving will ever enable you to ground the present or lead you to a logically coherent account of the possibility of experiencing of the temporal flow relative to it.
English
Most pragmatists are ignored by phenomenologists. They're unwilling to heed the wisdom of most varieties of naturalism. Experience is ontologically continuous with the world. Introducing a transcendental subject makes human experience unworldly and irreducible and yet, 1)...
English
We can posit and treat the irreducibility of a transcendental subject naturalistically and simply accept a type of emergentism for natural reasons/causes we don't know yet. 2) We need not sacrifice the world for a uniqueness grounded in reality.
English
@sopharicks No. But also, "scientific frameworks" and proofs presuppose consciousness, and semantic content bottoms out in consciousness. The point is moot. What the "hard problem" posits is this logically impossible to bridge. Physicalism is a performative contradiction.
English
Yesterday's conversation on X made me think that Gödel's incompleteness can be applied to consciousness. Meaning consciousness exists, but no scientific framework will ever be able to prove it. This to some extent corresponds to David Chalmers' thoughts on the hard problem and the fundamental challenge of explaining inner experience even with perfectly mapped brain processes. Seems like a hopeless business.
English
@roydherbert @vitrupo Being a numpty is not being able to recognise how you are begging the question via your presuppositions.
English
@SipOfKoKo @RednaxelLeftist Divine simplicity is a foundational Christian dogma. You don't know what you're talking about.
English
@RednaxelLeftist Of course he need not be but that is not how the vast majority of Christians, both lay Christians and theologians, conceive of God!
English
This is a silly strawman. The argument is that God is far more complex than the universe, so if the complexity of the universe is evidence it must have been created, why isn’t God’s complexity evidence that he was? Why can’t the universe be in the “uncreated” category?
Kat Kanada 🏴@KatKanada_TM
When people ask “who created God?” They don’t understand that they’re committing a category error. God is uncreated. So they’re asking “who created the uncreated being.” It’s a nonsense question.
English
@PageauJonathan @WesleyLHuff That tells us why it's where it is but not what it is ...
English
@WesleyLHuff Happy to help you with this. A hint, it is related to the unharvested corners of the field left for the strange(r).
English
@_sHx_ @IonaItalia @SteveStuWill East Asians kiss. Africans kiss. Indians kiss. Latin Americans kiss. Islamic cultural love poetry and literature feature kissing on the lips. As in "making out". Keep imagining it's "mostly a Western cultural thing".
English
@IonaItalia @SteveStuWill It seems to be referring to couples kissing on the lips, in which case, it is mostly a Western cultural thing. In Muslim lands, you may see the wife kiss her husband’s hand and the husband kiss the wife’s forehead, but you will not see them kiss on the lips. It is plain weird.
English
I'm extremely sceptical about this. Kissing seems to me like an absolute basic part of the human experience. I'm hoping to interview @SteveStuWill again soon, so will ask him about it.
sean@DilettanteryPod
English
Pet peeve: to "decimate" means to reduce by 10%, so stop using it like it's a synonym for "destroy." Just say "destroy."
You don't sound smarter, you sound stupid.
English
@NoahTopper Violence against gen-AI would already be justified by it stopping the flood of slop into the world.
English
A truly weird pattern with this is like
A: “If you really believed this, violence would be morally justified”
B: “What? That wouldn’t even work”
A: “So you’re saying if it worked it would be justified??”
My brother in Christ, *you’re* the one who said it would be justified!
florence 🦐🪻@morallawwithin
It would appear that, according to many, one of the following are true: 1. It is a priori impossible for a new technology to be an existential threat 2. If a new technology is an existential threat, you’re not allowed to say that
English
@leonheden The ontological consequences of turning away from God are not an allegory.
English
Why do people take parables and allegories literally?
ɠɧıʂɧ@rirokpik
So the billions of people who existed before “your Jesus” are burning in hell for being born too early in history?
English