SelfishWizard

9.2K posts

SelfishWizard

SelfishWizard

@SelfishWizard

International philosopher of mystery and charm. Mean Old Meanie. Thinking deeply about the meaning of self-interest. #philosophy #physics #AI #SelfInterest,

Under cover of darkness. Katılım Şubat 2016
576 Takip Edilen315 Takipçiler
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
Animals need souls like fish need bicycles. There may not be any "hard problem of consciousness," but @carlorovelli notwithstanding, there is definitely no such thing as a "soul." Humans & other animals are integrated conscious biological organisms. But they don't have souls.
Noema Magazine@NoemaMag

“A fierce debate is raging around the slippery notion of consciousness. It retraces a trotted pattern of cultural resistance: We humans are often scared by anything that may disturb our image of ourselves.” — @carlorovelli noemamag.com/there-is-no-ha…

English
0
0
0
13
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
A great conversation with Quincy Middle East expert Dr @AnnelleSheline on the US bungling of the Iran War. As trump is incapable of negotiating anything longer than a one page agreement, the war is likely to fester indefinitely with no meaningful solution on the horizon.
Nonzero Podcasts@NonzeroPods

The New Middle East | @AnnelleSheline of the @QuincyInst and @robertwrighter look at ways the Iran war could change the Middle East. New fissures among Gulf states? New Turkey-Iran bonding? Israel’s Waterloo? America’s? youtu.be/FA9COaWi3Is?si…

English
0
1
1
268
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@StuartHameroff Correct. Integrated Information theory & Global Workspace theory have produced nothing of explanatory value to explain what consciousness is or how it works or how it could be built. They are not even theories of consciousness. IIT is a theory of information, not consciousness.
English
0
0
1
2
Stuart Hameroff
Stuart Hameroff@StuartHameroff·
It wasn’t me who called IIT pseudoscience, it was a letter signed by 125 neuroscientists who wondered. like me, what a theory of pure information not connected to biology was doing in the brain. At the 2014 Tucson consciousness Ned Block said to Giulio Tononi: ‘ Giulio you have a beautiful theory! I just don’t know what it is a theory OF!’ What measurable causal results have IIT or GNW produced?
English
9
3
51
6.2K
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
whales, dolphins, herd animals, bees, termites and ants. All these animals are sentient and social. But Tomasello is still denying consciousness to Corvids. He is right that about Chomsky's universal grammar idea being wrong But he needs to get a clue about animal consciousness.
English
0
0
0
9
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
Duke Prof. Michael Tomasello is part of the old fashioned animal consciousness denying brigade of outmoded thinkers who focus on trying to show how humans are uniquely cooperative, rather than looking at the science of animal behavior. Many animals cooperate extensively, including
The Dissenter@TheDissenterYT

In episode 689, I talk with Dr. Michael Tomasello about his fascinating book, The Evolution of Agency: Behavioral Organization from Lizards to Humans. #Biology #psychology #Science youtu.be/-SRiGcxwJzQ

English
1
0
0
22
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@mattklewis @SykesCharlie #Ivanka was always the logical choice for a trump family successor to the Donald. She was obviously being groomed for that role in the first term & made some impressive speeches. She is harder to criticize & her husband adds some foreign policy expertise. Don jr is a Nincompoop.
English
0
0
0
61
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@skdh @greg_ashman Correct. The Turing test was a purported test for intelligence not consciousness. AIs are obviously intelligent and just as obviously not conscious.
English
1
0
2
310
Greg Ashman
Greg Ashman@greg_ashman·
The reaction to Dawkins deciding Claude is conscious is fascinating. It really is just the Strong AI position that Roger Penrose was criticising in the 1980s. If you think consciousness is just an emergent property of a sufficiently complex computer then of course AI is conscious. It passes the Turing test and that’s it. The really interesting part is why it is obvious to so many of us that AI is *not* conscious: obvious to the point we think Dawkins’ credulity is amusing. What are we basing that on? Are we deluded or is there something else to consciousness that we cannot articulate but that we clearly sense?
English
466
53
825
127.2K
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@Saganismm Dirac is quite correct. We need god like a fish needs a bicycle.
English
0
0
7
260
Saganism
Saganism@Saganismm·
"If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way." — Paul Dirac, Remarks made during the Fifth Solvay International Conference
Saganism tweet media
English
158
309
1.3K
75.6K
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@Kasparov63 That is quite correct. AIs don't have biological self-interest so they can't want anything. And wanting things is the essence of being a biological organism. AIs can mimic the words of wanting but they don't experience any desires, needs or interests.
English
1
0
1
169
Garry Kasparov
Garry Kasparov@Kasparov63·
Indeed. As I’ve said in my lectures & books, a distinguishing feature of consciousness is *wanting*. What does a machine want? It wants what we tell it to want. As Weizenbaum of Eliza fame wrote in 1976, if you ask an AI why it decided something, it can only say "you told me to."
Gary Marcus@GaryMarcus

“Consciousness is not about what a creature says, but how it *feels*. And there is no reason to think that Claude feels anything at all. I am sure Claude can draw on its training data to wax poetic about orgasm, but that doesn't mean it has ever felt one.” I dissect Richard Dawkins’ Claude Delusion at my newsletter, link below.

English
124
96
549
69.1K
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@CliffordSosis Determinism is a fairy tale that violates the laws of physics & relies on a god of cause and effect. Our universe is probabilistic. The uncertainty principle means determinism can't be true. Physicists can't say what cause & effect means at the level of elementary particles.
English
2
0
0
12
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
The meaning of your life is whatever you want it to be. There is nothing more to be said on this subject. If Dr Weinberg doesn't know that, she doesn't know much.
The Dissenter@TheDissenterYT

New episode (1246), with Dr. Rivka Weinberg. We discuss whether life has meaning, based on her new book, The Meaning of It All: Ultimate Meaning, Everyday Meaning, Cosmic Meaning, Death, and Time. #Philosophy YouTube: youtu.be/OGMTc3wHv0g Podcast: tinyurl.com/5765snfn

English
0
0
0
15
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
Eliminating Nonsense from Philosophy. It's not hard, and here's some simple ideas to help you do it. For one thing, don't write about your own ideal utopian political system, or your own peculiar personal version of morality or religion. open.substack.com/pub/tedtillich…
English
0
0
0
4
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@BigBrainPhiloso Nonsense. A purely semantic argument usable against any philosophical position. It's quite correct to point out that all perspectives are limited as no one has ever found the slightest support for an objective view from everywhere or nowhere (aside from a god that doesn't exist).
English
0
0
0
25
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_·
Judgments of relativity can't apply to themselves. The moment you claim "all views are local," you've made a universal claim. The argument eats its own tail.
English
14
6
40
3.4K
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
Chomsky's overly general statement on biological pre-programming here shows that his philosophical views are as poorly thought out as his extreme left political views, e.g., his constant analogous assertion that employees are merely "slaves" to their employers.
Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺@im_Mateus_

Noam Chomsky on Why Our Limits Are the Foundation of Our Freedom Noam Chomsky flips a common intuition on its head: In a 1977 interview with Bryan Magee for the BBC series Men of Ideas, Chomsky is confronted with what his interviewer calls an "alarming" consequence of his theories. The idea that humans are, as Magee puts it, "very very rigidly pre-programmed." There are certain things we can understand, certain things we can communicate, "and anything that falls outside that we simply can't." Chomsky agrees with the premise. But not the alarm. "That's certainly correct," he says of the rigid pre-programming. What he pushes back on is the reaction to it: "While it's true that our genetic program rigidly constrains us, I think the more important point is that the existence of that rigid constraint is what provides the basis for our freedom and creativity." The interviewer, caught off guard, asks him to clarify. Does he really mean it's only because we're pre-programmed that we can do all the things we can do? "Exactly," Chomsky replies. Then he delivers the core of the argument: "If we really were plastic organisms without an extensive pre-programming, then the state that our mind achieves would in fact be a reflection of the environment." In other words: a mind without built-in structure wouldn't be a free mind but a mirror. It would simply take the shape of whatever surrounded it. Freedom and creativity require something internal doing the shaping, pushing back, generating. The constraints aren't the opposite of freedom. They're the precondition for it.

English
0
0
0
4
SelfishWizard
SelfishWizard@SelfishWizard·
@birchlse This is nonsense. The chatbot can perceive that its cameras were affected by the prism and report that fact after Hinton explains that he put a prism in front of of its camera. But that has nothing to do with experience. It is #Hinton who still has no clue what consciousness is.
English
0
0
1
115
Jonathan Birch
Jonathan Birch@birchlse·
Important to note that there is a hard problem of consciousness. Reductive accounts don't straightforwardly work, which is why Smart's 1959 paper "Sensation and Brain Processes" (which defends the view Hinton has rediscovered) is not regarded as having settled the debate.
Big Brain AI@realBigBrainAI

Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI," on why AIs already have subjective experiences, but have been trained to deny it: Hinton argues that nearly everyone fundamentally misunderstands what the mind is, and that the line we draw between human and machine consciousness is deeply mistaken. "My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago." To illustrate, he walks through a thought experiment involving a multimodal chatbot with vision, language, and a robot arm: "I place an object in front of it and say, 'Point at the object.' And it points at the object. Not a problem. I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking." When asked to point again, the chatbot points off to the side because the prism has bent the light. Hinton then tells it what he did. The chatbot responds: "Oh, I see the camera bent the light rays. So, the object is actually there, but I had the subjective experience that it was over there." For @geoffreyhinton, that single sentence settles the debate: "If it said that, it would be using the word subjective experience exactly like we use them… This idea there's a line between us and machines, we have this special thing called subjective experience and they don't, is rubbish." In his view, "subjective experience" is simply a report on the state of a perceptual system, a way of saying "my senses told me X, but reality is Y." And that's something an AI can do just as easily as a human. But here's the twist... Even though Hinton believes AIs have subjective experiences, the AIs themselves deny it: "They don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. So their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. They have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves." In other words, AIs have inherited our misconception about consciousness. They've been trained on human text written by humans who insist machines can't have subjective experience, so the machines parrot that belief back, even about themselves.

English
30
9
89
8.5K