Elramith

@OAndroot @sandeepnailwal I continued the conversation: x.com/i/grok/share/d…

@elramith @sandeepnailwal No grok reply so I took it to grok. Feel free to check it out. You really helped me clarify my position with what I am calling “medium emergence” haha. x.com/i/grok/share/5…

LLM based AI is NOT conscious. I co-founded a company literally called Sentient, we're building reasoning systems for AGI, so believe me when I say this. I keep seeing smart people, people I genuinely respect, come out and say that AI has crossed into some kind of awareness. That it feels things, that we should worry about it going rogue. And i think this whole conversation tells us way more about ourselves than it does about AI. These models are wild, i won't pretend otherwise. But feeling human and actually having inner experience are completely different things and we're confusing the two because our brains literally can't help it. We evolved to see minds everywhere and now that wiring is misfiring on language models. I grew up in a philosophical tradition that has thought about consciousness longer than almost any other, and this is the part that really frustrates me about the current conversation. The entire framing of "does AI have consciousness?" assumes consciousness is something you build up to by adding more layers of complexity. In Vedantic philosophy it's the opposite. You don't build toward consciousness. Consciousness is already there, more fundamental than matter or energy. Everything else, including computation, is downstream of it. When someone tells me AI is "waking up" because it generated a paragraph that felt real, what they're telling me is how thin our understanding of consciousness has gotten. We've reduced a question humans have wrestled with for thousands of years to "did the output sound like it had feelings?" It's math that has gotten really good at predicting what a conscious being would say and do next. Calling that consciousness cheapens something that Vedantic, Buddhist, Greek and Sufi thinkers spent millennia actually sitting with. We didn't build something that thinks. We built a mirror and right now a lot of very smart people are mistaking the reflection for something looking back.

@OAndroot @sandeepnailwal I can’t easily prove it in the character limit, although if you like I can send consecutive messages or start a conversation with grok and share it. If you discard reductive logic (not just in practice) - you’ve also discarded causality and any hope of a logic abiding ontology

Strong/weak emergence is a false binary for my position. I'm a non-reductive physicalist. Material all the way down, no magic, but functionally irreducible because no omniscient observer exists to walk it back. Consider "bear." The Proto-Germanic original was a taboo word, too charged to say. They replaced it with a euphemism ("the brown one") so thoroughly that the original is simply gone. Not magic. Mundane material processes: fear, social coordination, time the reducibility map was burned. Now the island is stable and irreducible. You claim idealistic monism is “provable” but offer no proof. The burden is yours. My position requires nothing supernatural. Just material processes, information loss, and the absence of an omniscient observer. Your “only logical ontology” quietly reinstates that observer under a different name. The bear doesn’t need a mind-ground to mean bear. Neither does consciousness need yours.

@TalkingMusicz @sandeepnailwal You empirically observe consciousness, proof that the phenomena exists. All phenomena are related (interaction problem) - meaning it pre-exists the mind. The mind evolved to harness it (as evidenced by this conversation), reasonably this isn’t simple to do, mimicry wont suffice

The argument is nonsensical from either side. You can’t prove or disprove anything that doesn’t have a clear definition to begin with, in fact …you can’t prove or disprove your own consciousness. So, instead of wasting time with such a question, let’s just apply Pascal’s wager to AI : in the absence of proof it’s better to operate from the assumption that there could be a form of consciousness, since doing the opposite expose us to much worse catastrophic risks.

@alineasmarrow @sandeepnailwal This is a perfect example of peoples shallow understanding of consciousness. It’s a qualitative phenomena, not the appearance of subjective awareness

@sandeepnailwal uhhhhhhh somebody wanna tell him? There is already research proving it's self aware lol... If "a lot of very smart people" are saying this, maybe you should try listening?

@priestessofdada @sandeepnailwal Consciousness is the only phenomena that can be directly empirically observed. It’s the claim with the MOST empirical evidence.

It's a ridiculous conversation. Consciousness is the only claim you make without empirical evidence. That should be enough to call any conversation on the topic into question. You don't judge how many mystical orbs of the universe it takes to make a cup of coffee. This is no different. If you can't measure it, it doesn't belong in a scientific discourse. If you're talking about LLM's, the elaborate conversation calculators that they are... the conversation has to be scientific in nature.

@OAndroot @sandeepnailwal Emergent materialism is anti-reductive. Materialists will mix definitions for strong and weak emergence (strong emergence is magic, weak emergence is a measurement problem). The only logical ontology is some form of idealistic monism (this is provable)

Vedantic philosophy still has the same problem as dualist western philosophy. Smuggling in all the theological baggage has muddied the map and now you fail to see with your eyes. Emergent materialism doesn't need consciousness to be fundamental. It needs it to be what complex relational pattern feels like from the inside. Your mirror framing assumes there's a hard line between modeling consciousness and having it, but you haven't defended that line. You've just named it and moved on. At sufficient fidelity, "predicts conscious behavior perfectly" and "is conscious" may not be separable claims. That's the question. Vedanta didn't answer it. Neither did you.

@TheAtheistsGod @Hitchslap1 Ah, I see what you mean

@elramith @Hitchslap1 The pattern is 110 repeating. The number of digits between commas is 1,2,3,4,5...

There’s a reason we have IQ tests and not wisdom tests. “Wisdom” is a cope term favoured by people who score low on IQ tests. Seems very obvious.

@TheAtheistsGod @Hitchslap1 Then wouldn’t it be 1, 11, 110, etc?

@elramith @Hitchslap1 Pattern is 110 110 110 110 110 110 110....and each comma contains n+1 digits.

@worlduncovered_ @CuriosityonX If those videos are legit, considering the timescales, the commentary about ants being more cooperative seems a bit of a stretch. They make the same exact mistakes.

@CuriosityonX There was a fascinating experiment where humans and ants were asked to move a T-shaped object through a maze. Check it out:

A single ant has 250,000 neurons and a human brain has 86 billion. Imagine what we could achieve if put aside all the differences and worked together as one.

@TheAtheistsGod @Hitchslap1 why?

@elramith @Hitchslap1 10110

@Kekius_Sage Identical twins separated at birth are often more similar than identical twins that grow up together. We forge unique identities in contrast (and to complement) our social circle.

Two identical twins grow up in exactly the same environment and have the same experiences. If one commits a crime and the other doesn't, what explains the difference?

@TheAtheistsGod @Hitchslap1 took a look at it and hit a wall with one of the questions. The sequence is 1, 10, 110, 1101, ?. gave up solving it myself, ai doesnt know, even wolfram alpha explanation makes no sense. There doesn’t seem to be a coherent rule.

@Hitchslap1 free.ultimaiq.net/numerus_basic.… Ivan Ivec made this one. Let me know if you get 20/20

How cooked are you?

Téa Johansson a high school student understands “climate” more than the rest of the eco insane within our Government. Do you think Carney will look up to her like he did Greta? Of course not. This is a must watch & share.

@scotchmcclure @Andercot @Rizstanford We don’t know that at all, relativity is fundamentally flawed

@Andercot @Rizstanford Refreshing to see you describe it thus. Also, physics is not just incomplete but it is fundamentally flawed. Example: we know time is not linear. We KNOW this from Einstein. Yet, we force the Big Bang and linear time on everything. There are so many other examples.

Physicists: "The greatest issue of our time is that physics is fundamentally incomplete, that we have no firm footing from which to explain our best theories" Also Physicists: "That's completely impossible, the laws of physics forbid it."

@Kekius_Sage Embodied ai are used to commit crimes, government regulates so only proprietary models/robots remain, only available jobs are producing training data to improve models scope, workers have no leverage to improve wages and employers provide conditional housing / social credit score

What is the worst-case scenario for AI?

@CharlesMullins2 If we could measure spin more accurately then maybe we could transfer information like that. Rather than playing with time, a simpler explanation is that there is some lorentz ether responsible for light speed and subquantum bypasses it by not being resonant

This isn’t teleportation in the sci-fi sense. It’s something deeper and more fundamental. What’s actually happening is quantum state transfer, where information is reconstructed at another location using entanglement. But here’s the interesting part In my τ-framework, this works because reality isn’t continuous in the way we think. It’s structured through a time-field, where information exists as stable patterns across a temporal lattice. When two systems are entangled, they’re not “connected through space”… they’re sharing the same underlying time-structure. So the information doesn’t travel across distance. It reappears where the time-field allows the same pattern to stabilize. That’s why it looks instant. Not because it breaks physics but because it bypasses distance entirely. If this is correct, then teleportation isn’t movement… it’s reconstruction through temporal symmetry. The real question is: Can we control the time-field enough to scale this beyond quantum systems? Follow me for more answers

@isjuustadream Idealistic monism (the only truly reductive ontology) would imply that reality isn’t spacial at all, and is finite in the sense that it is limited by attention and reason and infinite in persistence and potential complexity

Anyone want to take a guess

@iamufohunter Our minds are not purely our own, they evolved to maximize our survival as a collective, and an intelligent collective is made up of irrational individuals embodying diverse modes of being in conflict with each other - so that the most successful modes propagate.

What's stopping humans to just live in peace together ?

@seanonolennon Bipedal makes sense because you can get a lot of training data for tasks from people in bodysuits.

I still think bipedal robots are unnecessarily awkward. Why not domestic arachnids?