221–230 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God you are so smug about something you know essentially nothing about.
I'm lead dev in a start-up that applies coordination dynamics to spatial-syntax. I probably know quite a bit more than you do about what I'm doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've struck at the essential problem of dualism. If thoughts are nonphysical, how can thoughts influence our physical bodies? If consciousness does not interact with the physical world, but merely arises from it, then how can we possibly discuss it, since anything we describe is causally linked to our description of it? Descartes thought the soul was linked to the body through the pineal gland, inspiring a long tra…
I mean it's funny you mention Descartes, because I find the argument that consciousness is the ONLY thing you can really know exists for sure to be pretty compelling. (Descartes then significantly loses the thread, hah.) I agree with you that consciousness is much more fragmented and nonlinear than we perceive it to be, but "I exist" seems pretty tautological to me (for values of "I" that are completely unspecified.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my question is more a question of how whether than whether , if that makes sense. There is something about "thought" affecting "matter" that feels spooky if there is a bidirectional relationship. If thought / consciousness / mind is purely downstream of physics, no spookiness. If somehow experienced states of mind can reach back and cause physical effects... that feels harder to explain. It feels like a sort…
You've struck at the essential problem of dualism. If thoughts are nonphysical, how can thoughts influence our physical bodies? If consciousness does not interact with the physical world, but merely arises from it, then how can we possibly discuss it, since anything we describe is causally linked to our description of it? Descartes thought the soul was linked to the body through the pineal gland, inspiring a long tra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did he?
Well you said, "The author has a hypothesis and it's looking for evidence" - that's usually the definition of the scientific method - you form some hypoothesis and then try and find evidence to test it. So as far as I can tell, you're describing the scientific method as "bad thinking" and criticizing the author for using it. Which is certainly quite a take.
When you encounter an unexplained phenomena (such as an increase in cases of psychosis), you should observe first, then hypothesize on what is the cause.
The description of the risk factors very much jibes with what I have seen in a friend recently. He is quite isolated, and spends most of his evenings writing using AI (he works in a blue-collar trade and wouldn't be typing stuff out by hand usually). He's convinced that he has discovered a grand theory of human connection / relationships / energy / physics, and keeps interrupting in conversation to explain how someth…
Regarding "theories of everything" and stuff like that. Well, lots of people have those. If I were to call everyone that believes in god or horoscope lone losers, then the asshole would be me, wouldn't it? I know it's different, but also, it's not.
Friendship doesn't require that you buy into the other's vision in order to want them around. That's ideology. Perhaps you misunderstood what friendship means? It's ok, the world is in a weird place right now.
Has no one considered that up to 11.3 million Soviet citizens might have a sense of humor and have been pretending to believe it for fun?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm lead dev in a start-up that applies coordination dynamics to spatial-syntax. I probably know quite a bit more than you do about what I'm doing.
I don't care what narrow thing you're working on, the brain is simply not as well understood as you think it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's science challenging CS. If there are no such things as symbols and metaphors in reality, and these are arbitrary, how possibly does it stay referential? It can't. It falls apart, language can't produce itself. It was denoted by Aristotle, the cognitive mapping people Okeefe, Moser, Kandel deciphered this in 1973 and now it feeds from mythological thought into AI "psychosis". Solve the problem at the source units…
Your posts read like someone experiencing LLM psychosis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also absurdly wrong, and a quote that only a self-identified rationalist could smugly tout. Of course everyone has world models. Otherwise people would wander into traffic like headless chickens, if they'd even be capable of that. What he likely means is that not everyone explicitly things of possibilities in terms of probabilities that are a function of Bayesian updating. That does not imply the absence of worl…
Yes, everyone has a world model even a toddler has a casual model (“cry → mum comes”).