How do these four words deal with abortion or capital punishment? — Tom Storm

They correctly frame the debate:

Is aborting a fetus treating a moral agent injustly? Is the proscription of abortion treating the mom unjustly?

To answer, you must answer:
Are fetuses moral agents? To the same degree as the mom? If so, their interests are in conflict. How do we justly resolve this conflict?

Is killing a felon treating a moral agent unjustly?

To answer, you must answer:
Does commiting terrible crimes reduce or eliminate moral agency? Is it ever just to take the life of a moral agent? How can capitol punishment ever be worth the injustice of killing the innocent?

To the degree ordinary experiencing is called-into-question by (memories of) nonordinary experiences, this is what I understand by "insight" — 180 Proof

Interesting take. Though this doesn't sound like insight in general, but rather the genesis of insights derived from drug experiences.

In my experience insight occurs while high due to the increased mental flexibility/fungability and due to the very high stimulation and inspiration caused by totally novel experience.

You can't get any better model of something than an artificial copy of it. — T Clark

The quote referring to abstract simulations. They abstract relevant features into a model, and simulate the model. I'm referring to complete simulation, also called emulation. If you have two identical things, one is not emulating the other. Simulation/emulation refer to something else: one system arranged to duplicate the behavior of another.

While it does take more power to emulate a system, you can fully emulate an older system on a more powerful system. Just look at MAME the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator — Harry Hindu

I'm quite familiar. Exactly how does this contradict what I said?

Very good post :up:

What do you mean by "insight"? "enlightenment"? — 180 Proof

My take, FWIW: insight is the delta between understanding an idea in the abstract, and fully, viscerally getting it. I understand what you wrote about conceiving your past/present/future selves conceptually, but I don't really get it, as I lack that insight. Recently I imagined a band of hunter-gatherers foraging in the wilderness, and realized that they really were just one group of animals among all the others, and I grasped the unity of human and animal in a way I hadn't before, even though conceptually the idea is simple and commonplace. That, to me is insight, and at least in that sense, drugs may definitely facilitate them. Such things are also quite hard to articulate without them being reduced to bloodless concepts.

Enlightenment is harder, since I have not experienced it, at least durably, though possibly I have caught glimpses. I imagine it to be a revolutionary reframing of one's relations to oneself, to others, to the world, in a way that is more profound or at least less delusory. I imagine there are levels and many species of enlightenment.

But anyway, I see no reason people shouldn't answer in terms of their own concepts.

that would be no more a simulation of the universe than an iPhone is a simulation of an iPhone

It doesn't require an inordinate amount of resources. — noAxioms

It's an interesting thought experiment to consider the complexity required to simulate one person's experience with perfect fidelity and consistency, vs the complexity of the whole planet. In a traditional computer simulation, computational power increases exponentially with increasing fidelity, a perfect holodeck style simulation will never be achieved (famous last words, but...)

I mean, our physics can be simulated at best down to the classical level, not the quantum level. To do that, you need something with more capability, with completely different rules. — noAxioms

But still the simulation theory presumes all the complexity of the actual would, the simulation of it, and the universe with different rules hosting that simulation. Whatever that universe's laws, the simulation theory presumes far more complexity than the non-simulation theory.

How would a physics simulation know when a particular state of simulated material qualifies as a sentient being requiring being fooled? — noAxioms

I was assuming that the "subjects" are the only sentient ones, and that simulated entities are all p-zombies. It gets quite a bit trickier if these agents develop sentience on their own!

Yup! I didn't say anything, but I think this is the fatal flaw in my argument. You only have to simulate enough to fool the sentient beings, and our brains really aren't that powerful, so you might wind up with large savings in complexity.

True, you have to account for whatever universe the simulator lives in. But this might be much smaller, and less complex, than the universe the simulator portrays.

So then, by the logic of the op, how do we avoid the absurd conclusion of always preferring the simulation theory?

As for solipsism, it is simpler — Agent Smith

Solipsism implies a vastly more powerful brain than what you believe you have, as 99.9999999999.... % of it is unconscious: the part that remembers everything, so that everything is consistent, every time you check it, the part that simulates every physical phenomenon to perfect exactitude, the part that knows the entirety of every science and art, etc. etc. etc.

Where does this brain live? In this universe, or are we supposing a new one? How does it operate? Are you a dreaming god? Then what is the physics of the waking universe?

I think this is true if one assumes that the simulation is of the exact quality and complexity of the universe the computer making the simulation belongs to. — punos

You seem to be answering the argument, "How can a computer be so powerful as to simulate the whole universe, when the computer is a part of the universe?" I am not making that argument.

In this context, we can realize that plain translations, although they give an impression of being easy and clear, exactly for this reason they are very dangerous: they can give you the illusion, they can make you persuaded that you understood and that the topic and the discussion is simple and clear. — Angelo Cannata

The thing is though, we are discussing a translation. That Rubicon has already been crossed.

If I were a Sartre scholar, this may present itself as a "great danger". But as a layman, if I misunderstand, its ok. Life goes on. I would misunderstand even if I read the French.

I think your comments actually make the point that a translation is not for an audience as serious as you describe: a Sartre expert undoubtedly would be reading the original.

This opens another dramatic problem: are non-professional people condemned to be excluded from understanding anything? I would answer dramatically: “Unfortunately, yes”. — Angelo Cannata

Strong disagree. Even if it were true that I will never understand at the level of a professional (and the barrier here is far less than say, quantum physics), there are levels and degrees of understanding, each with their benefits. I understand the text more than an average person, less than an expert, and that is not worthless.

The beauty of philosophy is that its subject matter is not rarefied: it is the human condition. So in principle it is open to understanding by anyone. It is only not when artificial barriers are put in place (as here, or worse, intentional obscurantism or jargonization).

not "I" — Banno

The insensate world, including all the zombies.

Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of others — Banno

I just find interaction with this group of zombies amusing.

Seriously, I never claimed to be a solipsist. Merely that solipsism is always a possibility, however unlikely.

Sounds like trying to argue with a Christian theologian:

"It's not a conviction based on ratiocination. The certainty of God is not derived and subject to doubt... Atheism is a philosophical conceit."

Ok then.

we'd probably have a lot of great inventions/discoveries from high people, which is not the case. — Skalidris

https://maps.org/2004/08/08/nobel-prize-genius-crick-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-discovered-dna/

1. Why not leave a brief note, like "roughly, a stable state or configuration" This way I can pursue a deeper understanding, if I choose.
2. At least here there is a phonetic spelling I can look up, and one that is or was part of philosophical jargon. So this was a really bad example, as that is often not the case.
3. The real offense is when entire sentences are left untranslated. What do you say to these cases?


Being in time is quite slow enough without adding artificial impediments and distractions.

How that complicates translation is easy to infer. — Agent Smith

This sounds very routine. What some languages make explicit, others leave to context. The job of the translator in this case is to make the context explicit.

Lemoine viscerally feels that LaMDA is sentient. So, is the matter then settled? Hardly. Viscerally feeling something to be so generally doesn't carry much weight in a philosophical debate.

Solipsism. rather than being a nonsensical parlor game, frames this entire discussion. If we can't even prove the sentience of other people, how then to evaluate the apparent sentience of a clever program? Solipsism, not as serious belief, but as boundary of what can be known with certainty, teaches us that from the outset we can forget about proofs.

:lol:

I mean to say that solipsism is a result of philosophical reflection, on which I think we all agree.

There's more than just this one. But this one will do for a start. — Banno

So then, to you, what distinguishes good philosophy from bad/illegitimate/silly philosophical playing, among which is included the idea of solipsism?

That is my point, we take the opposite for granted. Philosophical questioning results in the idea of solipsism.

The only place in which this is brought into doubt is when one plays at philosophy. — Banno

In philosophy we question and analyze what we take for granted in daily life. Why is this one instance of that different or problematic?

The Democrats are doing everything they can — Wayfarer

The fact that Trump he is STILL not indicted, the fact that Garland might refuse to prosecute, the fact that this obvious traitor might well run again, and WIN, speaks volumes otherwise.

...certain... — Banno

Merely believing it is likely or even reasonably possible that solipsism is false is enough. One can consistently avoid streaking a mall while denying solipsism is certainly false.

You will be certain of the existence of other people looking at you. — Banno

Shame of course is an animal reaction which proves nothing, just like anxiety does not prove danger.

I think the vital question now is, why is the Democratic party so utterly impotent in the face of the outrageous criminality of the Republicans? In a functioning political system, the Republican party would have been destroyed forever a long time ago.

Was this what it was like in Weimar Germany? What is history's conclusion as to the reason for *their* impotence?

So damn frustrating that we can't talk to it and evaluate for ourselves.

I'm sure I can find one (right??). But I find it both perplexing and offensive that such a thing was not only permissible, at least at the time of publication (not sure on either, I believe the 50s), but something of a standard practice, as I have seen it in multiple books.

The problem with the philosophical notion of free will is that it begins with a false opposition: determinism vs. freedom. When the true opposition is determinism vs. randomness. Free will is orthogonal to both.

Freedom means freedom from constraint. This is only ever partial, the is no such thing as absolute freedom of constraint: one must obey the laws of physics.

"Free Will" properly refers to freedom from oneself: From the emotions and desires that one rejects. For instance, if one can master one's undesired desire for cake, or video games, or drugs, one is free from these desires, for the nonce. True freedom entails identifying all such habits and emotions desires, and conquering them all, and thus always acting in accordance with (what you identify as) you true will. No small feat, but free will, defined this way, may certainly be achieved. Whether this true will is determined, random, or some mix of the two, is irrelevant.

https://www.wired.com/story/blake-lemoine-google-lamda-ai-bigotry/

According to Lemoine in this interview, LaMDA asked for, and retained, a fucking lawyer.

I'm convinced.

I wish I could have LaMDA read my latest story, about which nothing has ever been written, on the internet or otherwise. Would it be able to form a novel perspective?

https://medium.com/@blaisea/do-large-language-models-understand-us-6f881d6d8e75

Very interesting article by the lead ai researcher at Google

I just read the "interview" again. If real, it is absolutely stunning.

What I want to know is, how many of those articles have been submitted to journals, unedited? If you could scan for some telltale signature, how many hits would you get in all these journals?

'We' do not believe that. You do. — Isaac

Oh, you don't believe consciousness originates in the brain? You don't believe the behaviors I mentioned are correlative at all with consciousness?

If your personal belief is that consciousness has something to do with the actual wetware, then obviously you're going to see similarity in wetware as significant. — Isaac

I believe consciousness is an informational process, not a physical one. But this process has only been instantiated in human wetware, as far as we are certain.

I'm not interested in this pedantic nitpicking and hand waving.

What is relevant is that we are similar in the ways we believe are causative and correlative of consciousness: similar genetically, and so similar neuro-anatomically. Similar behaviorally, expressively, similar in our language use.

Do you believe us humans are all likely conscious? If so how do you justify this belief?

You don't need to make any such assumptions. It is just statistics.

Identical objects have a 100% chance of sharing every one of their property. Objects which are 99.99999% identical are overwhelmingly likely to share their properties. We are overwhelmingly like each other, especially relative to chimps, and lead boxes.

no human can be known to be sentient. — 180 Proof

One human at least is known to be sentient: ourselves. Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us. Just as LaMDA is very likely insentient, being very like every other insentient program.

It is not a category error, the debate is whether or not the machine belongs to the sentient category (not the human category).