There was evidence. Two of her friends testified she told her it happened right afterwards. Is your claim that they were both in on it? That they would risk a possible perjury conviction? That Carroll made the whole thing up and then told her friends to add some verisimilitude to her story and then waited years and years? That seems very farfetched.

I don't want to rehash all that. I just wanted feedback on my objection to mysterianism.

Well, I just as soon have a woman president. Less skeletons in the closet.

KAPLAN: And you say – and again this has become very famous – in this video, ‘“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.” That’s what you said. Correct?

TRUMP: Well, historically, that’s true with stars.

KAPLAN: It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the p*ssy?

TRUMP: Well, that’s what, if you look over the last million years I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.

KAPLAN: And you consider yourself to be a star?

TRUMP: I think you can say that. Yeah.

You think that's funny? Where's the humor? You think someone like that should be president?

Did you watch Trump's deposition video?

Possibly, but I don't think something as fundamental and knowable as consciousness should be unsolvable. In fact, I think idealism is the obvious solution.

Apparently, it's not a very good argument.

:100:

I'm not accusing you of being a mysterian. I want feedback on this argument of mine.

I wish I had never brought up ChatGPT in the OP.

No, "just us"; specifically: only human brains cannot scientifically explain human consciousness. — 180 Proof

Two points:
A) What about augmented human brains? I can see us developing technology that vastly improves our brains.
B) Even if we stipulate mysterianism only applies to us, it still doesn't make much sense. Again, suppose aliens arrive and tell us they have it all figured out. If we're capable of asking them a bunch of yes/no questions which would greatly help us understand their solution to the hard problem (e.g., are atoms conscious? Can machines be conscious? Can consciousness arise from non-conscious matter), then we're capable of figuring out the answers to those questions. Why wouldn't we be?

Thanks for replying! I was wondering if it was me or something.

Ok, instead of ChatGpt, let's just assume that an advanced alien race tell us they have it all figured out.

I'm not happy about all that, but I don't see any of that as some sort of existential problem. I'm a little irritated, in fact, at conservatives who couldn't give two shits about women's sports in the past suddenly pretending to care deeply. It's just a convenient way to attack trans people.

I believe that there is a fatal conflict between women's rights and identity and the concept of a trans woman. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sympathetic to preserving safe spaces for women, but what do you mean by "fatal"? What horrible thing do you think will eventually happen if biological trans men are accepted as women?

Who on this forum do you believe 'might very well be' a Russian actor? — Tzeentch

Hmm....

They're just going to lie and obfuscate and produce red herrings. It's like playing whack-a-mole, but the bullshit pops up so much faster than you can ever knock it down. Best to not even play the game.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prigozhin-wagner-troops-withdraw-bakhmut-russia-military-ammo-video-rcna83015

Of course, this is just maskirovka. Everything's running like a well-oiled machine, right stooges?

He is talking about the evolution of phenomenal consciousness - when it first appeared on the scene. — Luke

When did it first appear?

The Kremlin’s forces have suffered more than 100,000 killed or wounded fighters since December alone, the United States now estimates — outlining Moscow's massive losses as its military leaders scramble to recruit more men and prepare for an impending counteroffensive.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-casualties-soldiers-killed-ukraine-counteroffensive-putin-war-rcna82380

If you're Ukraine, don't you think that if you hold out long enough, eventually the Russians will just get sick of it all?

Does the article have anything to say about machine consciousness?

You're right. I should have said how does a stochastic parrot produce results like that?

Suppose I have a theory, that ChatGpt has some consciousness, and it's influence it's output. How would you disprove me? After all, machine consciousness is very popular these days. How do we know ChatGpt isn't conscious?

There are some things I don't get. I ran some jokes by it, and it consistently ranked the trash jokes as bad, and the hilarious jokes as hilarious. And it would give a good analysis of why the joke worked (or didn't). How can a random process produce those results?

Well, we never get anywhere in these consciousness threads. Absent scientific evidence, all we can do is bat around the same old theories.

Before we get anywhere, we have to resolve whether information is mind-dependent. Is there information in a universe with no minds? Does a book in a mindless universe contain any information?

I predict there will be a significant Ukranian offensive, and it will make significant gains.

I think there will be a Ukranian offensive. Do you think there won't be?

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/the-calm-before-the-storm-waiting-for-ukraines-offensive/

Science will need to explain how consciousness can come from non-conscious stuff before it can replace religion. And I'm not holding my breath on an explanation.

:up:

RogueAI,

By “incremental morality,” do you mean something like the following?

• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can live. Good.
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can avoid years of severe torture which will leave him alive but permanently damaged physical and mentally. Good, probably.
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that infant Pete can avoid a few days in the hospital with Covid which will leave him permanently disabled in some not-too-serious way. Good or bad?
• Sacrifice sick eighty-year-old Joe so that Pete can have a fun 1st birthday party. Bad, definitely.

Somewhere along the line as the consequences to infant Pete become less serious, sacrificing Joe flips from good to bad. But exactly where does it flip? It seems like your OP is related to the sorites paradox. — Art48

Very much so! And there's no need to invoke God. My question works equally well with an omnibenevolent machine. If the machine says it's OK to sacrifice Joe to save infant Pete (or some other borderline case), what would the machine's reasoning be? Wouldn't it have to be consequantialist?

Yeah, the GOP didn't have filibuster control of the Senate, so they were limited in what they could do. Trump had a deal to get $20 billion in funding for his wall in exchange for DACA, and he almost went along with it, but then his base got wind of it and that was the end of that.

Life in a Democrat America would be high-tax, high social safety net, high personal freedom, welcoming of immigrants. The major problem would be spending beyond our means. Life in a Republican America would be like Gilead.

America would be radically different if Democrats had large majorities in Congress. Compared to what the Republicans would do with large majorities, the country would be almost unrecognizable.

How can stochastic parrotry result in that poem?

Would there be free will in a simulation?

The holy grail of future AI would be self-awareness. — invicta

I think it would be machine consciousness, but there will always be a little doubt in the back of our minds. After all, we know each other are conscious because were all built the same way. But a machine that claims it's conscious? That's something else, entirely.

I don't think communism would work on a large scale, but what about a few large companies competing to sell products at a government-set price level? In this case, government would have extensive regulation powers over companies, to the point where the govt. can set the price point and tell the company, essentially, "You can make money selling this widget for x, if you pay you cut your executive pay by 20%. Looks like a lot of fat there at the top!". Has any fairly large country tried something like that?

That's a good book, but at one point aren't they inflicting pain on one of the aliens? When they try to test its communication abilities? Doesn't torture imply that the aliens have subjective experience?

:up:

I don't think it's a stochastic parrot, but I may be anthropomorphizing it.