Comments

  • Gun Control
    ↪Outlander
    Yeah, it's logically possible. But I put my Bob Ross hat on and say it's metaphysically impossible. But I don't believe that either. It's possible American gun owners could cause so much damage they could prevent a descent into tyranny, but I just don't see that as plausible. I would not hang my hat on that as a reason to allow Americans to legally own guns. It's not a convincing argument anymore.
  • Gun Control
    ↪Michael
    They would have, and they would probably be moving to confiscate weapons, but in the interim, there are 400 million guns in the country and tons of ammo and over 100 million gun owners, but I don't see any of that stopping a tyrannical takeover of the country.
  • Gun Control
    ↪Outlander
    I was talking about a scenario where tyranny has already happened, with the help of the military and police and there are no constitutional rights anymore. In that scenario, I don't see American gun owners doing anything to stop the tyranny. I don't see them doing anything to prevent it either, once the military gets involved.
  • Gun Control
    We have people that would literally do that right now in this country with very little excuse. — MrLiminal

    If that were true, there would be a lot more than the 100 or so LEO deaths in 2024. There's almost a million cops in the country. Getting gunned down on the job is like getting hit by lightning.

    You cannot comprehend how much some Americans like guns and hate authority.

    There will be some, sure. Soldiers and cops of the tyrannical regime will occasionally be killed. But it will not be enough to end the tyranny. It's not like Americans with guns who hate authority are going to do any damage to a unit like the 101st Airborne.
  • Gun Control
    Yes. Controlling who has access to weapons is one of the oldest tricks in the book. — Leontiskos

    I just don't see this as plausible. If America becomes tyrannical, it will only be because the military and police forces support whatever tyrant there is. And if the military and police are involved, they're not going to be intimidated by American small arms in the hands of non-professionals. There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop.
  • Gun Control
    ↪Leontiskos
    But do you think an armed populace is an impediment to tyranny?
  • The Christian narrative
    Justice is about respecting the ordering of things; and when that ordering is broken it must be restored; and to restore it the offender has to pay a proportionate price. To forgo that price, all else being equal, is to have mercy at the expense of justice. — Bob Ross

    We're just not going to agree on mercy and justice, but I'm curious why you think Jesus made such a sacrifice. He's an immortal part of some trinity. So what if he was crucified. It's like Wolverine jumping on the hand grenade to save the squad. So what? It's not heroic or sacrificial if Wolverine just regenerates every time.
  • The Christian narrative
    No I don't think we would; because then most of us would always block pain. — Bob Ross

    Well yeah, that's the point. Gratuitous pain sucks. It's useless.

    Likewise, is it metaphysically possible to block pain as a mental switch: I don't know. — Bob Ross

    Why would it be metaphysically impossible? The human body has some very poorly "designed" features. I don't see why it would be metaphysically impossible for God to have tweaked evolution in a way to give us better bodies with better features and still keep up naturalness appearances. Do humans have to get so much cancer? Lower back pain? Dementia? When you hamstring God by saying, "well, it might be metaphysically impossible for God to do that", you're making God sound very impotent. I get why Christians like Leibniz do that, but it's a very weak ad hoc move. Prima facie, this is obviously not the best of all possible worlds.
  • Gun Control
    ↪Punshhh
    :100:
  • Gun Control
    ↪Banno
    My kid is grown. It's just me and my wife. I would never have a gun around if I ever get grandkids. But you're probably right anyway. It's probably more likely I'll accidentally shoot my wife in an ambien stupor then a home invader.

    ETA: I think I used the wrong "then" but I'm not entirely sure.
  • Gun Control
    The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty.
    — Wayfarer
    Yep.     — Banno

    That's true for a lot of people, but I suspect there's a lot of people who think like me: I know someone breaking into my house is pretty unlikely, but I keep a gun around because I really don't want to be empty-handed if it does happen. And guns are fun to collect and target shoot with. And in a SHTF scenario, it's good to have a gun around. I don't look at guns as an extension of muh rights.
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    ↪Patterner
    I'm with T Clark. It's just chemistry. DNA only becomes interesting and/or meaningful when a mind emerges from all that biochemistry and marvels at it. I ran my post by ChatGPT and it seems to lean towards computationalism. Not very surprising.

    Reveal
    User: summarize our dialogue in a couple paragraphs

    ChatGPT said:
    You asked whether information processing is possible without an observer to interpret the results, using the analogy of an abacus being used by a person versus one tumbling through the air. The core distinction we explored is that information processing requires more than physical motion — it demands a system where states are representational and transitions follow defined rules. A person using an abacus meets this standard because there’s an intentional mapping of bead positions to numbers and actions to computations. A falling abacus, by contrast, lacks any such mapping or purpose — it’s just physics, not processing.

    From there, we examined deeper issues about meaning and interpretation. You pressed the point that even a computer, at the hardware level, is just switching circuits — so how is that different from meaningless motion? This brought us to John Searle’s critique: if computation is just pattern interpretation, then anything can be a computer if you assign it the right mapping — a view that collapses the distinction between computing and not computing. We then discussed simulation: if a tornado simulation runs unwatched, is it really a simulation? You argued no — without a mind or embedded use, it's just flickering pixels. This led to the final insight: all these questions orbit the Hard Problem of Consciousness, as posed by David Chalmers. Meaning, understanding, and experience all seem to hinge on subjective awareness — something no functional or computational account can yet explain. Most explanations treat behavior and structure, but sidestep the inescapable mystery of why any of it feels like something from the inside.


    A Boltzmann Brain identical to mine that pops into existence (while it's alive and thinking) is processing information, don't you think?
  • Some Questions I Would like to Discuss About Western Civilization/Culture
    A whole civilization, like a forest, is both dying and renewing itself, as it must. Because our individual view of "the forest" is limited, it's difficult to diagnose the state of its health with any certainty. — BC

    I like this a lot.
  • Gun Control
    ↪Outlander
    Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? Someone who doesn't do too much harm or good? I'm thinking of most people I know and none of them would turn into, say, Pol Pot, if they were put in that position.
  • Gun Control
    Any kind of technology that allows the government to well-regulate firearms or any weapons defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment: it is meant to allow the people to be a well-regulated militia to defend against the government itself. — Bob Ross

    ANY weapons?
  • The Christian narrative
    ↪Outlander
    If you asked someone what time it is and they poke a stick in the ground and make a rudimentary sundial, that wouldn't seem anachronistic to you?
  • The Christian narrative
    It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome. — Banno

    Yes. Like most theodicies, it's very ad hoc.
  • The Christian narrative
    I didn't make the claim that a world without pain is better: RogueAI did. That's on them to prove that. You can't shift the burden of proof on me for that. I have my reasons for believing this is the best possible totality of creation, which would include having pain in it. — Bob Ross

    Some pain is useful, but what's the point of unending agony when you already know you're hurt and can do nothing about it? Why didn't God allow us to evolve so we could block pain? Wouldn't the world be better if we and other animals could do that?
  • The Christian narrative
    All else being equal, it would be unjust for you to forgo retribution — Bob Ross

    Why?
  • Some Questions I Would like to Discuss About Western Civilization/Culture
    You can also just compare things like median housing price to median income to see that Americans are poorer than they used to be. Food and other consumable items are down in price compared to incomes, but they are more than made up for by the increased cost of assets like housing, as well as healthcare and education. — Brendan Golledge

    Some Americans are poorer than they used to be. My home is 12 years old. It's gone up 250% in value. I'm selling this year and am going to make hundreds of thousands in profit. That more than makes up for the increased cost in food and healthcare. There are millions of Americans like me too.
  • The Christian narrative
    Firstly, that would be a world. Secondly, what do you mean by paradise? That just begs the question: you’re appealing to a vague “Utopia”. — Bob Ross

    A vague utopia? If you were god, THIS would be the world you come up with? How about a world where we don't have to kill other creatures to survive? A world without physical pain? A world without sickness? Etc.

    "There’s nothing wrong with that: in fact, you should do that. Why? Because the retribution was paid and they have rehabilitated themselves: they gave you the $20 back and are sincerely sorry."

    But they still robbed me and stole from me! Even if they pay the money back, I was violated! Should they not pay for that?

    "Now, if they hadn’t paid the $20 back but you knew they stole it, then just forgiving them would be mercy at the expense of justice; and if they pay you the $20 back but aren’t sorry about it then they need rehabilitation which would normally be in the form of a punishment for something like that."

    But suppose they were sorry for it and told me they spent the $20 on booze and they can't afford to pay me back because they need to feed their kids. Should they be punished for not paying me back, even if they're sorry? What is twenty bucks to me? I would still forgive them. Is that wrong?
  • The Christian narrative
    You can't pardon the person that victimized you and be just: that would be mercy at the expense of justice. — Bob Ross

    Suppose someone mugged me and stole $20 bucks and then a day later ran into me again, broke down crying, apologized and gave me the $20 back. Should I call the police on them? What would be the point of punishing them? I would forgive them and move on. What's wrong with that?
  • The Old Testament Evil
    Allowing for evil is necessary when creating a good world. A world with natural laws allows for natural evil; a world with persons allows for person evil. — Bob Ross

    Why create a natural world at all? Why not create a paradise without suffering or scarcity?
  • Gun Control
    Those who want "gun control" are simply saying that guns should be restricted to a certain set of people. That is, they favor a monopoly of coercion. What is a monopoly of coercion? It is, by definition, a tyranny. So those who favor gun control favor tyranny. — Leontiskos

    Substitute guns with "nuclear weapons". Are you really trying to say that people who favor nuclear weapon control favor tyranny?
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    ↪Patterner
    Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results? A person using an abacus is processing information with it. Let's say the abacus beads are moving in pattern xyz. What if that same abacus is now falling out of plane and the beads are moving back and forth from air currents also in pattern xyz? Is it processing information?
  • The Christian narrative
    ↪boundless
    Fair enough.
  • The Christian narrative
    ↪boundless
    To answer that, we would have to pin down exactly what kind of being Jesus is. Is he God? Part of some trinity? The son of God? The son of man? What, exactly, is he?
  • The Christian narrative
    Well, one can point out that Jesus felt the experience of abandonment at the cross. — boundless

    Or he acted like he did. Or it never happened at all and the gospel writers wrote it like it did. But let's say it's true that for a day or two he felt abandoned. That's still not much of a sacrifice, is it? I've felt abandoned many times in my life.
  • The "Big Lie" Theory and How It Works in the Modern World
    ↪Tom Storm
    Republicans believe all sorts of crazy stuff. They're primed to swallow some really kooky bullshit. When I was a kid, they fought tooth and nail to deny smoking was dangerous. Then it was Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. Followed by Iraq and WMD's (although this was kind of a mainstream lie that a lot of Democrats bought into). Then it was climate change denialism, birtherism, Qanon, pizzagate, a conspiracy to overcount Covid deaths, stolen elections, vaccine denialism, etc.

    But then my party, Democrats, get stumped when someone asks them "what is a woman?", so people in glass houses.
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's kind to be an LLM? — flannel jesus

    That's to say is there something it's like to be a bunch of microchips in action? Maybe. There's something it's like to be a bunch of neurons in action, so I don't have a problem with LLM consciousness, but as an idealist, I have to believe there really aren't microchips and brains either. They're just parts of the dream. In this dream the one mind is dreaming, brains are associated with consciousness. I don't see why microchips can't be.
  • The Christian narrative
    Yes - what was Jesus' sacrifice exactly - a weekend ruined, perhaps? Then back to the all-powerful, omniscient, immortal ruler of all things. — Tom Storm

    :100:

    Being scourged and crucified isn't fun, but maybe it's like the movie Palm Springs. If you know you can't die, maybe painful "deaths" are tolerable.
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understanding. — flannel jesus

    Why would you say that? As an idealist, I think this is all a dream. There's only a cosmic mind and we're all conscious aspects of it. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. The whole puzzle is the one mind, and each of us is a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with an LLM also being a conscious aspect of the one mind, a jigsaw puzzle piece, if you will. I kind of like the idea, actually.

    You can literally, right now, give it a text it's never seen before and ask it for a summary and it will do a damn good job. Even in the face of this you won't give any ground, meaning you're not the kind of person to give ground on this period, no matter what, in any particle world — flannel jesus

    I think you're confusing me with someone else.
  • The Christian narrative
    Consider how influential it is in our concept of 'heroism', i.e. self-sacrifice to save others and Christianity says that God incarnate did that. — boundless

    Not quite. A soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades is heroic. A soldier with a ring of immortality jumping on grenades and in front of enemy bullets isn't doing anything heroic.
  • The "Big Lie" Theory and How It Works in the Modern World
    What’s a current example of a big lie? — Tom Storm

    The 2020 election was stolen.
  • The "Big Lie" Theory and How It Works in the Modern World
    while CNN is softer centrist/conservative — Tom Storm

    From an American perspective, regarding American politics, CNN is very liberal.
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    That's not the point of this conversation anyway. Rogue basically said, if everything is physical, then you should be able to understand the meaning of a book by just having physical access to it. Which seems... absurd to me, to be honest. — flannel jesus

    It's absurd because you know that knowledge of the physical facts of a book does not equate to knowing everything about the book. The book has to be read and the contents understood before someone can claim they know everything there is to know about a book. Therefore, physicalism is false.

    And we have what we could reasonably consider something not too far off from "physical understanding machines" in these LLMs - they display all possible outward signs of understanding. They're perfectly physical, and yet if you gave them access to a text written in a language they're not familiar with, they won't understand it. I consider that to be essentially tangible falsification of rogue's idea. — flannel jesus

    This is tricky because we're still not sure whether an LLM will ever be able to understand anything, the way we do, by having the idea in our minds. But even with LLM's I can construct a similar argument to the one I made about books and knowledge:
    If physicalism is true, then an LLM that knows all the physical facts about a book knows everything there is to know about the book. An LLM knows all the physical facts of a copy of 1984, but has never read it. The LLM knows all the physical facts about the book, but does not know everything there is to know about the copy of 1984. Therefore, physicalism is false.

    This is an awkward argument though, because can an LLM know anything? Is that possible?
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    Could be. Nobody can claim definite knowledge of the subject. There's no way to test any of the theories. — Patterner

    If the LLM's start making breakthroughs and displaying original thinking, that will imply maybe there's some emergent mentation happening. If they're incapable of doing that, that will imply it's nothing more than token prediction. I have a feeling there will be some LLM breakthroughs in the years to come.
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    Could be. Unless they have definitively figured out all about consciousness, no longer debating it the way we do, and would know for sure. — Patterner

    But since we're as ignorant as we are, could we be wrong that ChatGPT doesn't understand and isn't conscious?
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    Do you think LLMs understand text? I don't think they have the slightest understanding that the marks on paper, or the binary code that the marks on paper are converted to, mean other things. I don't think they understand what meaning is, even when they are programmed to say they are. I think the binary code reacts in different ways to different binary code that is input, entirely determined by how they are programmed. I think it's very complex dominos. — Patterner

    I agree, but...when you look under the hood at how we process meaning and produce intelligible output from inputs, it's just a bunch of neurons firing. Wouldn't a machine intelligence coming across us for the first time also be amazed we have the slightest understanding of anything?
  • Consciousness is Fundamental
    As an EE myself, I have to say that sounds to me like pseudoscience. — wonderer1

    I was reminded of another pseudoscience, IIT.
Home » RogueAI