@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

The entire HPMoR is Harry's first year, which is the first volume of the original septalogy.

If the chatbot doesn't quite have your 30 years of memories, but can make an impression that would fool anyone else, what's the difference?

It's just that I feel like your arguments prove too much, as the expression goes. If there can be such a thing as "not enough data", then indeed how can you place a cutoff point? There's never all data. You of today don't have all the data on the you of yesterday.

Add "c) would reveal its existence solely through slightly weird bogeys" to that list.

I have picked up Quasimorph the turn-based extraction shooter and have been enjoying it so far (still mostly at the stage where I stay at Mars and Mercury). The recent announcement that promises the player being able to set up his own trade outpost is, let me be excused for being repetitive, promising.

I have also looked into The Rose of the World, the schizo-cosmological tract the game pulled the parallel reality stuff from, and it is a fascinating read as well. It can be freely found here for inquiring minds.

Not to mention that it's the automated town crier that's doing it.

Why would it be impossible to rebuild the temple on Temple Mount if it's nuked? Just have the builders wear hazard suits.

On a slightly unrelated note, would you happen to be aware of any current experiments with running software they way you would like to run uploads - encrypted, unrootable etc.?

Do they use mummification or anything to that effect? I'd expect the whole process of worms and rotting to do a number on the current body. Unless... God's skeleton army.

I think the Christian God among others has approved a worse heaven/hell ratio, so make of that what you will.

You and I could be simulations inside a simulation, but it's a possibility we can't prove or exclude at the moment, so the sensible thing to do is to ignore it and move on with our lives.

Even if you did start out as a Real Human, then I think that with the kind of mind editing in Lena, it would be trivial to make you forget or ignore that fact.

And if that was true about us, then your opinion or mine considering the ethics of mind emulation would be utterly irrelevant. Not to mention that it wouldn't be the world of Lena, exactly. The entire point of Lena is that the simulation is very different from reality, in the worse direction.

Further, I don't think continuity of consciousness is a big deal, which is why I don't have nightmares about going to take a nap. As far as I'm concerned, my "mind" is a pattern that can be instantiated in just about any form of compute, but at the moment is in a biological computer. There is no qualitative change in the process of mind upload, at least a high fidelity one, be it a destructive scan or preserving of the original brain.

I think your true belief in what counts as death will be revealed once death starts breathing down your current biophysical instantiation's neck, and conflating deep sleep with death will not look so convincing.

If continuity of consciousness isn't a big deal then we can forget the assumption that consciousness is tied to specific mind patterns at all. Maybe one second you're self_made_human, and another second you're Katy Perry, and the next second yet is spent in a nascent Boltzmann brain halfway across the observed universe.

Well, I'm not bothered that we might lose our ability to cook, even though that's technically possible.

I admit I have trouble parsing your arguments here as anything but "do not ever attempt to change anything for the better (unless we define "better" as things that have existed before and now don't), you moron, you absolute buffoon".

Pic related

Relevant sarcastic comment by qtnm in the comments of Lena:

"Why should I care about other people?"

All instances of people caring about other people in history, so far, have happened under the assumption that any given person could, in theory, be in another person's place.

The horror of Lena is that this assumption is destroyed. The technology is mind copying, not mind transfer. Every single person who is scanned will go inside the facility and will come out. There is no mechanism to shift perspective, ever: the material and the digital substrates never cross directly. If you experience living in reality now (as opposed to remembering it), by induction you can be sure that you will never experience living as an em.

Ever.

This puts the suffering of ems at a greater distance than even the suffering of animals, for a person could fathom a timeline where, but for the grace of God, he lives the life of cattle. None such mechanism to facilitate empathy would exist for copying scans. They would be as fictional characters, whose suffering evokes vivid emotions in many but never a desire to stop it by refusing to create fiction.

If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you. What makes me suspicious of you is that by playing this hypothetical game you are reacting as though you want to cause suffering. It doesn't matter whether the suffering is real.

Dwarf Fortress/Rimworld fanbase in shambles.

First, the idea of sin isn't that you avoid sin because God will punish you for it, but because sin is bad in and of itself:

Well - yes, that's mostly what I said. I avoid [bad thing], because [bad thing] is bad in and of itself, when you dig down to the root of it. And I understand that in the Christian tradition, doing good things and not doing bad things is also thought to bring man closer to the state of Heaven.

The issues begin when people's intuition of what is good [joyful, peaceful, knowledgeable and powerful] starts coming in conflict with what the Good Book tells us is good [mostly focusing on what God said is good], and somewhere in the middle the church muddles things further. I as an atheist do not grok "sin" because "sin" to me is specifically something that a Higher Power has ontologically, fundamentally deemed to be Bad and which is separate from what a human might deem bad for their own purposes and with their own frame of seeing things. Because I do not believe into a Higher Power, or that even if a small-h higher power exists it does not hold fundamental authority over morals, I am not moved by condemnations of sin. As I said elsewhere, if a thing is harmful you don't need the S word to justify its harmfulness.

Cooking is simple (like going to the gym), but it's a hassle until you're just used to doing it. And for many I assume the calculation goes "I'm less assed eating a lazy meal/paying for takeout than I am instilling a habit to cook".

I suppose that hasn't been the solution, no. I do on occasion feel guilty about being spiteful, jealous, cowardly or mean. But I do not seek to fix those flaws so that I might not be judged as harshly by God. The closest thing to it is that I would not feel just in judging God, as Lewis describes, for allowing war, poverty and disease, if I myself allow it in my small ways.

There's also the entire thing about framing sin as sickness - if I am sick, I might seek remedy for my own good, but why in the world would I feel guilty about it? Least of all before God, who is often described as the one who sends sicknesses down on people to test them, humble them etc.

Maybe all that compulsive society-scale guilt tripping is good for society in the long term, but I do not see why I should willingly submit to it where my own conscientousness suffices.

I suppose male friends can, in theory, account for all the interpersonal interaction a man needs while women solely provide the occasional intercorporeal fling. It seems, however, that many men desire more than their male friends can give, or are willing to give in the age where male friendship is notably less intimate in many aspects than it had been.

And hell, with most one-night-stands among people similar in age... what are you going to talk about, if the whole intention is not to see one another again?

I wouldn't know, I've never had a one-night stand that I intended to never see again.

Do you think Bezos didn't think of simply doing a Di Caprio, or was afraid of the backlash?

I've often heard an opinionoid about the idea of older guys dating 18 year olds that goes something like "there's nothing we can talk about after fucking", and while lately it does look like sour grapes/Havel's groceryism when it comes from older guys, there might be something to it. Of course, if it was revealed that Sanchez is actually not particularly good intellectual company, then I'd be at a loss.

The end of the conflict between pure blood anti-immigrationists and their opponents is far behind us. Everyone else doesn't have a leg to stand on other than "the kind of people I don't like look sort of like this, please remove them (other than the good ones of course)". When push comes to shove, I do not expect the winning side to hold to their words of "blood is the most important".

"A people" might be. A country is not a people; most countries are too big to be anything but a collection of peoples tied not by blood, but by a language (not always), an army (sometimes not their own) and a flag (usually their own).

A midwestern farmer and a coastal urbanist have no common blood between them. Memes might tie them closer than blood does some tribes. But not blood.

I think a cult of personality is when a statesman is treated not merely as a statesman who did a great job, but an exceptional, well, personality. It's when sycophants say "Stalin raised this country from its knees (and no one else could)", not "we raised this country from its knees under Stalin (he was a great help)".

I am aware of your gripes about overly optimistic and/or liar proponents of Materialism that were alive a few hundred years ago, and I do not believe they are much relevant to the discourse today. Coincidentally I have not studied them. This appears to me to be a deflection/smear akin to "John Money who coined the term 'gender' was an icky pedo" if taken uncharitably, and if taken charitably it seems that you are arguing with dead wrong Materialists whereas I expect you to be arguing with me.

The problem is that people do not appear to understand the difference.

I do not believe this is the problem here - the problem is that your explanations for the current gap in Hard Determinism that is the lack of user-friendly brain interface are, in their structure, no different from explanations that had at various points been raised against other gaps that are resolved by now.

Resolved by you yourself, in the case of comparing LLMs to human brains! We know the building blocks of LLMs, and have the control capacity to inspect and manipulate their state in less complex iterations, but not in more complex ones. We know the building blocks of organic chemicals, which resolve to DNA, which resolve to live cells, some of which are neurons, and the earlier less complex iterations of those structures we can not only predict but manipulate and recreate. Nondeterminism simply does not make a convincing enough case that the latest iteration, the live human brain, is somehow so qualitatively different from a silicon-based neural network that hoping to grasp it with determinism is hopeless hubris.

and you cannot control behavior to any significant degree by manipulating the brain's matter directly.

I recall a notorious manipulation of brain matter that had been popular just a century ago and demonstrably controlled behaviour. Destructively so, yes, but, again, not any more a debunkment than medieval amputations were of modern surgery.

As for mind reading, developments appear to be underway on that front.

All we can say, from a strict materialistic perspective, is that all attempts to demonstrate the deterministic nature of the human mind have failed, and history shows a clear pattern of Determinism of the Gaps, where accumulating evidence forces empirical claims to steadily retreat into unfalsifiability.

When I look at the pattern of history it appears exactly the opposite of what you said - it is non-determinism that has steadily retreated, from inscrutable fate woven for each and every object in the world by deities beyond our reach or understanding to sub-atomic processes that light is too big to observe and constructs with states too fluid, ephemeral and non-uniform to categorize. Many aspects of the world that we considered unfathomable and/or random are now predictable. I do not consider myself married to Scary Capital Letter Materialism, but the odds simply appear to be largely in its favor.