Chauvinism is a hell of a drug, a lot of people in the west have convinced themselves they’re superior to Russians and I think the fall of USSR really went to their heads.

Just a few closing thoughts from my end as well.

Regarding dark energy/dark matter. I’m saying that we simply have no idea what those are or even if they’re real. These things don’t represent a counter to materialism because there are plenty explanations for them within the materialist world view. For example, perhaps these are all galactic civilizations that are efficiently consuming energy in all observable spectrums leaving only a gravity footprint. It’s just a silly thought experiment to illustrate the point. More realistically, it could be that our model of the evolution of the universe is wrong or there are particles we haven’t detected yet, or a myriad other reasons. For example, MOND theory does away with the need for dark matter, and gets results that are closer to what we observe in the cosmos.

The broader point though is that our theory of cosmic evolution has little to do with us being able to understand how the immediate material world around us works. We have a very solid understanding of matter and energy down to the quantum level. We have conducted countless experiments on the behavior of particles and energy. None of that is magically invalidated by the fact that our theory of cosmology is incomplete.

I dismiss unscientific dogmatic behavior, like ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the assumptions and begging the question

But we haven’t discussed any such evidence. Everything I’ve said is based on observed evidence and fits with our best understanding of reality. We don’t have conclusive proof of how consciousness arises in the brain, but that just means we have more research to do in this area.

It’s perfectly fine to critique science, but scientifically valid the critique has to be rooted in science which is fundamentally rooted in materialism. Invoking something that’s never been observed experimentally and for which we have no basis as a counter argument to ideas that are rooted in observation and material reality is not a sound critique from the scientific perspective.

The leap you’re making with EMF is saying that sicne our current model of cosmology has holes in it, then it follows that there are things beyond material reality. This logic does not follow. A simpler explanation is that our model is limited.

A historical example would be when we were using Newtonian physics to try and explain the universe, and a lot of observations did not fit. That didn’t mean that materialistic view of the universe was wrong, it meant that our model of the universe was limited. Einstein came along with relativity and we now have a better model. Asimov wrote a great essay on the subject incidentally https://mvellend.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/Asimov_anglosaboteurs.pdf

This is what science is all about, it’s a dialectical process of forming theories and doing experiments to come up with an increasingly more accurate description of reality.

Regarding the three points, hopefully I’ve addressed the first two above. The last point is not scientific. We have lots of anecdotal reports of unexplainable experiences, but none of these reports are repeatable or observable. The most likely explanation is that they exist solely within the minds of people who experienced them. It’s also worth noting how many unexplained phenomena started disappearing when things like cameras came into existence. A human mind is a fragile thing, and we are very much prone to hallucinating things. We have also evolved a predisposition to see agency where there is none.

Finally, the key part of Dialectical Materialism for me is that it states that physical reality has primacy. Our thoughts and actions do not exist in a separate realm disconnected from reality. They are fundamentally a product of the world around us.

Which doesn’t answer the question at all. If you believe consciousness is not fundamental but rather emergent, you will need to explain your reasoning.

I did explain it though, I think consciousness is not a fundamental property, but a byproduct of the brain generating signals and those signals feeding back into the brain as part of the simulation of the world that the brain creates. I mean we could go into more detail of the specifics you want to focus on here.

That is his starting point. He assumes, axiomatically, materialist reductionism. This is the starting point of nearly all the concepts you’ve drawn from in your response.

He makes a rational argument for mechanisms that could plausibly underpin consciousness. I’m not sure why you keep using the word reudctionaism here. As far as I understand it, you subscribe to the dualism which implies that the mind is a product of some mystical forces outside the physical realm. There is zero evidence to support this notion.

Which is literally an axiomatic statement - you assume that patterns of thought underpin our consciousness and then argue to conclude that patterns of thought underpin our consciousness. You are begging the question.

The starting point is that the brain evolved to solve a specific problem, and it’s purpose is to keep organisms alive. That’s the basis for my argument. Patterns of thought are synonymous with the patterns of signals that fire within the brain. We have mountains of evidence that clearly and indisputably shows the relationship between the physical processes in the brain and the resulting thought patterns. Psychedelic drugs are a perfect example of this phenomenon. Altering the chemistry of the brain produces an immediate change in our conscious state of mind.

Meanwhile, anybody who argues that consciousness is a product of some other forces outside physical reality has a lot of explaining to do.

The answer is that neurons are not analogous to transistors because 1) they encode information through frequency not voltage, 2) frequency is mediated not only by the neuron’s “purpose” but also by environmental factors that co-develop alongside the neuron, 3) neuron’s are changed by virtue of their own activity and 4) neuron’s are changed by virtue of the activity of other neurons and other environmental factors.

These aren’t fundamental differences. These are just implementation details of how information is expressed and transferred within the computational system.

1. We have analog chips that can encode signals using frequqence
2. the same applies to any computer that has inputs, for example the state of a system is affected by user input, network calls, and so on, no fundamental difference here
3. Any program can change itself by virtue of its own activity, that’s literally any recursive algorithm
4. Computer programs are likewise changed by external factors

In fact, we can go further here. A traditional computing substrate can run a physics simulation that can express a living entity down to cellular level as seen with the OpenWorm project. The virtual worm behaves the same way as its living counterpart that exists in the physical world.

Any system of mathematics is inherently a self-referential system of symbols and therefore inherently reductionist, in that anything that cannot be represented by that systems is not only discarded but also not nameable or identifiable.

You’re using the term reductionist here again, the incompletness of formal systems does not make them reductionist. In fact, we have plenty of examples of undecidable statements being computed all the time. That’s what the whole halting problem is all about. The system does not need to be provable to do computation.

But you missed the key point, which is that material reductionists do not merely posit that physical reality is all there is, but also that everything we observe today can be explained by the ontology we have today.

This is not a statement I made here. However, there is zero evidence to suggest that our current computational models are not able to express computation done by biological computers.

This position is almost exclusively the position of Western dominance.

This is the basis for all modern science and technology. It has nothing at all to do with Western dominance. Scientists in China use exact same methods as scientists in the west do. I encourage you consider that Marxism is fundamentally a materialist ideology.

This is why material reductionism is fundamentally circular.

There is absolutely nothing circular here. In fact, there is a very clear cause and effect relationship. Once again, the onus is on people claiming that the mind cannot be explained in terms of material reality to show what specifically cannot be explained.

Which misses the point entirely. Dark energy and dark matter, combined, make up 97% of the universe.

Dark energy and dark matter aren’t proven things. You’re not apply logic with any sort of rigor here. On the one hand you dismiss science and on the other hand you use scientific theories as the basis for dismissing it. That’s actual circular logic.

Furthermore, the reality is that we have no idea what dark energy and dark matter are, or even if they exist in the first place. These are just kludges we use to make our theory of cosmology work and account for what we observe in experimental data. There alternative theories of cosmology that do not rely on these concepts.

And yes, I assume that all things must be physical because there is zero evidence for anything that’s not physical. Unless somebody can actually demonstrate a thing that we have observed experimentally that does not have a physical basis in material reality there is zero reason to assume otherwise.

All you’re doing is starting from a different assumption that has no basis, and then dismissing my assumption without presenting any actual evidence for your own position.

I think we can stop here and agree that we have fundamentally different world models. There is nothing we can say to one another that would prove that one model or the other is the correct one. I understand your position, and you understand mine. We also understand our point of disagreement. Therefore, I don’t think much else can be said here.

I’ve never had any illusions regarding the bloodlust in the west, the utter lack of understanding of what an all out war with Russia would mean has shocked me though. It’s especially wild that Europeans, who will be the first victims of the conflict, are the ones cheering this the most. At least with the US, you can see how they might think that the conflict to be contained to Europe.

I wouldn’t worry too much regarding which one you use because they interop with each other. Also worth noting that with Mastodon there’s no built in support for migrating your account to a different server. Might be the case with Misskey as well, but not as familiar with it.

And I wouldn’t worry too much which instance you sign up for. One of the bigger ones is better because it’s likely more proactively maintained, but you’ll be able to see content from other servers as well, so you’re not limited to the server you’re on.

It’s so incredible to watch this unfold. We’re basically now openly talking about starting WW3, and most people in the west are just going along with it. Pretty much nobody is asking whether maybe we should stop the insanity instead.

Indeed, I can’t really see a path for the US to decouple its economy from China without creating a domestic economic disaster. The question is whether the US leadership understands the repercussions or not. As we saw in Ukraine, rational analysis is largely absent from their behavior.

Absolutely, the narrative is important here as well. When push comes to shove and countries have to choose a side, it will be important for China to be seen as the sensible actor in the conflict. I’d argue that the west has already largely destroyed its credibility with the proxy war in Ukraine and support for genocide in Gaza. Majority of the countries outside the west are now starting to visibly shift towards BRICS, and I expect this will be a self reinforcing trend.

I think the alignment question is definitely interesting, since an AI could have very different interests and goals from our own. There was actually a fun article from Ted Chiang on the subject. He points out how corporations can be viewed as a kind of a higher level entity that is an emergent phenomenon that’s greater than the sum of its part. In that sense we can view it as an artificial agent with its own goals which don’t necessarily align with the goals of humanity.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-danger-to-civilization-isnt-ai-its-runaway

I think everybody realizes where things are going, and China is trying to drag this out as long as possible to give them more time to prepare for the conflict. China is rapidly building up its military strength while cutting its economic dependence on the west. I expect that 3-4 years will make a very big difference in both respects.

The important question is that of relative damage to each side. The US could perhaps cause China’s economy to drop by 3% until China is able to redirect its trade. However, what would be the cost for US to accomplish that. Once the dust settles, will it be in better or worse relative position.

This is such a massive leap, though. Don’t you see that? Why is it very likely? What effects the probability? What aspects of recursion lend themselves to consciousness? Where have we seen analogs elsewhere that provide evidence for your probabilistic claim? What aspects of the nature of models lend themselves to consciousness? Same questions.

I think there is a clear evolutionary reason why the mind would simulate itself since it’s whole job is to simulate the environment and make predictions. The core purpose of the brain is to maintain homeostasis of the body. It aggregates inputs from the environment, and models the state of the world based on that. There is no fundamental difference between inputs from outside world and the ones it generates itself, hence the recursive step. Furthermore, being able to model minds is handy for interacting with other volitional agents, so there is a selection pressure for developing this capability.

I think Hofstadter makes a pretty good case for the whole recursive loop being the source of consciousness in I Am a Strange Loop. At least, I found his arguments convincing and in line with my understanding of how this process might work.

Again, a significant ontological leap. As Hume would say, at best you have constant conjunction. There is no argument that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience that isn’t inherently circular.

I disagree here, as I’ve stated above, I think patterns of thought arise in response to inputs into the neural network that originate both from within and without. The whole point of thinking is to create a simulation space where the mind can extrapolate future states and come up with actions that can bring the organism back into homeostasis. The brain receives chemical signals from the body indicating an imbalance, these are interpreted as hunger, anger, and, so on, and then the brain formulates a plan of action to address these signals. Natural selection honed this process over millions of years.

This is an entirely inappropriate analogy. The physical complexity of transistors is physically connected, contiguously, with voltage differentials. The functioning of a program is entirely expressed in the physical world through voltage differentials. The very idea of a program or the execution thereof is a metaphor we use to reason about our tools but do not bear on the reality of the physics. Voltage differentials define everything about contemporary silicon-based binary microcomputers.

And how is this fundamentally different from electrochemical signals being passed within the neural network of the brain? Voltage differentials are a direct counterpart to our own neural signalling.

Only if we limit ourselves severely. Underlying technology varying greatly has a severe impact on what sorts of I/O operations are possible. If we reduce everything to the pure math of computation, then you are correct, but you are correct inside an artificial self-referential symbolic system (the mathematics of boolean logic), which is to say extremely and deleteriously reductionist .

I don’t see what you mean here to be honest. The patterns occurring within the brain can be expressed in mathematical terms. There’s nothing reductionist here. The physical substrate these patterns are expressed in is not the important part.

Again, incredibly strong claim that lacks sufficient evidence. We’ve been working on this problem for a very long time. The only way we get to your conclusion is through the circular reasoning of materialist reductionism - the assertion that only physical matter exists and therefore that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the physical matter that we have knowledge off. It begs the question.

I don’t believe in magic or supernatural, and outside that one has to reject body mind dualism. The physical reality is all there is, therefore the mental realm can only stem from physical interactions of matter and energy.

Again, I think this is entirely reductionist and human experience has plenty of evidence that runs counter to this, from mystical experiences to psychedelics to NDEs, there is sufficient evidence that is counter to that theory.

Again, I fundamentally reject mysticism. All these human experiences are perfectly explained in terms of the brain simulating events that create an internal experience. However, there’s zero basis to assert that these experiences are not rooted in physical reality. Just the same way it would be absurd to say that there’s some mystical force that’s needed to create a virtual world within a video game.

Today, we have a model of the universe based on everything Western science has achieved in the last 600 years or so. That model accounts for about 3% of reality in so far as we can tell. That is to say, if we take everything we know, and everything we know we don’t know, what we know we know makes up 3% of what we know, and what we know we don’t know makes up about 97% of what we know. And then we have to contend with the unknown unknown, which is immeasurable.

This statement is an incredible leap of logic. We know that out physics models are incomplete, but we very much do know what’s directly observable around us, and how our immediate environment behaves. We’re able to model that with an incredible degree of accuracy.

However, even more to the point, the bioware plays a massively important part that digital substrates simply cannot mimic, and that’s the fact that we’re not talking about voltage differentials in binary states representing boolean logic, but rather continuums mediated by a massively complex distributed chemical system comprising myriad biologics, some that aren’t even our own genetics.

There’s absolutely no evidence to support this statement. It’s also worth noting that discrete computation isn’t the only way computers can work. Analog chips exist and they work on energy gradients much like biological neural networks do. It’s just optimizing for a different type of computation.

This is the clearest expression of circular reasoning in your writing. I encourage you to examine your position and your basis for it meticulously. In essence you have said:

There is absolutely nothing circular in my reasoning. I never said patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience as a result of any system capable of performing a certain set of basic logical operations being able to simulate any other computational process.

What I said is that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience because the brain uses its own outputs as inputs along with the inputs from the rest of the environment, and this creates a recursive loop of the observer modelling itself within the environment and creating a resonance of patterns. The argument I made about universality of computation is entirely separate from this statement.

I strongly disagree with that. Our brains construct models of the world that they are themselves a part of. The recursive nature of the mind creating a model of itself in order to reason about itself is very likely what we perceive as consciousness. These constructs form the basis for the patterns of thought that underpin our conscious experience. The neurons, with their inherent complexity, serve merely as a substrate upon which these patterns are expressed.

The same concept is mirrored in the realm of computing. The physical complexity of transistors within a silicon chip plays no direct role in the functioning of programs that it executes. Consider virtual machines: these software constructs faithfully emulate the operation of a computer system, down to the instruction set and operating system, without replicating the internal details of the underlying silicon substrate. The heart of computation resides not in the physical properties of transistors but in the algorithms they compute.

This notion is further underscored by the fact that the same computational architecture can be realized on vastly different physical foundations. From vacuum tubes and silicon transistors to optical gates and memristors, the underlying technology can vary dramatically while still supporting identical computing environments. Consequently, we are able to infer that the abstract nature of digital computation — the manipulation of discrete symbols according to formal rules — is not inherently tied to any particular physical medium.

Likewise, our consciousness isn’t merely a static property of our brains’ physical components; it’s a process arising from the dynamic patterns formed by the flow of electrochemical impulses across synapses. These patterns, emergent properties of the system as a whole, are what gives rise to our thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

The physical matter of the brain serves as a medium that facilitates the transmission of information. While essential for the process, the brain’s components, such as neurons and synapses, do not themselves contain the essence of cognition. Like transistors in a computer, neurons are merely conduits for information, creating the patterns and rhythms that constitute our mental lives.

These processes, much like the laws of physics or mathematics, can be described using a formal set of rules. Therefore, the essence of our minds lies in the algorithms that govern their operation as opposed to the biological machinery of the brain. Several lines of evidence support this proposition.

The brain’s remarkable plasticity, its ability to reorganize in response to experience, indicates that various regions can adapt to perform new types of computation. Numerous studies have shown how individuals who have lost specific brain regions are able to regain absent functions through neural rewiring, demonstrating that cognitive processes can be reassigned to different parts of the brain.

Artificial neural networks, inspired by biological neurons, further bolster this argument. Despite being based on algorithms distinct from those in our brains, ANNs have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in mimicking cognitive functions such as image recognition, language processing, and even creative endeavors. Their success implies that these abilities emerge from computational processes independent of their base substrate.

Approaching cognition from a computational perspective brings us to the concept of computational universality, closely related to the Curry-Howard Correspondence, which establishes a deep isomorphism between mathematical proofs and computer programs. It suggests that any system capable of performing a certain set of basic logical operations can simulate any other computational process. Therefore, the specific biology of the brain isn’t essential for cognition; what truly matters is the system’s ability to express computational patterns, regardless of its underlying mechanics.

Further, the artificial substrates that we are designing are deeply inferior to biologics and it is far more likely that we will create biological substrates to replace our contemporary silicon substrates.

Biological computers are better at certain things and worse at others. I wouldn’t call the substrates we’re designing inferior, they just optimize for different kinds of computation. Biological systems are well adapted to our environment. However, they’re a dead end for expanding our civilization into space.

It’s relevant analysis right now since Biden just authorized long range weapons https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/17/politics/biden-authorizes-ukraine-missiles-russian-targets/index.html

I think there’s a fundamental problem with any privately owned platform. We must remember who owns these platforms and whose interests they ultimately represent. These are not neutral and unbiased channels that allow for the free flow of information. The content on these sites is carefully curated. Views and opinions that are unpalatable to the owners of these platforms are often suppressed, and sometimes outright banned. When the content that the user produce does not fit with the interests of the platform it gets removed and communities end up being destroyed.

Another problem is that user data constitutes a significant source of revenue for corporate social media platforms. The information collected about the users can reveal a lot more about the individual than most people realize. It’s possible for the owners of the platforms to identify users based on the address of the device they’re using, see their location, who they interact with, and so on. This creates a comprehensive profile of the person along with the network of individuals whom they interact with.

This information is shared with the affiliates of the platform as well as government entities. For example, a leak from RCMP shows how this kind of information is used to spy on Canadian citizens.

It’s clear that commercial platforms do not respect user privacy, nor are the users in control of their content. While it can be useful to participate on such platforms in order to agitate, educate, and recruit comrades, they should not be seen as open forums.

Open source platforms provide an alternative to corporate social media. These platforms are developed on a non-profit basis and are hosted by volunteers across the globe. A growing number of such platforms are available today and millions of people are using them already.

From that perspective I think that Mastodon is the platform that we should focus on using and growing. While Mastodon retains a similar user experience to Twitter, there is one major difference—it is a federated platform. Instead of all users having accounts on the same server, there are many Mastodon servers that all talk to each other to create the Mastodon network. If you have the technical expertise, it’s even possible to run your own. For example, I set up my own instance using masto.host and I get to decide exactly how it’s run.

Mastodon is built around an open standard allowing other platforms to integrate with it. This led to a number of open platforms being created and joining the network. Collectively these platforms are referred to as the Fediverse. One important aspect of the Fediverse is that it’s much harder to censor and manipulate content than it is with centralized networks such as Facebook. There is no single company deciding what content can go on the network, and servers are hosted by regular people across many different countries and jurisdictions.

Pixelfed is an alternative to Instagram that caters to artists and photographers. PeerTube is a YouTube alternative, Plume is a blogging platform akin to Medium, and Lemmy is a news aggregator forum inspired by Reddit.

All these platforms are developed in the open, and the developers themselves are often left-wing activists (as is the case with Mastodon and Lemmy). These platforms explicitly avoid tracking users and collecting their data. Not only are these platforms better at respecting user privacy, they also tend to provide a better user experience without annoying ads and popups.

Another interesting aspect of the Fediverse is that it promotes collaboration. Traditional commercial platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have no incentive to allow users to move data between them. They directly compete for users in a zero sum game and go out of their way to make it difficult to share content across them. This is the reason we often see screenshots from one site being posted on another.

On the other hand, a federated network that’s developed in the open and largely hosted non-profit results in a positive-sum game environment. Users joining any of the platforms on the network help grow the entire network.

Having many different sites hosted by individuals was the way the internet was intended to work in the first place, it’s actually quite impressive how corporations took the open network of the internet and managed to turn it into a series of walled gardens. Marxist theory states that in order to be free, the workers must own the means of production. This idea is directly applicable in the context of social media. Only when we own the platforms that we use will we be free to post our thoughts and ideas without having to worry about them being censored by corporate interests.

No matter how great a commercial platform might be, sooner or later it’s going to either disappear or change in a way that doesn’t suit you because companies must constantly chase profit in order to survive. This is a bad situation to be in as a user since you have little control over the evolution of a platform.

On the other hand, open source has a very different dynamic. Projects can survive with little or no commercial incentive because they’re developed by people who themselves benefit from their work. Projects can also be easily forked and taken in different directions by different groups of users if there is a disagreement regarding the direction of the platform. Even when projects become abandoned, they can be picked up again by new teams as long as there is an interested community of users around them.

It’s time for us to get serious about owning our tools and start using communication platforms built by the people and for the people.

narrator voice: they were not

As Putin and Lavrov repeatedly pointed out, these weapons have to be operated by western personnel. so it would be NATO launching missiles into Russia. That’s an act of war.

I expect that uploading human minds is a very tricky problem indeed, and wouldn’t expect that happening in the foreseeable future. However, I do think we may be able to create artificial intelligence on the same principles our brains operate on before that. The key part is that I expect this will happen very quickly in terms of cosmic timescales as opposed to human ones. Even if it takes a century or a millennium do to, that’s a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things.

I found Culture series was fun, a few other examples I could recommend would be The Lifecycle of Artificial Objects by Ted Chiang, Diaspora by Greg Egan and Life Artificial by David A. Eubanks, and Inverted Frontier by Linda Nagata.

“Intelligence” is not the same as consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is and therefore cannot create it in something else. We can’t even reliably recognise it in anything else, we only know other humans have consciousness cause we ourselves have it.

It’s true that intelligence and consciousness aren’t the same thing. However, I disagree that we can’t create it in something else without understanding it. Ultimately, consciousness arises from patterns being expressed within the firings of neurons within the brain. It’s a byproduct of the the physical events occurring within our neural architecture. Therefore, if we create a neural network that mimic our brain and exhibits the same types of patterns then it stands to reason that it would also exhibit consciousness.

I think there are several paths available here. One is to simulate the brain in a virtual environment which would be an extension of the work being done by the OpenWorm project. You just build a really detailed physical simulation which is basically a question of having sufficient computing power.

Another approach is to try and understand the algorithms within the brain, to learn how these patterns form and how the brain is structured, then to implement these algorithms. This is the approach that Jeff Hawkins has been pursuing and he wrote a good book on the subject. I’m personally a fan of this approach because it posits a theory of how and why different brain regions work, then compares the functioning of the artificial implementation with its biological analogue. If both exhibit similar behaviors then we can say they both implement the same algorithm.

“AI” is a fad. Anyone who has played around with the AI models knows they aren’t actually thinking, but collating and systemising information.

The current large language model approach is indeed a far, but that’s not totality of AI research that’s currently happening. It’s just getting a lot of attention because it looks superficially impressive.

We simply cannot make human brains out of computers.

There is zero basis for this assertion. The whole point here is that computing power is not developing in a linear fashion. We don’t know what will be possible in a decade, and much less in a century. However, given the rate of progress that happened in the past half a century, it’s pretty clear that huge leaps could be possible.

Also worth noting that we don’t need to have an equivalent of the entire human brain. Much of the brain deals with stuff like regulating the body and maintaining homeostasis. Furthermore, turns out that even a small portion of the brain can still exhibit the properties we care about https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116

At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing magical about the human brain. It’s a biological computer that evolved through natural selection. There’s no reason to think that what it’s doing cannot be reverse engineered and implemented on a different substrate.

The key point I’m making is that while timelines of centuries or even millennia might seem long from a human standpoint, these are blinks of an eye from cosmic point of view.

No reactionary bs is refreshing indeed. And not sure about Isaac Arthur, not too familiar with the guy.