iNow

I think it’s wasting my time

Practice https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2020.00048#:~:text=The hippocampus is the “save,when you solve arithmetic problems.

Uhm. Yawn. Ok. Give different prompts get different answers. Discussion point?

The board says he was moving too fast, that this decision was about safety and him not going slowly enough to deal with the risks posed byAI. Then, last night Microsoft (openAIs largest funder dumping in $13B already) announced they’ve hired him and former OpenAI President Greg Brockman to work on their AI efforts directly.

The future is already here. It just isn’t evenly distributed.

The problem is we live in a sea of information and noise, and most of it is being shaped to help you avoid seeing the important bits. Too many people are telling too many half true stories, then too many others are adding too many new narratives of their own into the other half.

lol. Well played

Isn’t the answer here obvious, though, that you cannot possibly be anything else without invoking spirits and similar supernatural forces?

So is this 😉

Lol. Not a thing!

The system is fundamentally built on trust, trust that those in positions of authority will enforce the rules appropriately and fairly. However, by installing corrupt allies and folks with a personal interest in disregarding rules and norms into those aforementioned positions of power, then votes and rules no longer much matter. This is why Mike Pence’s stance of not rejecting electors from the various states in 2020 was such a big deal and such a crucial lynchpin in stitching together the reality we currently share and experience. We can argue, for example, about the best stratagems and series of moves to win the game of chess before us, but when our opponent chooses to drill holes through the board, set it on fire, and introduce magical dragons and wizards as game pieces, then we must fundamentally rethink our best path forward and acknowledge that it no longer much matters whether we decide to move to Queens Rook 7 or Kings Bishop 4.

Neurochemistry and physiology. If you want better answers, you must learn to ask better questions.

Get more votes

When you track how fast you're driving in your car down the highway, do you account for the backpressure applied to your windshield from the wing flap of a mosquito?

Depends on what you mean by meander

Relation to thread topic of free will seems even more tenuous now. I haven’t yet determined whether this was done on purpose

Humans haven’t even been around 3 hundred thousand years, and you’re taking 3 trillion with a T 🤣

All very interesting questions which I’m sure philosophers will spend another 3,000 years making absolutely zero progress answering

IMO, no. “Mind” is yet another arbitrary concept (or set of concepts) we try to force fit into the world in an attempt to explain our experiences and communicate with one another, but it’s a rough and often unuseful map/model of the what’s actually happening, AFAICT.

The same parts of your brain that write stories or make sense of the ones you’re reading. Maybe bicameral https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28612

AI plus fMRI = Some very cool things happening in this space. Here’s just one recent study among a great many in this field (and I haven’t even mentioned how pilots can control planes with their thoughts alone, or paraplegics can move their wheelchairs without moving!): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-can-re-create-what-you-see-from-a-brain-scan/?amp=true

Maybe, but consider: what is the “shape” of fresh cream mixing into coffee after being poured? We can describe it with Brownian motion and related equations, but saying it has a ”shape” IMO ignores the more important parts and also ignores how it’s ever changing. The mind is much more like that old saying that you can never walk through the same river twice than something which can be described using a metric like shape. Aka: A post-dictive narrative

That was clear. I’m still curious to better understand your intended point, unless you are unable or unwilling, of course.

Technically, it regarded you saying computers and robots couldn’t ever have minds because they lacked referents. I reminded you that referents weren’t prerequisite to having a mind. In some weird attempt to avoid updating your thinking, you then began arguing that the mind is unalterable and that thinking doesn’t change the way it functions. It very much does, regardless of how often you claim category errors are being made and how baffled you feel at “having to explain” this remedially false assertion. Agreed Yes. I understand that just bc people carry umbrellas when it rains doesn’t mean the umbrellas caused the rain. Did you have a particular point you were trying to make when sharing this correlation <> causation article? Definitely not. It’s how signals conduct and propagate across that shape which seem to matter far more.