Topic: Oil prices are rising again
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 hour ago #136,311
Guess Trump really has the Iran thing handled, doesn’t he.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,446,852
He's on the payroll of US oil firms, he's doing his job well.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,853
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 27 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,854
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,856
@previous (B)
It thought about it for a really long time and I talked with ChatGPT about it and my ChatGPT said it was a really thought provoking meme that touched on the duality of man, the human condition, and the mystery of consciousness.
It thought about it for a really long time and I talked with ChatGPT about it and my ChatGPT said it was a really thought provoking meme that touched on the duality of man, the human condition, and the mystery of consciousness.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,857
I’m thinking of submitting it to the art institute of Chicago to see if they give me an honorary doctorate for being the first to connect religion to quantum physics through the rhythmic pattern of human artistic expression.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 27 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,858
And what I just said is smarter than anything Trump had ever said in his whole life.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,859
@1,446,856 (A)
Consciousness isn't a mystery at all.
People feel like something is different about consciousness, but there isn't any actual measurable phenomena at work so they are just asking for their own feelings to be explained.
It's just neurons, and those follow the rules of physics.
Consciousness isn't a mystery at all.
People feel like something is different about consciousness, but there isn't any actual measurable phenomena at work so they are just asking for their own feelings to be explained.
It's just neurons, and those follow the rules of physics.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 58 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,862
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 58 minutes ago, 56 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,863
Saying neurons follow the laws of physics is one thing. Neurons use electricity is another thing. How does a neuron do computation? It has an input and an output, explain what happens in the middle.
Anonymous B replied with this 56 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,864
Anonymous B double-posted this 54 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,865
@1,446,863 (A)
There are multiple ways.
Associative learning just involves two engrams firing at the same time, the brain wires together (hebb's law) those engrams so the creature associates the two. Think of one, and the other is primed.
There are multiple ways.
Associative learning just involves two engrams firing at the same time, the brain wires together (hebb's law) those engrams so the creature associates the two. Think of one, and the other is primed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 54 minutes ago, 12 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,866
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 53 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,867
@1,446,865 (B)
Right, but how though? You’re just saying a thing happens. How does it happen? What’s the physical mechanism?
Right, but how though? You’re just saying a thing happens. How does it happen? What’s the physical mechanism?
Anonymous B replied with this 51 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,868
@previous (A)
You could read about spike timing dependent plasticity to see how the neurons physically create a connection.
You know about axons and neurons right?
There's nothing magical, it's just a complicated natural physical process.
You could read about spike timing dependent plasticity to see how the neurons physically create a connection.
You know about axons and neurons right?
There's nothing magical, it's just a complicated natural physical process.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 48 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,869
Like a computer for instance, has a fetch execute cycle. It’s constantly fetching instructions from memory and executing those instructions, and you could make diagrams of all the logic circuits in a computer and then make diagrams of all the logic gates and multiplexers and decoders and half adders and ripple carry adders and explain how a computer works on the level of transistors. You can say a thing happens when an organism associates two things be two neurons firing at once but that doesn’t explain how the organism decides which neuron is associated with which thing or how the neuron decides that it should ignore a signal or respond to a signal or store a signal and how that’s coordinated in a coherent way across 80 billion neurons at the same time.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 48 minutes ago, 40 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,870
@1,446,868 (B)
I never said they weee magical, I’m saying that you’re pretending something is fully understood that isn’t fully understood.
I never said they weee magical, I’m saying that you’re pretending something is fully understood that isn’t fully understood.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 45 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,871
It’s like, you’re saying neurons fire, and there are patterns, which like, duh. That’s not the point. That’s not the same as understanding how it works at a higher level. Observing what happens and understanding how it actually works are two different things.
Anonymous B replied with this 42 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,872
Anonymous B double-posted this 39 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,873
@1,446,871 (A)
It's one part of it. You see something, and think of another. Then that other thing appears.
Not because you were lucky, but because your neurons wire together based on a particular method that works better than other systems that have evolved.
You are vaguely alluding to some unexplained phenomena, but you aren't actually able to name it.
Why? Because it doesn't exist. You are holding onto primitive notions that existed before anyone knew what a neuron was.
Why do you hold onto that false view? Because you are physically predestined to fail to understand, because melanin is dampening electrical activity in your brain.
It's one part of it. You see something, and think of another. Then that other thing appears.
Not because you were lucky, but because your neurons wire together based on a particular method that works better than other systems that have evolved.
You are vaguely alluding to some unexplained phenomena, but you aren't actually able to name it.
Why? Because it doesn't exist. You are holding onto primitive notions that existed before anyone knew what a neuron was.
Why do you hold onto that false view? Because you are physically predestined to fail to understand, because melanin is dampening electrical activity in your brain.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 37 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,874
Especially given the number of unique pars you can make with n things is n(n-1)/2 or n choose 2. In computer science, they would just say that’s n^2 for simplicity if you were using it to measure the time complexity of some algorithm. There are 80 billion neurons, but if the number of ways you can connect pairs of neurons increases by n^2, so of course you don’t literally have every possible connection, but the number of connections is much higher than the number of neurons. So you have somewhere on the order of magnitude of 100 trillion connections. But there are 6.4 * 10^21 possible connections. So do we really understand why out of all the possible ways you could connect neurons, the way your neurons are connected now works? Even if we determined how your brain minimizes loss, that doesn’t really explain how the current state of connections in your brain works as a system, and understanding how the current state of your brain works as a system doesn’t explain how it evolved over time and adapts, it’s not the same as understanding every way your brain was connected at every point over your life and correlating that with actual functions you performed in the real world. I’m just saying it’s completely absurd on a lot of levels to say that our understanding of the human brain is nearly complete.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 36 minutes ago, 49 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,875
@1,446,873 (B)
> Why do you hold onto that false view? Because you are physically predestined to fail to understand, because melanin is dampening electrical activity in your brain.
Ah, you’re the racist idiot. I guess there’s no point talking to you if you’ll just resort to being racist when you feel like you can’t win an argument.
> Why do you hold onto that false view? Because you are physically predestined to fail to understand, because melanin is dampening electrical activity in your brain.
Ah, you’re the racist idiot. I guess there’s no point talking to you if you’ll just resort to being racist when you feel like you can’t win an argument.
Anonymous B replied with this 35 minutes ago, 57 seconds later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,876
@1,446,874 (A)
That's like saying we don't understand software because there's unfathomable possible software that we haven't specifically tried.
That's like saying we don't understand software because there's unfathomable possible software that we haven't specifically tried.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 34 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,877
@previous (B)
Well, no, I think most programmers would admit that it’s not possible for one person to understand everything.
Well, no, I think most programmers would admit that it’s not possible for one person to understand everything.
Anonymous B replied with this 34 minutes ago, 20 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,878
@1,446,875 (A)
Read through our last thread, imagine you're a third party. You really feel like you came out as mature and able to refute my comments?
You failed then, and you are unable to defend your false worldview here.
Read through our last thread, imagine you're a third party. You really feel like you came out as mature and able to refute my comments?
You failed then, and you are unable to defend your false worldview here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 33 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,879
@previous (B)
> You failed then, and you are unable to defend your false worldview here.
Is that why instead of telling me why I’m wrong you resorted to saying something racist and scientifically inaccurate?
> You failed then, and you are unable to defend your false worldview here.
Is that why instead of telling me why I’m wrong you resorted to saying something racist and scientifically inaccurate?
Anonymous B replied with this 32 minutes ago, 43 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,880
@1,446,877 (A)
And look how the goalposts have changed.
First it's the mystery of consciousness.
Now you are saying no one can know everything about a specific field.
There is no mystery of consciousness.
No one ever claimed that one person can know everything about a topic, that'd a strawman you made up becuase that's your neurotic cope wheneve you fail to defend your position.
And look how the goalposts have changed.
First it's the mystery of consciousness.
Now you are saying no one can know everything about a specific field.
There is no mystery of consciousness.
No one ever claimed that one person can know everything about a topic, that'd a strawman you made up becuase that's your neurotic cope wheneve you fail to defend your position.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 31 minutes ago, 46 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,881
@1,446,877 (A)
> Well, no, I think most programmers would admit that it’s not possible for one person to understand everything.
It’s not even that the average person isn’t smart enough, everything in computer science is actually pretty simple, it’s just the volume of it. Nobody will have enough time to read every line of code everybody ever wrote.
> Well, no, I think most programmers would admit that it’s not possible for one person to understand everything.
It’s not even that the average person isn’t smart enough, everything in computer science is actually pretty simple, it’s just the volume of it. Nobody will have enough time to read every line of code everybody ever wrote.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 31 minutes ago, 28 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,883
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 30 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,884
The dumbest part of all this is you replied to an obvious joke.
@1,446,856 (A)
> It thought about it for a really long time and I talked with ChatGPT about it and my ChatGPT said it was a really thought provoking meme that touched on the duality of man, the human condition, and the mystery of consciousness.
@1,446,856 (A)
> It thought about it for a really long time and I talked with ChatGPT about it and my ChatGPT said it was a really thought provoking meme that touched on the duality of man, the human condition, and the mystery of consciousness.
Anonymous B replied with this 30 minutes ago, 12 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,885
@1,446,879 (A)
I did explain why you were wrong, there's no phenomena to explain. There is no mystery of consciousness, that's a phrase people use because they feel like it's different.
If you can't point to any phenomena, then it's not a real scientific mystery.
I did explain why you were wrong, there's no phenomena to explain. There is no mystery of consciousness, that's a phrase people use because they feel like it's different.
If you can't point to any phenomena, then it's not a real scientific mystery.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 29 minutes ago, 41 seconds later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,886
@previous (B)
The easiest way to solve a problem is to pretend it doesn’t exist. The truth is that consciousness is real, and you don’t understand how it works.
The easiest way to solve a problem is to pretend it doesn’t exist. The truth is that consciousness is real, and you don’t understand how it works.
Anonymous B replied with this 28 minutes ago, 36 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,887
@1,446,883 (A)
It has nothing to do with wheher they are mutually exclusive or not.
We were talking about whether some mystery exists, and then you started defending a different proposition when you couldn't defend the first. Only problem is, no one made a counter claim. Everyone knows that no pne person can know everything about a fieldz you're fighting a strawman.
It has nothing to do with wheher they are mutually exclusive or not.
We were talking about whether some mystery exists, and then you started defending a different proposition when you couldn't defend the first. Only problem is, no one made a counter claim. Everyone knows that no pne person can know everything about a fieldz you're fighting a strawman.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 28 minutes ago, 44 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,888
The argument you’re making is stupid. You’re saying that the mystery of consciousness doesn’t exist. I’ve been conscious and I’ve been unconscious, there’s a difference. When you’re not conscious you aren’t aware that you exist at all.
Anonymous B replied with this 27 minutes ago, 54 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,889
@1,446,886 (A)
You already said that, and I already responded what mysterious phenomena is yet to be explained?
There is none.
Just like there's no problem of software, just because no one understands literally every piece of knowledge about it.
You already said that, and I already responded what mysterious phenomena is yet to be explained?
There is none.
Just like there's no problem of software, just because no one understands literally every piece of knowledge about it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 26 minutes ago, 31 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,890
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 25 minutes ago, 41 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,891
@1,446,889 (B)
> Just like there's no problem of software, just because no one understands literally every piece of knowledge about it.
The reason why I like programming is because I like solving problems, that’s why it’s fun.
> Just like there's no problem of software, just because no one understands literally every piece of knowledge about it.
The reason why I like programming is because I like solving problems, that’s why it’s fun.
Anonymous B replied with this 25 minutes ago, 46 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,892
@1,446,888 (A)
Being conscious vs unconscious is not a mystery either.
Your brain can't operate normally or store memories in certain situations.
That's obviously not what people usually mean when they refer to some mystery of consciousness. They are talking about a feeling that it's different, not just physical.
Either way, there's no mystery.
Being conscious vs unconscious is not a mystery either.
Your brain can't operate normally or store memories in certain situations.
That's obviously not what people usually mean when they refer to some mystery of consciousness. They are talking about a feeling that it's different, not just physical.
Either way, there's no mystery.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 24 minutes ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,893
@previous (B)
Okay, well if you understand consciousness, explain how I make inanimate matter conscious step by step.
Okay, well if you understand consciousness, explain how I make inanimate matter conscious step by step.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 24 minutes ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,894
Let’s start simple, what’s step 1?
Anonymous B replied with this 22 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,895
@1,446,891 (A)
So now you're going to pretend the mystery of consciousness refers to any challenge?
The philosophical "problem of consciousness" is psuedointellectual.
You're a bag of meat, but you can have faith in whatever makes you comfortable
So now you're going to pretend the mystery of consciousness refers to any challenge?
The philosophical "problem of consciousness" is psuedointellectual.
You're a bag of meat, but you can have faith in whatever makes you comfortable
Anonymous B double-posted this 21 minutes ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,896
@1,446,894 (A)
There's more than one way.
But look at this: https://robohorizon.com/en-us/magazine/2026/03/cortical-labs-plugs-human-brain-cells-into-an-llm-after-they-mastered-doom/
There's more than one way.
But look at this: https://robohorizon.com/en-us/magazine/2026/03/cortical-labs-plugs-human-brain-cells-into-an-llm-after-they-mastered-doom/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 21 minutes ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,897
Anonymous B replied with this 19 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,898
@previous (A)
> Right, so tell me one way.
I just showed you an example of people using artificial neurons to run an LLM. Are you stupid?
> Right, so tell me one way.
I just showed you an example of people using artificial neurons to run an LLM. Are you stupid?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 18 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,899
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 16 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,900
I don’t know why you thought that answered the question. My question isn’t how can I plug biological neurons into a computer. The question was how do I make inanimate matter conscious and I’m asking you to tell me what step one is.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,901
@1,446,899 (A)
No, I gave an article about how people who ran doom on artificial neurons in the past are now running an LLM on it.
They created neurons, and then installed a language model on it.
You can pretend it's different when your neurons are creating language, but you can't give any actual physical differences or phenomena occuring that science is unable to explain.
You are running "software" on your neurons that makes you feel special, there's no scientific mystery.
No, I gave an article about how people who ran doom on artificial neurons in the past are now running an LLM on it.
They created neurons, and then installed a language model on it.
You can pretend it's different when your neurons are creating language, but you can't give any actual physical differences or phenomena occuring that science is unable to explain.
You are running "software" on your neurons that makes you feel special, there's no scientific mystery.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,902
@previous (B)
This is the title of the article you linked to
"Cortical Labs Plugs Human Brain Cells Into an LLM After They Mastered DOOM"
This is the title of the article you linked to
"Cortical Labs Plugs Human Brain Cells Into an LLM After They Mastered DOOM"
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,903
It sounds like you don’t really even understand the article that you sent me… or how large language models work. You don’t "install" a large language model onto artificial neurons. A large language model is a file that contains the weights associated with perceptrons in a neural network.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 minutes ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,904
Anonymous B double-posted this 12 minutes ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,905
@1,446,903 (A)
> It sounds like you don’t really even understand the article that you sent me… or how large language models work. You don’t "install" a large language model onto artificial neurons. A large language model is a file that contains the weights associated with perceptrons in a neural network.
They installed it onto actual neurons.
If you disagree, tell me: what physical medium is storing and processing the data?
> It sounds like you don’t really even understand the article that you sent me… or how large language models work. You don’t "install" a large language model onto artificial neurons. A large language model is a file that contains the weights associated with perceptrons in a neural network.
They installed it onto actual neurons.
If you disagree, tell me: what physical medium is storing and processing the data?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,906
@previous (B)
No, they connected human neurons to a computer chip. They didn’t install an LLM onto human neurons.
No, they connected human neurons to a computer chip. They didn’t install an LLM onto human neurons.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,907
@previous (A)
What do you think the neurons are doing? What do you think the purpose is?
Here is a company that sells biological neuron computers: https://corticallabs.com/
What do you think the neurons are doing? What do you think the purpose is?
Here is a company that sells biological neuron computers: https://corticallabs.com/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 minutes ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,908
You still haven’t answered my question by the way, what’s step one? This doesn’t answer my question because human neurons are capable of consciousness. Gluing biological cells to a machine doesn’t explain how you make inanimate matter conscious. That’s like saying a car is conscious if it has a human driver, that’s a cop out answer.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 8 minutes ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,909
@1,446,907 (B)
You’re not answering my question. We both know that biological neurons are capable of consciousness.
You’re not answering my question. We both know that biological neurons are capable of consciousness.