Topic: Oil prices are rising again
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #136,311
Guess Trump really has the Iran thing handled, doesn’t he.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month 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 month ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,853
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,854
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month 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 month 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 month 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 month 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 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,862
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,864
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month ago, 12 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,866
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,872
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago, 28 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,883
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago, 31 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,890
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,897
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month 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 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,899
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,904
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,913
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,914
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,919
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,920
Don’t ask me stupid questions.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,922
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,928
@previous (B)
My question was how to make an inanimate object conscious, which you obviously can’t answer because you keep talking about biological neurons instead because it’s evident you have no idea how consciousness actually works because literally nobody on the face of the planet does.
My question was how to make an inanimate object conscious, which you obviously can’t answer because you keep talking about biological neurons instead because it’s evident you have no idea how consciousness actually works because literally nobody on the face of the planet does.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,929
And I’ll give an example of something else: fusion. If you ask somebody how a star works, obviously it’s a bit difficult to make your own start, but what’s step one if you make a star? You get a lot of hydrogen and you get the pressure high enough that the atoms fuse together and create helium. It’s a question that can be answered even if you don’t have the physical capability to do it.
If you want to make consciousness without using living cells, what’s step one?
??????
If you want to make consciousness without using living cells, what’s step one?
??????
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,930
Hence, it actually is a problem that’s not solved that has an answer we don’t know yet.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,935
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,937
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,939
@previous (B)
I never said that planets have nuclear fusion I said that the decay of uranium contributes to the internal temperature of the Earth. When I say "like a reactor" you mentioned stars because you think that nuclear reactors use fusion for some reason.
I never said that planets have nuclear fusion I said that the decay of uranium contributes to the internal temperature of the Earth. When I say "like a reactor" you mentioned stars because you think that nuclear reactors use fusion for some reason.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,940
I hate how stupid you are.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,942
@previous (A)
They took inanimate matter, made something you just said was capable of consciousness, and now it can generate language.
Why is that not conscious, but you are?
They took inanimate matter, made something you just said was capable of consciousness, and now it can generate language.
Why is that not conscious, but you are?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,943
The thing is right, iron can act as a neutron reflector. Radioactive decay of uranium on its own doesn’t generate a lot of heat unless you use a neutron reflector to reflect neutrons back into the mass of uranium to fission more atoms creating a chain reaction. The purity of U-235 determines the speed of that reaction which determines the temperature you can produce that way. Nuclear reactors don’t use fusion. You’re the one that mentioned stars. There are nuclear fusion experiments to experiment with the possibility of creating a viable nuclear fusion reactor because they could generate more power than a fission reactor, but a viable fusion reactor doesn’t actually exist yet. Iron can act as a neutron reflector and the Earth’s core is made from iron.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,944
@1,446,942 (B)
Dogs can’t speak, dogs are conscious. Therefore consciousness does not require language and so it doesn’t make sense to assume the presence or absence of language is related to consciousness.
Dogs can’t speak, dogs are conscious. Therefore consciousness does not require language and so it doesn’t make sense to assume the presence or absence of language is related to consciousness.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,945
@1,446,943 (A)
Ok, I believe you.
We were talking about the mystery of consciousness, and the article I sent seems to match every criteria you had.
It's biological neurons, made from inanimate ingredients, and it generates language.
What's missing?
Ok, I believe you.
We were talking about the mystery of consciousness, and the article I sent seems to match every criteria you had.
It's biological neurons, made from inanimate ingredients, and it generates language.
What's missing?
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,946
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,947
@previous (B)
I don’t think so. The human brain has 80 billion neurons and not every part of your brain is conscious. They only used 200,000 neurons for the experiment, so it’s not clear the neurons they used would have been capable of consciousness.
I don’t think so. The human brain has 80 billion neurons and not every part of your brain is conscious. They only used 200,000 neurons for the experiment, so it’s not clear the neurons they used would have been capable of consciousness.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,949
@previous (A)
So the new goalpost is a neuron count?
That's just a matter of degree, it's not as if subjective experience kicks in at some special number.
And we both know these just go along the usual tech path, in a few years some company will have one with 100 billion neurons.
What is there about you that one of these computers will lack when they just scale the number of neurons up?
The could put one in a humanoid robot and it would walk around and say it feels real too. What could you appeal to, if you wanted to prove your unique existential characteristic. The thing that made you conscious, but the bot lacked with its biological neurons.
So the new goalpost is a neuron count?
That's just a matter of degree, it's not as if subjective experience kicks in at some special number.
And we both know these just go along the usual tech path, in a few years some company will have one with 100 billion neurons.
What is there about you that one of these computers will lack when they just scale the number of neurons up?
The could put one in a humanoid robot and it would walk around and say it feels real too. What could you appeal to, if you wanted to prove your unique existential characteristic. The thing that made you conscious, but the bot lacked with its biological neurons.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,953
@previous (B)
It really just sounds like you want to create a worse version of a human in order to say you created a human, when you could always do that with your penis, but better.
It really just sounds like you want to create a worse version of a human in order to say you created a human, when you could always do that with your penis, but better.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,954
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,955
@previous (B)
If you make it out of biological neurons, the biological neurons would be conscious, not the computer. I don’t know why you find it so hard to understand this. It doesn’t answer the question at all.
If you make it out of biological neurons, the biological neurons would be conscious, not the computer. I don’t know why you find it so hard to understand this. It doesn’t answer the question at all.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,956
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,957
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,958
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,959
A computer is a physical thing and a brain is a physical thing. They can’t occupy the same place at the same time. You can put a computer inside a brain or surround a brain with computer parts, but a brain is always a brain and a computer is always a computer. They’re two different things. You can’t put a brain cell inside of a computer. You can store information about a brain cell or simulate a brain cell, but a brain cell is a physical thing, it’s not data. It’s not physically possible to convert a physical object into data.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,960
@previous (A)
That's great, but I still want to know why consciousness is a mystery if we can build one from scratch.
That's great, but I still want to know why consciousness is a mystery if we can build one from scratch.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,961
@previous (B)
You just suggest putting bits of a biological brain and putting it on a computer chip but you can’t suggest any actual mechanism for how to make something inanimate conscious. Your only idea is to takes something you already know is conscious and combine it with something else that’s not and pretend that makes the other half conscious when there’s no reason to think that’s how it works.
You just suggest putting bits of a biological brain and putting it on a computer chip but you can’t suggest any actual mechanism for how to make something inanimate conscious. Your only idea is to takes something you already know is conscious and combine it with something else that’s not and pretend that makes the other half conscious when there’s no reason to think that’s how it works.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,962
Your hand for example, is attached to your brain, and it’s alive. Your hand isn’t conscious. You’re aware of your hand but your hand itself isn’t aware of anything it’s controlled by your brain. A computer connected to a brain wouldn’t be a conscious computer, it would be a computer connected to a brain and if there’s any consciousness it’s in the brain itself.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,963
@1,446,961 (A)
I just want to understand you perspective here better, but do you believe the electrical activity in the carbon structures are conscious, but not in the silicon structures? Even when they are all linked like this?
I just want to understand you perspective here better, but do you believe the electrical activity in the carbon structures are conscious, but not in the silicon structures? Even when they are all linked like this?
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,964
@1,446,962 (A)
Maybe the neurons in my hand are part of the overall consciousness, because it feels like it if you get hurt.
But it's just some arbitrary line, because you aren't asking any specific question. You are labelling electrical activity in some carbon structures, and giving it a name. You haven'y defined what properties qualify or disqualify consciousness.
Asking a vague question, which necessarily causes ambiguity, is not the same thing as a scientific mystery where some phenomena cannot be explained.
Maybe the neurons in my hand are part of the overall consciousness, because it feels like it if you get hurt.
But it's just some arbitrary line, because you aren't asking any specific question. You are labelling electrical activity in some carbon structures, and giving it a name. You haven'y defined what properties qualify or disqualify consciousness.
Asking a vague question, which necessarily causes ambiguity, is not the same thing as a scientific mystery where some phenomena cannot be explained.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,965
@1,446,963 (B)
I know that I’m conscious, so that one there’s no question about. I like programming and I’ve written a lot of code and I’ve taken CS courses, I don’t believe that a computer can be conscious because everything that computers do is an abstraction of something more simple. Even 1 and 0, that’s not actually what happens on a physical level. Voltages aren’t discrete. What actually happens on a physical level is you assign one voltage as 1 and another voltage as 0 and you have a gap in the middle for reliability. But essentially, transitions are just on/off switches.
I know that I’m conscious, so that one there’s no question about. I like programming and I’ve written a lot of code and I’ve taken CS courses, I don’t believe that a computer can be conscious because everything that computers do is an abstraction of something more simple. Even 1 and 0, that’s not actually what happens on a physical level. Voltages aren’t discrete. What actually happens on a physical level is you assign one voltage as 1 and another voltage as 0 and you have a gap in the middle for reliability. But essentially, transitions are just on/off switches.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,446,966
Even something as simple as 1s and 0s, biological neurons are more complicated even on that level.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 10 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,447,010
@1,446,965 (A)
The question was whether the biological neurons in a cortical labs device are conscious.
And if they increased the number, put it in a bot, and that bot said "I know I am conscious" would that be any less legitimate than when you say it?
You keep coming back to silicon, but someone has made neurons and run programs on it.
The question was whether the biological neurons in a cortical labs device are conscious.
And if they increased the number, put it in a bot, and that bot said "I know I am conscious" would that be any less legitimate than when you say it?
You keep coming back to silicon, but someone has made neurons and run programs on it.