Thread

If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious

35 points · 103 comments · ashergill

yepyoukno · 1789738057 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. PaulHoule · 1789738924 · focus · HN ↗
  See
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
  doing sports photography as-a-fox [1] I am a bit scared of clusters of people screaming hard for their team, like I picture they'll attack me like a pack of wolves. I really gotta get over this and chat them up at half time and get a group photo.
  [1] <a href="https://mastodon.social/@UP8/tagged/foxwork" rel="nofollow">https://mastodon.social/@UP8/tagged/foxwork
  1. yepyoukno · 1789741996 · focus · HN ↗
    Great point! Though not one I think the author was making.
    The Egregore is a supporting point for the emergence of higher forms of embodiment and identity.
2. trescenzi · 1789739431 · focus · HN ↗
  Yea I’m a weirdo who’s willing to claim that a for loop might be conscious. There’s physical state and comparisons happening after all.
  But all that actually does is abuse the question being asked and the definition of consciousness. The question isn’t even “does a for loop have qualia” it’s actually “what does it mean if a for loop has qualia”. The individual asking if LLMs are conscious is concerned about the implication of the answer. To which a yes based upon a very improvised definition doesn’t actually resolve.
  1. yepyoukno · 1789741755 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree that it is the question and criteria which are suspect.
    And you hazard to mix qualia as a synonym. Is this not a separate aspect of a phenomenon?
    I will challenge with the simple yet equally provocative idea that consciousness is a feedback mechanism between our biotechnology and the quantum holographic nature of existential reality. Everything alive is made of consciousness and awareness (to be “conscious”) is the tip of the idea-berg.
    Qualia is the hologram, or shadow cast upon the wall, and consciousness the echo chamber.
    The real question is, how does this scale among diverse embodiments?
    Anyone who thinks humans are exclusive, or that existential awareness may arrive from bit state interpolation is a mountain range away form the chasm of philosophy and conjecture.
    Existential reality is not numbers of states. It is universal potential resolving into state through constructive and destructive interference in the moment of now. Our consciousness is a part of this, not the bit state rendering of modern computation no matter how useful and impressive these have gotten.
    Quantum holographic memory will explain consciousness, when science catches up with a means to measure such a thing.
3. stiiv · 1789739465 · focus · HN ↗
  The abstract appeals to a few intuitions, and then vaguely waves toward a kind of slippery slope based on those intuitions, while adding that we ought to not use spatial distribution as bearing on parthood for certain kinds of entities. This has further intuitive appeal for folks who think that consciousness is a kind of emergent property.
  It's a little cheeky and seems a little undergrad-ish to me, but I wouldn't call that either absurdist or postmodern.
  Also what's wrong with the ship of theseus? If _you're_ tired of hearing that kind of argument, that's fine, but why dismiss it? It's thought-provoking at least, and the kind of thought it provokes has, in my opinion, some practical import
  1. yepyoukno · 1789741120 · focus · HN ↗
    The solution to the riddle of the Ship of Theseus is “continuity.” Continuity defines the form and embodiment of identity.
    As for the rest, it is sad, for it is provoking a casual sarcastic hand waving appeal in the near fraudulent guise of constructive thought. Maybe the person has a publication quota? Or just wants to get their name out.
    Not constructive. I accuse it as alluring to those who cannot take their ideas seriously.
4. nimih · 1789739644 · focus · HN ↗
  This paper doesn't seem to have much to do with post-modernism at all; it strikes me as much more in line with modern analytic philosophy.
  Nor does it make any claims about the nature of intelligence, for that matter.
  Did you even read the abstract?
  1. orwin · 1789743016 · focus · HN ↗
    You're right. Postmodernism isn't a relevant philosophical movement since the 80s at best (some would argue it wasn't a movement at all, just a term used by simple minds to join multiple philosophers who rejected meta-narratives but all had very different point of view on everything else). I don't understand why in the past 15 years everyone talk about it. My understanding is that it's often people who never read Lyotard and misunderstood Derrida (I don't have the English word for 'contresense', basically understanding the opposite of what is said. I heard someone say 'you shouldn't criticise art with the standard of the current time' to attack Derrida's ideas lol. Which is fair, because Derrida was a cryptic asshole on purpose, but he did teach in English and his lecture are publicly available, and almost clear.)
    Also, the last 'representant' was Baudrillard, and he died in the early 2000s, probably a bit sad that 'Matrix' misrepresented his philosophy so much. Baudrillard never worked on consciousness, but if he did, I think he would be a materialist (an illusionist probably. At least reading his books made me one, and hopefully I didn't misunderstood him).
    This paper doesn't look like continental philosophy at all though, so I don't understand why postmodernism comes up.
    yepyoukno · 1789743465 · focus · HN ↗
    Look at you agreeing with yourselves.
    My point exactly.
    Bertrand Russell made the great point a very long time ago.
    Most of what we think of as “truth” is merely what we agree to among ourselves (my paraphrase.)
    Couched in a generation that subtly rejects objectivity of truths in their “investigations of science” there are these meandering conjectures of poor disguise.
    You’re impressed. Fine.
    The read is like a hypotonic act. First if a then alphabunny. And then yes to zetahumanity, and United Stated for keyword associativity.
    Okay folks, like what you like.
    I take my ideas seriously, and this is rubbish! I blame the lack of vigorous debate, not the lack of “choices.”
    orwin · 1789750398 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you cryptic on purpose too? Or are you high?
5. [deleted] · 1789761511 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.