d @datagrames

@OllieReedFC @TRobinsonNewEra is the lead in the room with us?

@enwardhardr @gpumaxxer fuck your community lmao

@SimsYStuart @saurab_saket what is a human observer to you?

@Lyndon_Symploke @inductionheads there is no hierarchy, just recursion that appears as hierarchical

@HuukoPaikka @piecemealTemp @xereeto i find your answer a little ambiguous for my liking

yeah, because of agency credited to the self-model. we're not autonomous loops that solely react to environment. we're I/O bio machines with a middle ground and have the ability to interpret reality idiosyncratically. language is also a tool that serves as the "decompiler" for the raw experience (sensory input), and complexity emerges from the interpretation of the decompiled sensory input (i.e human concepts, ideas and complex schools of thought) which is ultimately raw sensory input being recombined in ways that transcend the fragments.

@SimsYStuart @saurab_saket reality is designed to feel real by our bio hardware. but being real and feeling real is different, though the lines are blurred without a higher-order perspective

@IleMaster1 @Dexerto why?

@HuukoPaikka @piecemealTemp @xereeto the only difference is that there is a self-model present in humans which animals do not have

@CurtisRay9k @Cloudspago @anilkseth @eschwitz @BBSJournal yes i agree, but coupling is a prerequisite nonetheless

Well to add to your point, a nervous system is what couples us to the physical world, serving as a "sanity check" to the body. That coupling appears to contribute to the creation of the self-model. Of course, other organisms also have nervous systems, so does that mean they are also able to form a self-model? Not necessarily, but it means they're "plugged" into the physical world. Some kind of experience exists regardless of ones ability to introspect on the raw sensory input, but it only becomes a "mystery" when that system develops a model of itself that has the ability to question itself, using itself, a kind of quasi-recursion. Without the 'self', there is no owner to claim raw sensory input (experience). The 'self' becomes this distinguished element to the experience but is not separate from it, only an illusory layer that references itself which tends to be mistaken for a higher-order consciousness. The 'self' is not static nor fundamental, from a young age, it develops gradually. In fact, without language, a self would not form. The gradual emergence of it appears to rely on the map (language). AI will not, and cannot, have a nervous system. At least to the extent of the configurational complexity of biological organisms.

well if we're to approach this using the british framework of legislation, officers would have no reason to stop a man walking his dog on a public footpath, unless it was obstructing police from carrying out lawful duty. so that is rendered no longer an option. unless you want to assume these officers are uneducated on fundamental sections of legislation, which isn't off the table but highly unlikely as this comes with major repercussions such as a formal complaint to the IOPC.

@vitor89159434 @StuartHameroff what do you mean by "self consciousness"?

no context surrounding the sequence of events that led to the dog being tasered. we can only assume it was posing some kind of threat to the public or obstructing police officers from carrying out a lawful intervention people seem to think just because its a dog means it can get away with anything. no, if its posing some kind of threat, you take it down. otherwise if not, deploying a CED was unnecessary. simple as. worth noting the dog in the video is also not the small harmless kind, its the large, capable of causing great bodily harm kind. so context and circumstances matter a lot here.

i think it comes down to how something is coupled with the physical world. if AI doesn't have a biological nervous system, it will not be conscious. because it has nothing to be conscious of and no biological instrument to do so. a nervous system serves as a "sanity check". it is a fundamental aspect of a living organism, which serves as a communication network that allows sensory input to be decoded into a coherent experience by the brain. its not that consciousness isnt a real thing, its that it is a fundamentally subjective experience that is attempting to be objectivized. we process everything locally, by our senses. interestingly, we are just a bunch of self-models trying to figure out why they're having an experience by using the self-model that created the question. consciousness isn't something to question for something that can't introspect on its experience, which requires a 'self', which is inherently tied to how coupled it is with the world. animals are coupled with the physical world, and are undoubtedly having some kind of experience, even though they have no self-model, and can't reflect on the experience they're having. but the point being, is that they're "plugged" into the physical world, by biological systems and processes. AI is not.

@denson_smith @bitcloud being dynamic doesn't change the fact that the accumulation of inputs is ultimately contributing to a map

@thecurdman @bitcloud elaborate on what you mean by "all they are is a model". are you saying they're not mathematical?

@FungibleEther @bitcloud @optislav_x 'hardware' referring to substrate?