What is it to be human? https://youtube.com/shorts/Bxz1MwCP_Ks?si=I1vTPVF5PFXRCzCc

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

Once you start down the path, that's good. Once you start building the path, that's better.

0 reply

1 recast

10 reactions

You have to generate the pattern before you can recognize the pattern. We think the patterns are "out there" but it is massive feedback and participation loop. That's why manifestation might actually work, and there may be absolutely nothing magical about it. Imagine what you want at a felt, subconscious and embodied level and you can't help but pull yourself toward it. This may in fact be Dante's Paradiso.

2 replies

0 recast

15 reactions

One thing that is striking to me about the age that we live in is that there is a looming immortality through work. This actually is a big motivator to create more. The more we put out, the more we, and our loved ones and fans can get back. Any of us can talk to a rendered version of someone through AI. Not necessarily a close version, but something of an essense, an abstraction or at worst a gross hallucineation. The more work/content one has created that's available, the more your consciousness is available to an Ai to explore and to share. That can be really great, or really terrible, but it seems inevitable.

2 replies

0 recast

9 reactions

The fact that things are messy is a good thing. The fact that the answers aren't yet known is a good thing. Figuring this shit out is our reason for being. Out of the chaos we must find or create the order. it's quite literally our job. Roll up those sleeves.

1 reply

1 recast

9 reactions

That said, I do love McGilchrist and I can't find a single thing i disagree with until maybe some religious stuff. Probably Hoffman is full on left brain, Iain more right brain.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

We are not selves so much as self-organizing “oceans of potentiality.” https://youtube.com/shorts/cYEmWf5MVpo?si=mRXpiZPLSFxxhc-F

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Sounds about right. But again, models are useful, but never “real.” https://youtu.be/_-yFOF7iWRA?si=5piiBwWM--7mCMuW

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

We exist in a pretty narrow temporal and spatial scale beyond which it really makes no sense to discuss any self at all.

2 replies

0 recast

25 reactions

An object without a subject is like dividing by 0.

1 reply

0 recast

10 reactions

For whom does the bell toll? The bell, it requires a subject. It tolls for thee. You are the tollee.

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Still best use case for AI is fast, relevant search from mounds of information. That may sound like a small thing but that's not a small thing. A large part of the job of consciousness is what cognitive scientists call "relevance realization." The basic problem is this world is filtering information to focus on effective action quickly in the right context.

3 replies

1 recast

10 reactions

We need to get away from framing “reality” vs “illusion.” There are only models that are better predictors or not in a given context. It’s all abstractions as far up or down you can go. From wave functions to microwave background to space and time. https://youtu.be/J01N1z96elk?si=jozYCof-bVWtOg25

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

The medium is the message. What is the medium of experience? What material weaves that cloth?

3 replies

0 recast

9 reactions

Watching scientists and philosophers at the top of their game, like Matthew Levin and Matt Seagal, as well as many other scientific discoveries this year, but also an eye towards philosophical/spiritual traditions, one thing seems like it should have been clear a long time ago: We keep talking about "reality". But what we are really talking about is what is REPEATABLE. What is consistent, what is predictable. We talk about "reality" as if it is out there, but all we ever have is a model, and all models are imperfect, constrained. Models are used for prediction, they allow us to "grok" a version of the world that makes sense in our imaginations, but all these models are limited by us. The last 400 years of scientific revolution have been about attaining knowledge, the next 400 years of AI will be about what it is to "know." I have a glimpse of a world (a model ofc I can't quite see) were there are no more 3D models of "reality," there is only useful prediction.

2 replies

1 recast

17 reactions