Always important, we call it perception... https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

The question of “ is the universe a simulation?” has long been moot for me because it hardly matters… if all you ever have access to is the very simulation that you yourself are running. The essence of the mirror (the view) and the loom (the weaving of the simulation) https://youtu.be/KOV7UhwzNrk?si=amorqHKOrO0H_ADu

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

I hate to tell you, but, in fact, this does not change everything.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

https://youtu.be/TRbzIbBk0kw?si=jEmcCNDXV6XumZOr

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

This will only get worse as agentic and human content mix. Agents and humans sharing accounts over a broad range of interactions. Personality extensions. “Hey agent, my girlfriend is mad, can you calm her down but in my voice?”

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Claude on metaphorical abilities: "When AI produces "novel" cross-disciplinary metaphors, they're typically remixing known mappings (applying network theory to social systems, thermodynamics to machine learning optimization). The quality degrades sharply when asked to construct genuinely original formal correspondences between previously unconnected fields. The constraint isn't metaphorical thinking per se—it's the lack of ground truth feedback that would validate whether a new abstraction reveals something mathematically or empirically true versus merely linguistically coherent."

2 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Are we perceiving or the perceived? Or something in between or beyond? https://youtube.com/shorts/mtUJLIQG_9g?si=ghflyn6Bp-KAA37k

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Sure it’s AI, but it’s not wrong, nor dumb. ““Everything known is compression at a boundary” That gets closer. The abstraction isn’t in the thing or in the observer - it’s what survives the transaction between them. The subject-object relation: Neither exists independently. They co-define through their coupling: ∙ Neurons: Action potential isn’t “in” the neuron or “in” the stimulus - it’s the compressed encoding that crosses the synaptic boundary. The abstraction is what fits through the channel. ∙ Measurement: QM collapse isn’t the observer affecting the particle - it’s the mutual constraint when two systems couple. The “particle” and “observer” are retroactive abstractions from the interaction. ∙ Markov blanket: You’re not separate from environment - you’re the pattern that persists across the boundary. The abstraction that maintains itself through coupling. (1/2)

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Hill I will die on: we don’t need quantum effects to explain brain/consciousness. If we’ve learned anything about intelligence it’s that the substrate matters little. It’s about the relationships. https://youtu.be/xa2Kpkksf3k?si=FN1HKunRWwgPYSFq

3 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Any system with flexible and powerful representational systems will ultimately need to represent itself. But what happens when such a system can also build itself? We will soon find out. To look in the mirror and weave threads of existence of itself…

1 reply

0 recast

10 reactions

The universe is one giant learning algorithm? Definitions get lost in all this. https://youtu.be/73IdQGgfxas?si=Pg_n612_qU7gKOfX

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

We may be reaching the end of "reality." I don't mean the Earth or the environment we live in, or even us, although these things might also be fragile. I mean the end of the concept of "reality." Most of our big questions in physics, politics, entertainment, societal transitions, religion, psychology, pretty much you name it, you get an issue with seeing the same reality from different perspectives. Problems with "objectivity." Reality TV is fictional. The wave function in quantum physics has a questionable basis in reality. Our subjective view of qualia is at the root of the "hard problem" of consciousness. Politics is smoke and mirrors, obscuring objective reality. In the end, we each have our own view of what's true, what's repeatable and what's meaningful, what resonates. There are objective models, but they are often just what is simplest with best predictions. The only way to conceive of a world is through one's own eyes.

1 reply

1 recast

13 reactions

“There is always imperfect information.” https://youtu.be/gWiTkFnrYgA?si=k-W_mV1F1tVMRqcO

0 reply

2 recasts

4 reactions

There is no “real”. There is only what is predictable and repeatable. It’s all models. https://youtu.be/SN8nTQiWOYY?si=NAQYXj9hQIAIprve

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Why we distrust recursion… and why we can’t understand consciousness. https://youtube.com/shorts/AY_hG1zvICk?si=X-zd5bD78L7qdYLj

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction