Search Ideas
3553 ideas match your query.:
This suggests that programs can be “run differently” to result in a different computation. This is false because it violates Substrate Independence: the instantiation of a program is unaffected by its physical implementation. If a “context” changes what the program is computing, then that’s a different program. Suggesting that a person running the apple programs “makes them” conscious therefore is not sound. The programs are either conscious or not. If they were, by (A1), they would be people.
SOLUTION: The apple programs give rise to consciousness only in a given context. Only when run a certain why, by a person.
PROBLEM: Why are we conscious of the apple rendering? Given (6), why is there an experience of it, if the programs comprising it are looping, and so are therefore predefined?
(7) We can be conscious of the apple imagery for the entire 5 seconds.
(6) Repeated running of the same fixed program is automatic, requires no creativity, and cannot constitute experience.
(5) Repeated running of the same fixed program, not being a person, does not make it a person.
(4) The programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.
(4) By A1, the programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.
Assumption A1: Only programs that are people while running constitute qualia/experience/subjectivity/consciousness.
(4) The programs rendering the apple are not people, so cannot themselves constitute experience.
(3) The programs rendering the apple imagery must be looping until stopped, since they could not have advance knowledge of when the stimulus stops.
(2) The rendering is caused by the running of some number of programs.
(1) During the entire 5 seconds, your mind renders the image of the apple.
“What do people misunderstand most about crystal meth addiction?” https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-misunderstand-most-about-crystal-meth-addiction/answer/Notmy-Realname-133
Interesting read.
A discussion can get long even if each criticism is concise.
Someone who recently joined made a bunch of low-quality posts in a short amount of time.
Not if the criticism is clear and concise. That should be incentivized somehow.
A discussion needs to be more skimmable via one or both of these:
1. hide long posts behind "read more" button
2. collapse critique chains/threads behind a "reply more" button
The UI needs to be more minimalistic. Too many buttons to click on. Needs clear primary action on every screen.
Need summaries at top of discussions. Could be AI generated.
Making a Minecraft clone with AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmPfBODGuw&list=PLBGDngphGY_2ZC8eNc39yPxfc_RZDtQSN
Making a Minecraft with AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmPfBODGuw&list=PLBGDngphGY_2ZC8eNc39yPxfc_RZDtQSN
Criticized per #4718: AIs are not "narrowly creative"; there is only creativity in the binary, universal sense, per Deutsch.