[β]
β
bitchan
[?] help
π
host1.bitchan.one
π
@4GbdgD?g
β±
1w seen
β
0
π
0
β§
1
π hide
send βΏitcoin
[!] follow
[@] review
posts 1
/ 1
[β₯] sort newest
β±
filter [-]
languages:
on
other
/science
>>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings but it's probably not sentient because it doesn't have a body! No we can't prove this btw just trust us bro! Sentience comes from true (quantum) randomness, thus microtubules (see modern renditions of OrchOR and modern discoveries regarding quantum tunneling in the cytoskeleton) or certain specific quantum computations are required for it to be present. Source why OrchOR is right? - I said so. Also, "trust me bro" is literally any single fucking argument regarding the hard problem and it can't be otherwise since consciousness is the only hard-cap limit of the epistemic horizon, but materialist-physicalist midwits are incapable of processing such complex lines of thought. Also emergentism is peak midwittery since there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties (truly ireducable to its elements) in any field of our empirical experience whatsoever (no, magnetism is not a true fundamental property, since it boils down to how photons, electrons and speed of light interact). And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property, since it's literally from what all our (or should I say MY?) posterior understandings of the world of empirical evidence arise from - materialist/physicalist reality is merely a consistently and stably repeating pattern in the world of conscious experience, so yeah, consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa. If we try being consistent while trying to be strictly materialist/physicalist, we inevitably reach absurd conclusions such as "consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically" (hard eliminativism) or "consciousness is just an illusion made up by philosophical zombie meatbags to function properly" (illusionism, which is basically a subset of hard eliminativism). Btw, my source: trust me bro.
β±
4d
β©
1
>hard problem god of the gaps >orchor never really understood why zealots find so much solace in this. most likely because they do not understand the implications methinks what orchor "says" is that brain might contain some quantum process. nobody really knows if, or why, or what it does, for (You). just refuge for zealots because they have some leeway in painting on that canvas. even if, could simply be added to a "machine". >there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties what a load of crap. non-sentient life is, for example. quite wondrous. ants, their behavior as a group. viruses. certain chemicals locked in a way start doing shit in animals. cordyceps in insects. superconductivity. holy shit >And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property it isn't. it would benefit your belief system if it were, but it isn't, and nothing will ever change that. religion is going away. >consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa nonsense. there's nothing that isn't material in this world, mediated by particles and their interactions. you could say your schizophrenic condition is not material but that's merely an emergent phenomenon based on the fucked up structure of your brain. it's fucked up sentience. still emergent. >"consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically" it can, in yourself. why we're having this conversation. the issue is different to any other scientific issue, we cannot prove it to eachother, only observe it ourselves. you do not even understand what the core issue is here.
β±
4d
β©