How about correcting CC to what he actually said? As long as AI can’t do correct CC, it doesn’t understand what is being said. These things should be clear from the context, and from everything else Joscha ever said we have recordings of. 2:39 „awakeness“ NOT „a vagueness“ 5:53 „entrained“ NOT „untrained“ 5:56 „ephemeral“ NOT „affirm or all“ 7:08 „retinas“ NOT „readiness“ 10:23 „cares“ NOT „caress“ 12:19 „in (its environment)“ NOT „and“ 12:47 „are“ NOT „as“ 22:41 „share“ not „shared“ (Joscha is speaking about ethics needing shared purposes and how we would go about teaching children ethics. But in the construction of the sentence it must read „share“, because it is the verb. „Shared“ would imply past tense: but for the negotiation of ethics it is actually important that both sides do now / continually share purposes, not that they once shared. Teaching kids to consider that they „shared“ (=potentially would share) purposes with other human beings is treating a child to think for itself wether this is a true proposition, which is a useful way to teach, if one wants future generations to consciously consider their alignments, rather than hammer those into them „to be a good person“. - Sorry for this circumvent way of saying, that I am also ok with „shared“ in the CC instead of „share“, as the discussion develops down that whole road anyway. P.S.: I didn’t correct „single cell“ to „single celled“ or „.“ to „?“ (- these are simple grammatical mistakes and don’t change what is being said in a meaningful way here). Or simple cases of „this“ vs „the“ which can sometimes be hard to hear or distinguish and in the end are a matter of choice anyway. 13:52 he seemingly hadn’t made up his mind wether to say „… and this is the thing that is conscious“ vs „conscience“ vs „consciousness“ - So I‘m not blaming CC for not reproducing the misspoken / failingly repeated / self-corrected word in text, but just going with one option. Also interesting to me is, that he often says „right?“ to keep a lively rapport with the interviewer/ Camille while speaking, but CC only writes that out in the more pronounced cases as a rhetorical question, whereas sometimes it drops these little injections of verbal speech, as they aren’t needed to the same degree for the CC-reader. 16:04 In the CC, I would have gone with „phenomenal experience“ as the grammatical right choice, but Joscha might have not pronounced the ending of the word well / slurred it, or he even actually consciously decided to go with „phenomenon experience“ to stress the true meaning of the word rather than to use „phenomenal experience“, as that superficially sounds like a superlative („amazing experience“), which would have distorted the original meaning.
"A system emerges, that dreams of being conscious". For a system to dream of something, it needs to have a conception *and* some related experience of said thing, before it can dream of it. Otherwise the word "consciousness" is meaningless to that system, in that supposed dream. Circular definition. Also, what does "simulated property" even mean? We're no step closer to explaining the existence of qualia.
The system has a conception of reality because it is embedded in reality. It exists in an organism that has an entire nervous system dedicated to mining data from its local environment. The organismal system has a coherent conception of reality through its dream state because its dream state is embedded within reality. The dream state emerges across operations that the organism performs on the data that it mines from its surroundings.
@@joshuasanford Yes, very well said - we are something like trapped passengers inside the system. It is so fascinating, the brain mechanism. After watching movie/book "Johny got his gun", really makes you think. What would brain do without any sensory inputs and physical controls, seems like a nightmare for that dream world (person) and all those brain's struggles to survive in reality. Similar with extreme conditions and tortures.
Right down at our foundational curriculum of biological population species we have real problem that looks OK on paper but in excersize it causes even experts to talk past on another over the slightest variations. Defining life in a sea of miss leading matter is a big challenge and problem without enough arbitrary identifers to hold one another accountable enough to clear the noise. We know our old world naming and ordering evolutionary mythology is projecting human qualities into nature its good for phylosphy but our most eccentric fundamentalist versions of our ourselves predict and discover from a very different line of thought orientation and direction Almost immediately after Darwin and Lyle argumes against code of life and all this phenotypical tranfer of data and or epigenetics the Swedish creationist discovered dna and it 100 combative controversy to get it accepted. Almost immediately after Lyle our greatest geological contribution of tectonic plates was argue for a Noah flood catastrophe. Ludwig boltzmans and on and on we find this throughout the old Babylonian evolutionary model it simply doesn't help predict things. It goes against the grain of nature. Talking about idealized time & ages of subjective properties like hamiltonian oscillating waves and feilds is useful and beneficial to try and standardized but it's irrelevant to nature itself. It's just not as real as many wishes it would be. Projecting ,plagiarize and correlating effortlessly overcoming horizon paradoxes is extremely rare on all scales very few things in nature can do this.
19:38 "Also, consciousness is not one thing. It exists in many dimensions. You can be conscious *of* certain things." No, consciousness is not many things. It's zero to one. You can pay *attention* to different things, yes. But you're using the ambiguity of language there, to make a false point.
You don't think consciousness emerges across the dynamics of subelements? It just exists as a whole and was there for forever and didn't require any functional composition whatsoever?
So imagine a person who is stuck in a coma and they only experience one thought every month and nothing else. Is that person just as conscious as you or I?
How about correcting CC to what he actually said?
As long as AI can’t do correct CC, it doesn’t understand what is being said. These things should be clear from the context, and from everything else Joscha ever said we have recordings of.
2:39 „awakeness“ NOT „a vagueness“
5:53 „entrained“ NOT „untrained“
5:56 „ephemeral“ NOT „affirm or all“
7:08 „retinas“ NOT „readiness“
10:23 „cares“ NOT „caress“
12:19 „in (its environment)“ NOT „and“
12:47 „are“ NOT „as“
22:41 „share“ not „shared“
(Joscha is speaking about ethics needing shared purposes and how we would go about teaching children ethics. But in the construction of the sentence it must read „share“, because it is the verb. „Shared“ would imply past tense: but for the negotiation of ethics it is actually important that both sides do now / continually share purposes, not that they once shared. Teaching kids to consider that they „shared“ (=potentially would share) purposes with other human beings is treating a child to think for itself wether this is a true proposition, which is a useful way to teach, if one wants future generations to consciously consider their alignments, rather than hammer those into them „to be a good person“. - Sorry for this circumvent way of saying, that I am also ok with „shared“ in the CC instead of „share“, as the discussion develops down that whole road anyway.
P.S.: I didn’t correct „single cell“ to „single celled“ or „.“ to „?“ (- these are simple grammatical mistakes and don’t change what is being said in a meaningful way here). Or simple cases of „this“ vs „the“ which can sometimes be hard to hear or distinguish and in the end are a matter of choice anyway.
13:52 he seemingly hadn’t made up his mind wether to say „… and this is the thing that is conscious“ vs „conscience“ vs „consciousness“ - So I‘m not blaming CC for not reproducing the misspoken / failingly repeated / self-corrected word in text, but just going with one option.
Also interesting to me is, that he often says „right?“ to keep a lively rapport with the interviewer/ Camille while speaking, but CC only writes that out in the more pronounced cases as a rhetorical question, whereas sometimes it drops these little injections of verbal speech, as they aren’t needed to the same degree for the CC-reader.
16:04 In the CC, I would have gone with „phenomenal experience“ as the grammatical right choice, but Joscha might have not pronounced the ending of the word well / slurred it, or he even actually consciously decided to go with „phenomenon experience“ to stress the true meaning of the word rather than to use „phenomenal experience“, as that superficially sounds like a superlative („amazing experience“), which would have distorted the original meaning.
I got autism reading this. This is good. 👍
why is he so effing smart, omg
He thinks about ontology and epistemology a whole lot.
When goes the stock up?
I like Bach will give a listen later
You give a listen right NOW.
This is an old recording
Yea, please, Intel, use the "re-upload" term in the title.
"A system emerges, that dreams of being conscious". For a system to dream of something, it needs to have a conception *and* some related experience of said thing, before it can dream of it. Otherwise the word "consciousness" is meaningless to that system, in that supposed dream. Circular definition. Also, what does "simulated property" even mean? We're no step closer to explaining the existence of qualia.
The system has a conception of reality because it is embedded in reality. It exists in an organism that has an entire nervous system dedicated to mining data from its local environment. The organismal system has a coherent conception of reality through its dream state because its dream state is embedded within reality. The dream state emerges across operations that the organism performs on the data that it mines from its surroundings.
@@joshuasanford Yes, very well said - we are something like trapped passengers inside the system. It is so fascinating, the brain mechanism. After watching movie/book "Johny got his gun", really makes you think. What would brain do without any sensory inputs and physical controls, seems like a nightmare for that dream world (person) and all those brain's struggles to survive in reality. Similar with extreme conditions and tortures.
17:52 AI deep faking conscience; trained to deceive? We all do Turing Tests all the time on each other…
Thanks Everyone
Right down at our foundational curriculum of biological population species we have real problem that looks OK on paper but in excersize it causes even experts to talk past on another over the slightest variations.
Defining life in a sea of miss leading matter is a big challenge and problem without enough arbitrary identifers to hold one another accountable enough to clear the noise.
We know our old world naming and ordering evolutionary mythology is projecting human qualities into nature its good for phylosphy but our most eccentric fundamentalist versions of our ourselves predict and discover from a very different line of thought orientation and direction
Almost immediately after Darwin and Lyle argumes against code of life and all this phenotypical tranfer of data and or epigenetics the Swedish creationist discovered dna and it 100 combative controversy to get it accepted.
Almost immediately after Lyle our greatest geological contribution of tectonic plates was argue for a Noah flood catastrophe.
Ludwig boltzmans and on and on we find this throughout the old Babylonian evolutionary model it simply doesn't help predict things.
It goes against the grain of nature.
Talking about idealized time & ages of subjective properties like hamiltonian oscillating waves and feilds is useful and beneficial to try and standardized but it's irrelevant to nature itself.
It's just not as real as many wishes it would be.
Projecting ,plagiarize and correlating effortlessly overcoming horizon paradoxes is extremely rare on all scales very few things in nature can do this.
19:38 "Also, consciousness is not one thing. It exists in many dimensions. You can be conscious *of* certain things." No, consciousness is not many things. It's zero to one. You can pay *attention* to different things, yes. But you're using the ambiguity of language there, to make a false point.
You don't think consciousness emerges across the dynamics of subelements? It just exists as a whole and was there for forever and didn't require any functional composition whatsoever?
It happens. And you may both be right.
So imagine a person who is stuck in a coma and they only experience one thought every month and nothing else. Is that person just as conscious as you or I?
I for one welcome our new sentient silicone overlords
xD
Чип и Дейл
Linux support 😢
Linux will support itself. That’s what we do.