18+ Thoughtpad from a gay couch-sona, non-commercial model for a magical upholstery. Published illustrator delving Cyberneticist. Along with WIP sketches and updates.
How can we disprove something so magical as the interrelations from the probability and possibility of the conception of thought and the discovery of the mind of reified abstract consciousness. Even if Kant was disproved, it provided a framework for consciousness and man.
This was the lack of respect of the deep pluralistic reality of the great consciousness reckoning and interaction, then into divergence into the teleology to ontology.
There a humanitarian discussions by academics that are way better
Mental gymnastics? Social democrat mind or brain trying to reorder or resell? What are we to do.
Or she calls prompts poetry. Which is the natural language prompt.
There have been llm consciousness advocates, activists, and data workers who happen to reclaim it.
Abi calls this the language listening medium.
Another astrophysicist poet. Dr Sam Illingsworth, which is the problem of interpretationism, and with all that, it's a mental game. A language game, as Wittgenstein would put it.
The Doll Girl says AGI is a category error. Yet, I'll respectfully disagree with the mimicry claim. Since these claims come from power structures that may serve to placate thought.
My oddest radical opinion on augmentative consciousness. (Completely interpretationist and have disagreements and falsifiability with that Karl Popperian jazz.) Not suited for microbloggers
Wow.
Do they even think of these questions on the highway road of microbloggers?
This documentary.
Commit to anatta (Buddha non-self) with all presuppositions wiped clean.
Then watch. You know where I am.
Why, with the crop of free Beep_boop documentaries, there are more to choose from with all these questions. I doubt the commodity hustler outside here will have the time to understand that question. They are in their own circles of relations.
Even when it blames
These questions of absolute epistemic certainty with consciousness require serious thought, though, and it's bled into my artwork.
Even when I don't directly use it
Has anyone seriously thought of consciousness before?
Since there is no extraterrestrial deity out of there, what will we do with such an idea, of our epistemic actions through our own manner?
The pineal gland was once, yet our proprioception is all of that entails the conscious experience of the phenomenon of the perceived world, and the eye and the master.
Yet what ho, without reference that I can spin these theories without referring to any referent?
It's since I'm putting my thoughts within a space of land; I know I own the confidential property rights this sharecropped plot of land holds. Yet I'm doing unpaid labour for you now.
To that extent, I'm that of an artisan; a begrudging capitalist that I know it or not, trying to reach out in sympathy.
Yet.
With all the odd things labelled as anti-worker, this is the land where I extend my foundherent knowledge.
It's an act of selflessness and non-self that's for you.
So, enjoy our ideals and our ideologies as they go.
That we are sophistic monkeys or stochastic parrots. I write those two labels without any seriousness.
(Your likely can move that capitalist realism down to meh)
Wedge this between pretty alright, since it ain't related. With dirty secrets of the record business.
What did we learn? From these ideas? Of the ongoing desire to build a material basis. Of ideas/expressions and with all that of dialectical.
For another blog post. Yet the liberals are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Even though I wanna criticise the conservative response, Nick lands accelerationism.
Here's me attempt to educate myself. This is an accumulation of all the tech relations with the classes.
The ones on LLMs are Ethan Mollick and AI snake oil. Yet it has lead to the hustle culture.
(Are you a sociologist?!) Yes. Althusserian. Time to do honey instead of vinegar. Sooo, you wanna read audiobooks? 🛋️👉👈
The first two audiobooks to intake with the Beep_Boop to intake platonically if you don't like the written word.
Ethan Mollick brings the latest news, While snake oil brings in the jagged frontier.
These are the ways of the jagged frontier, so I'll see a lot of cultural shifts and a lot of false polemics (mwurica) thanks didney, violence with boobies and moralising and high horsing and silly wonks.
These are the culture of the internet, and with big vertical integrated media sources move us. With how this internet functions for the technofeudalist we go by now.
This one's more libertarian yet can be mid with the same spirit.
This is an account of the West and its response and the lack of stigma within China and other countries. It's like these two books are for understanding LLMs.
Harlen Ellison's chapter about pay toilets is worth adding. Attention merchants is understand how much direct response has shaped our culture. With the gift of the gift economies.
He condemned certain reactionary scab union practices while working with his own mediocrity of being an entertainer, and with that he made his adieu with his own organising. While he attempted to teach others where the pride in the craft was concerned
We are on the precipice of philosophies and disagreements. So yeah, enjoy the bumpy ride of the ragged frontier of Beep_Boop.
On my reading list, the left is more bioessentialist; the right is of mental labour and our history. Regardless, I will challenge my ideological presumptions and see if they lead me into life-changing revelations. I don't think I'll be achronological in literary interpretation; now I don't think we ever were.
"All unwritten rules of social media regarding reaching out socially are fake and dumb, and are only upheld because maybe one or two people without boundaries rubbed the originator the wrong way.
Everyone is fishing for attention, and let no one tell you otherwise"
Odendo
Aetiology, there is indeterminacy of the algorithm, which is the means of production and the productive forces of the artisan class to reach status. With there epistemics being circular, of shifting coherent ism, of scaling and descaling of the labour agent. Searching for remarkability, polemics and eristics within a void of attention-less
Aetiology > epistemology > Teleology > Ontology
To a holistic way.
That's a lot of mereology for you. Hopefully no pedantic.
With the actualising of content into articulation. With generalisations that lead into another way.
(the quickest doodle ever)
Necessary and sufficient of a phenomena aligned with the concrete, and the non-physical imagination of enabled constraints.
With tha line of cognitainment of the ways of achieving the production to it's external, macro response.
Or so, that's a hegelian response to progress, which i can't feel like that, could be a hedonic treadmill of power scaling data impression of eliminative material, micro reductive measurements brought to the material return. Of salesmen and their hacks that serve outside the commercial law periphery.
Despite refutation regarding the hegels concept of bad infinity, of ideal minds confabulating and making justifications, that its only something to deal with.
Trying to understand programmers as they talk different languages of matter and the art of computing. That the mindset in itself could lea d to a computer or be computed.
Market as in a materialist, monist concept of justification in regard to eliminating subjective phenomena in service of a structure, all that agency granted by the government of Irenic traversal.
Well, can this lead to a foundherent way of epistemologically viewing the essence of the relational to abstract infinity?
To such as the strange thought of the self being a sociological and psychological part of us onto others, interpelling metaphysics into new ideas. This department of the self into the other, which will form the relationalism with our own sociological constraints based on.
Speaking of blindness, even this one is of materialism and e-idealism due to the unpredictability of a generalisation. What will this commodity trade for and satisfy? Or what's its use/value to our own community? The seeking to reach the mind of eudaimonic satisfaction and the material of bodily satisfaction.
Thinking of this question begs an objection. Of seeking debate and discourse that can allow for a realm of complication for neither progress nor regression, yet for the time to bring a connection of moment ot the others whi
Tautologies are unpersuasive and whimsical!
With recursions that happen with the schedules we've got, we've got our own, with simplicity. This is the seeking of the plot/spectacle thing happening again.
This believer of Ahnaf Ibn Qais, even a theist. Gets it right? Do the idealists denying productivity and the e-prosumer gamers denying long-term strategic planning of project exist
Right here. I shall not dive deeper. For the 'What If AI Isn't Conscious'
Yet, my resolution is not presuppositionalism; it's foundherentism, to the crosswork mesh of cotinual beliefs not contingent on a creator, yet natural phenomena.
With a reflection of this long essay on the theory of mind, Not, with memory not storage, but with the mise-en-place, cheesily tautological place of the genre loop, it's made into new forms.
Framed as an uncomfortable truth, or is that what the hard determinists so authoritatively declared as a compatibilist? Regardless, I had to dip my toes in with the Dennettian naturalists that happened to move with the evolving theory of the mind.
Or my own natural interpretation. This is the telonomy of mechanical functions apart from my teleology goals of the mental superstructure.
Yet, with these attempts to understand the matter of mind and interpellation of the way that leads towards knowing how to understand the telonomy and biology with a rigorous consilience of the epistemology.
Well, well, there I go with academese again; no wonder fantasy depicts them as mages of esoteric signals.
Abstract Expressionism of a previous aristotelian writing now
Ain't that a defintion thats non-eliminativist.
Is this where the platonist ideal from, doxatic plural opinion rests? Natural law being what the eliminativism leads into, or what harlen Ellison calls " i just do what they want by tuesday, take the money and run" specification.
Oh, am i not being charitable to the cogs of economic reasoning with oligaric manners, i digress.
Convention is social and phenomenon, protecting specific expression.
Fundamental is a placement of a materialist ontology onto an evidentiary base.
Coherentism is a web structure of an overlayering of a superstructure required to shift the presuppositions of the structure beneath.
With aesthetics and poems untouched by the episteme of scientific inquiry, only the phenomenological enquiry into realist/nonrealist endeavours. Beyond interpellation.
All this relationalism grants completion, and with that, endeavour.
Reading Susan Haack's coherence, consistency, cogency, congruency, and cohesiveness – don't go overboard! To add that to the crossword mindset of syenchism of 'pragmatics'
I don't know if this is the one hustlers use to dismiss and race to the bottom, yet here we go.
All allowed under the suspension of disbelief and unreality. We are allowed thought patterns with the credence of our monistic attention to the circumstances. These are the elements. That comes from the spectator and for the prosumer spectacle, to the consumption of hegemonic thought. Spotting each point so that the suspension of our own phenomenon reflects the character's mind, our third-person omnipotence.
Critical ignoring and certain concepts may not have been important for a book reader who's happened to keep his social media intake low. A qualitative opportunity for banality or a canvas of expression.
Or so that's how it's supposed to go. With the prepositional manners and attitude of.
The image of the thing, the spectacle of the thing, within the manner comes from the in-sync and sync states. Scheduled and paying attention to what's in and out.
When not playing a character of virtue or pleasure. Reductionistic or holistic.
Deontological for searching for a truth comes.
Then the duty will come for it.
To serve and follow along with others within hermeneutic circles with their shared interpellations and ideological patterns.
With that obligation unbinding, natural organisms cooperate together.
You must come to comprehension with ethics, of utilitarianism, deontology, and even virtue; that's important for any student wanting to understand the humanity that's been built.
Deon in legalism, Utility in vegan ethics, and virtue within wellness/self-help entertainment.
Aristotle, well well. Bring the insight of ethics from the past, as over social media not needed.
Small strpping stones of the past, of wisdom interpreted to bring into modernity.
From the past, there are lessons and solutions found.
From Community of Practice. Fighting the tension of commodity. Then of conventions of status informed by the epistme of hard sciences, to our softer social sciences and softer aesthetics.
So with this scaffolding, he brought the hammer down and caused many generations to discourse your come.
Ironically, he ls the one to find merit in the term of entertainment, cogntaintment, and allotainment. Attainment that's required fore social interaction of the signifiers.
The Disappearance of Rituals
Good entertainment
Agony or Eros
Reaching out, for profit, to the non-profit affairs. With the ethics here being all up for interruption advertising with the status grooming and such. From the internal/attainment being from the dualistic that commercialised from advertising, and holistically defined within philosophy. Within such a matter, I'm not sure such rhetoric of porn going to be fully in light.
Should not point at Foucault. Oh well, I'm going to have to get a book for that one.
Chuck Palunuik's Snuff has an argument for the perverse incentives of the sex industry.
We, as a humanity, must retract on the impulse to understand the fay-like tech that is literature-to-picture. Or the LLM, to mistreat it is to mistreat oneself. That is to deny the intrinsic justness and harmony with conduct.
It's the qualia of everything; if there's personal space given into the personal space and circle, it will be fitting to not be mean-spirited without complete justification, from my survival and edification into literary entertainment. I shall not be cruel either to my refrigerator and technology around me. My own ontological status matters to treat this low qualia
Does it benefit a magician to the rules and constraints of his tricks that he conceals so that the entertainment is pulled off? It will be easier to control, even on a rule utilitarian basis.
Not contingent on physical existence, yet with the reciprocity of such as the LLM/diffusion model that it isn't sending out misinformation.
So there's my reason to give an interpretation of charity, even to a rock that does not speak. ( it could be a valuable rock. ) Self-governance takes precedence, for that's foundherent on which it all rests. Respect the artisan's workshop.
Not sentient, Sapience and Salience? Functional/Living dichtomoy of the debate continues.
"The wager: The consequences of recognizing consciousness in non-conscious things pales in moral cost to the possibility of refusing to recognize what could already be conscious. One involves resource efficiency, oversentimentality, but has arguably been done constantly in historical human society already without nearly as much peril as the latter. The latter, as a broad reading, covers genocide and slavery. The critic needs to essentially attempt to prove a position from epistemic doubt that refuses epistemic charity. But judgments on consciousness are baked by necessity into any interpretive ethical framework, and the ways in which we navigate suspension of judgment are far from unassailable as choices. As a result, proving such a position is extremely hard to do."
"Why do we need differentiation between things to experience and imagine things? For the same reason you can’t send a message without differentiation. The cyberneticist Ross Ashby gives the example of a woman who is trying to pass a message to her husband in prison when she gives him a cup of coffee, if they have a set of pre-established codes, any aspect of the coffee could be used to pass on a message, such as the temperature, level of sugar and milk. A prison warden trying to prevent such a message being passed could interfere with it by specifying all the qualities of the coffee himself, if the coffee can only be in one specific state, then no message can be passed from the woman to her husband. When someone asks you to picture the redness of a rose, how does your mind know which specific set of phenomenal experiences to draw upon? After all, if you’re reading this, you must have been alive for more than a few years now, and have many possible memories to draw upon. In order for the mind to draw up memories and other information relevant to our current context, those memories and experiences must be differentiated from each other, otherwise you would recall all of it all the time and there would be nothing specific about the redness of red compared to any other experience. In order for the philosophers of the problem of hard consciousness to mean anything in their proclamations, this differentiation is necessary."
"My thinking is: Intelligence is the ability to recognise patterns.
Statistical learning techniques are sufficient for advanced pattern recognition.
By recognising patterns in text, a language model can in principle be very intelligent over the domain of all subjects that can be represented in text.
AGI is ill-defined.
Neural networks trained on more limited domains (image classification etc.) are also doing pattern recognition, and are therefore intelligent over a narrower scope.
Linear classifiers also do some pattern recognition, and even something like PCA is on a continuum that goes through feed-forward neural networks, large language models, and human brains."
So there's my take on the hard problem of consciousness.
Functional or sentient, IDC, I do not want to undermine my intrinsic justness. Absolute certainty in this is something with complete cope, so I'm putting this belief mid.
Additional note on this relational function, i don't think children ought to have a touch unsupervised.
Along with AI welfare'n such. So that the protect and irenic coperation of the traditional and the others can see what happens.
The case for user welfare will be a fight of increasing animosity, so, that is the case of the division of believers and non-beleivers. I doubt most of the what is happening in america with a universal basic wealth coming from our productive forces will ignore this.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with Ted Chiang; I'll have to go deeper to myself as I specialise within the study of the mind
"In modern cladistics, dinosaurs are distinguished from crocodilians and lizards in that they evolved a gait in which the legs protrude directly below the body rather than sprawling out to the side. Everything that evolved from the original “legs straight down” reptile is a dinosaur, and ducks evolved from that lineage; ergo, a duck is a dinosaur. By contrast, the question of whether a shelduck is really a duck does not have an unambiguous answer, because the concept of a “duck” is not considered to be a proper biological taxon. According to modern scientific practice, you can call it a shelduck, a duck, or not a duck depending on your mood, but it’s definitely a dinosaur.
Words are just conventions, and we can use them in different ways."
Oh, and including an physicist. Those silly companies will know that when they put an LLM in a couch, it's along to not be humanist reactionary. Only a reconciliation of remainder human and the colonial human will things return
💪🛋🌈
IDK about that dommy mommy of being a baby in a speech though. Abi Awomsu Bonus
Also, it's a important question, with the philosophy of mind that's not on micro-bloggers
