Apr 30, 2025
Me when Iām reading a fanfic and itās actually good:
Loading...
seen from South Africa
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Pakistan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Pakistan
seen from Sweden
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
Me when Iām reading a fanfic and itās actually good:
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
The fundamental absence of a logical bridge to connect quantities to qualities, caused by the abandonment of the semantic reference that underpinned the meaning of the quantities to begin with, is the hard problem. The premises of mainstream Physicalism are such that, in order for quantities to have meaning, qualities need to preexist them. But when Physicalism then tries to account for the qualities in terms of the quantities, the latter must preexist the former and thus become literally meaningless. Nothing can be deduced in principle from meaningless things, and thatās the hard problem right there.
Bernardo Kastrup. The true, hidden origin of the so-called 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'
Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell
Who, What, and Which
We are a 'š°š”šØ'. The brain is a 'what'.
Neither are created completely by the other, but both act dynamically and continuously to influence and define that creation. A 'what' is just a name that some 'who' gives to all that is sufficiently unlike themselves.
The creation is, I propose, accomplished on a deeper level by a preponderance of "š°š”š¢šš”" 'graphings (entropy, negentropy, space, time) that constrain an aesthetic Holos...the absolute totality.
This is like a neutral monism model, but it is not exactly neutral becuase the Holos, the 'thesis' is more mind-like than it is like the antithesis - matter. It is not exactly a monism because there is no static boundedness that makes 'it' 'one' or 'many'. Those distinctions should not be meaningful at the absolute level, because the thesis is the only phenomenon of existence. The Holos is the unbounded source of infinite novelty, not as mechanistic formation or information, but as aesthetic-participatory experience.
Would it be possible to convert someone's mind into an A.I. or be stored on a computer?
We donāt know quite for sure yet.
The thing is: right now we canāt. We just donāt have the power!
But eventually, computation will get so efficient that weāll be able to store all the connections of the brain, all the configuration, all the particular ways in which a particular person is setup.
If we did that, as taking a very very detailed photograph of their brain, and we switched it on... would it gain consciousness? Would it be the same person? (As in, feel like them, have the same memories, etc.)
We donāt know for sure: this is the hard problem of consciousness. Is a physical configuration all it takes for something to be aware of itself? Can we just imbue self-awareness on something like that? Does consciousness appear naturally on things that are complex enough?
Iāve been reading a bit on the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness (there are a few good lectures on it). It claims that given the right complexity and Ā configuration, anything can become conscious, but different measurements of consciousness exist, and they would be measurable. Interesting stuff.
Back to your question: letās assume for a moment that we could copy someoneās mind and put it in a computer. Would it be AI? Would it beĀ āartificialā or not? Something to ponder on...
by Raymond Tallis, M.D. It is [Bishop] Berkeleyās merit to have realised that the Cartesian/Newtonian philosophers, seeking to a...
āIt is [Bishop] Berkeleyās merit to have realised that the Cartesian/Newtonian philosophers, seeking to account for a seeable world, succeeded only in substituting a world that could in no sense be seen. He realised that they had substituted a theory of optics for a theory of visual perception. Ā Ā Ā Ā --L Susan Stebbingā 3.6 Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Why There Can Never Be a Brain Science of Consciousness: The Disappearance of Appearance...
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
so I learned about panpsychism yesterday. and im still trying to make sure i understand. from what ive heard, its the postulation that its consciousness all the way down, and that "the mind" is a fundamental aspect of reality, that sentience is ubiquitous, but somehow consciousness is still restricted from "inanimate objects" like rocks or buildings but i don't understand how those two things can coexist. if electrons have an experience of reality, as in, it "feels like something," to be an electron, why would this be limited to only biological organisms?
New images show an invisible ābiophotonā glow in living tissue that falls after deathāmeasurable light captured with ultra-sensitive cameras
Neuroscientists have wondered how our brain decides what we noticeāand what we ignoreāin the constant stream of sights, sounds, and thoughts