👁️ autosurveillant 👁️ @pee_zombie@schelling.pt
also featuring Kevin Spacey and Fox McCloud
---
RT @AGPgroyper
nick land and his sworn enemy, frank ocean
https://twitter.com/AGPgroyper/status/1377806434059030530
🧵on physical intuition, models, dimensional reduction, and the limitations of cognition
---
RT @pee_zombie
@liminal_warmth when we construct analogies in physics, we seek out human-scale systems which can be used as "intuition pumps"; ie, systems where most people have a good. enough model of it that you can give them a set of inputs, and they can "pump" their intuition to get useful outputs
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1378161715284688898
a mindset "rooted" in hierarchical indexing (arborescent) cannot fully comprehend that which is based, not on some "what", but associatively so (rhizomatic)
this distinction is a postmodern one; a "root" requires an objective grounding, which pomo rejects, in favor of relations
---
RT @pee_zombie
the most fundamental ideological conflict is btwn folders & tags; the ontological differences btwn hierarchical & associative indexing underl…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1377404570452680707
me except my kid better fucking enjoy it
---
RT @marsiennex2
Ruin kids’ fun by asking ‘what exactly is happening and why’ every time they show you a cool natural phenomenon they just discovered
Lego time’s over buddy it’s logos time
https://twitter.com/marsiennex2/status/1377653973482622976
but if you insist on dualism, you're then faced with an infinite regress in the form of precisely defining the boundaries of the self, as well as the mechanism by which the brain interacts with the platonic realm
on the day we create an AGI, you'll be forced to reckon with this
it all comes down to the distinction between dualism and materialism; if you accept materialism, then the only arguments left to you are ones of feasibility, that perhaps we will not be able to build an AGI, not that one is impossible. this is a reasonable discussion to have.
the usage of a human-in-the-loop for the argument is a sort of rhetorical trick, to get around the common intuition that a "purely mechanical" system couldnt possible be conscious.
however, some also believe you can't have an advanced mechanical computer
---
RT @deontologistics
I think it's always worth asking ourselves what purpose the homunculus (the person inside the Room) is actually supposed to be playing. If instead of carr…
https://twitter.com/deontologistics/status/1377719360991731713
a very important question is asked here; what are the minimum computational operations necessary to support consciousness? is it possible for it to arise without memory? without spatial reasoning? without a linguistic faculty? how can we measure these?
---
RT @deontologistics
From the perspective of automata theory, these distinctions are absolutely crucial. Moreover, they raise crucial questions: do we think sapience requires the…
https://twitter.com/deontologistics/status/1377715369243254784
the Chinese Room argument is a bad-faith attempt to model a computational system in a similar way, but with its capabilities highly limited, which is critical to the argument's function. there is no computable process which cannot be emulated by humans
---
RT @deontologistics
1. It's important to be precise about the sorts of symbol manipulation we think the Room is performing. Is there internal storage where the occupant can writ…
https://twitter.com/deontologistics/status/1377714472828157952
if you were able to perfectly observe all the informational flux across the system's boundary for a period >= the computed deception ceiling, you should be able to conclusively determine its level of agency; of the causal chains leaving the boundary, how many originated within?
any bounded region of space has a theoretical upper bound of compute available to it; with this ceiling, you can calculate the longest possible period over which an entity within the boundaries could deceive observers; deception requires memory (storage) which requires space
imo the only sensible way to evaluate a given system's causal properties is through a computational-complexity approach; by examining it as a informational-flux blackbox, you can theorize about the minimum complexity required to generate outputs from inputs
if you assume Dualism, then the argument changes to one of ontology; you are envisioning a world where platonic categories are reified and govern the computation capabilities of various physical objects
this is broadly incompatible with mostly all modes of computational analysis
without some secret sauce, you cannot make a coherent argument that it is impossible to construct a physical system functionally equivalent to the brain; deterministic mechanics forbid it
with a special sauce, well, then you're no longer making information-theoretic arguments
ultimately, the only cosmological distinction which matters is Cartesian Dualism. either you believe there is "something special" about humans (a soul, some psychic access to a platonic realm, quantum effects), or you must admit that sapience/agency can be artificially replicated
---
RT @deontologistics
Virtually every debate about whether or not it's possible to make a computational system that is 'like us' in one of the relevant …
https://twitter.com/deontologistics/status/1377708551909601283
post yuor vibe in four memes
---
RT @pareinoia
post yuor vibe in four memes https://twitter.com/eggprophet/status/1377619197455384581 https://t.co/79Ja4k2N41
https://twitter.com/pareinoia/status/1377624777578401795
wild how all our kitchens are just full of very conveniently shaped rocks
sheesh fine i get it no need to patronize, i'll be more careful with recursive clone operations in the future, you autistic shell interpreter
sure, the universe is a simulation, but is it a good one? is it an elegant continuous evaluation of an analytic function, or a messy JIT piecewise construct, with dirty hacks hidden outside our instrumental lightcone, a la skinny Homer?
is God a mathematician or an engineer?
