Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
45
-
36
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
@blallocompany
No? Most of the time people are doing this, it is not an example of "limited situations". And again, to stop reinforcing this bs, we are not "emitting words", we are [chosing] words. Stop biasing your own vocabulary. We chose words deliberatedly [all] the time, which is my point, even when we are making accidental mistakes we are [chosing] our words and not just "emitting" them, it is a deliberate act even when it is mistake, and that's literally [why] it is called a mistake in the first place. A mistake is only possible if we [intended] to make a correct decision, a decision is only a decision if it has [intent] and [volition], both things LLMs don't posess. LLMs, in fact, don't even "make mistakes", we use those words with them because it is easier to say than "they selected the statistically most probable words that, in this specific case, lead to a factually incorrect final cohesive answer interpreted by the human mind", it is the same when a program does something that you as the programmer did not intended it to do and you say it is "misbehaving" or "behaving incorrectly", the program is behaving perfectly correctly according to the explicit instructions you gave it, what is wrong is the encoding of the desired instructions (by the programmer) into it.
And to end it, you are chosing those words to justify your position, you literally is having introspective power to the next word you are writting right now, and when you read my comment again, you will think about it and start responding to the thing with your own words intending to respond me with a specific line of reasoning.
9
-
8
-
> *Mining bitcoin does not create wealth, just as money printing does not. It merely redistributes existing wealth.
This is true.
> *Society does not benefit from bitcoin mining (only the miners do). That's why the energy is wasted, even if it is green or unused.
This is blatantly false, you should read the whitepaper and familiarize yourself with how the technollogy works and what it is aiming to solve before saying something like this. It absolutely does have a social benefit.
> *Imagine a democracy where you need to dig holes and fill them up to be able to vote. Do you see the nonsense? People work, but the work is unnecessary!
The nonsense is the democracy yourself, but I would argue your democracy idea would be WAY better than what we currently have, before people would need to actually put their effort where their mouth is, populism by itself would not solve it.
> *If proof of work has to be used, let's do work that is beneficial, like training AI, not finding big numbers!
Again, this is ignorance.
7
-
@blallocompany
What you mean it "goes nowhere"? And I am free to pick the words I cam up with, what are you on about?
The fact that there's a set of defined words don't mean I need to adhere to them, I can quite literally make up new words on the spot using physical concepts as guides, like "claxchackles" where clax imply the action of eating something and chackles imply all the fruits that have the orange color. Now what your point is again?
Plus, it's not a less free decision because you have limited options, it's expected that you could only chose from already defined options (otherwise you would be the one creating the choices that you would then need to pick anyway), chosing means selecting X in place of [Y, Z, W, ...] and all of those things need to exist in order for the choice to exist, you always chose from an existing set.
Also, Greeks didn't had that sophisticated notion of volition in their times, this is closer to modern philosophy of mind and even language than that. And buddhists could be wrong all they want to, saying I'm an observer of the actions I am literally partaking of is no less false than a schizophrenic saying that the red dragon he sees behind me exists.
5
-
@PunmasterSTP
I don't think this has something to do with "knowing what you are doing" tho. If you take a random selection of neurons from your brain and put them into a petri dish, they would not be a "memory" or "retrieving something", they would be just cells in a petri dish dying slowly and trying to survive the new harsh environment. What makes a brain is the collection of all connected cells, and what makes a memory and the process of retrieving is the mutual work of those connected cells, it is a fundamentally non-reductive process and, in this sense, the common sense explanation of "I am retrieving something from my memory" is already sufficient (and probably one of the best we can do) for explaining the process. Descending this would actually lose information relative to this process instead of increasing it, so it is not only sufficient but adequate.
In other words: knowing about the causal process behind a conscious process does not increase the amount of knowledge about the conscious process, and knowing about the subjective nature of the conscious process don't increase the amount of intrinsic knowledge about the causal process. You cannot go from "this is the concept of a bird" into your neurons, if you go you will only see "a bunch of neurons firing together and wiring together" and the most you will know is "those neurons fire together and wire together when the subject thinks about the concept of a bird", this would say nothing in and on itself about the actual concept of a bird in the subject's mind. The same way, you need to actually study the causality of the thought "this is the concept of a bird" to increase your knowledge about the way the brain works, by itself the subjective description is not perpassable. This is what we usually call "the hard problem of consciousness", and it is the reason we don't need to be able to be conscious about the causal processes involved in making consciousness happen to say that "we know what we are doing most of the time".
It is also not exactly something just "popping into my mind", but rather I'm being directed towards some subject and evoking the thing into my mind, I'm saying those things are not purely aleatory or unknown, but rather basically volitions of your own.
5
-
@shivac_fgrude
No, it is, indeed, a problem. And a problem don't suggest is has a solution: e.g. the end of the universe is a problem for all living beings, yet it is innevitable, it has no solution. The end.
Next, the problem was never about how you "call things", it's about things we directly perceive in our everyday lives and how they LEAD to this distinction naturally, I don't need to assume your premises when the simpler case (which is, those things, neurophysiological brain processes in third person and the ontology of consciousness in first person, are in fact obviously distinct) is self-evident.
Saying "everything is a process" also does not solves the problem, it only masks it.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@amputatedhairstrands
You say, the millions of people dying of hunger mainly in Africa, in countries that are literally socialist dictatorships? My apologies, I hadn't understood. After all, we know that life expectancy in capitalist countries has practically doubled compared to earlier periods, and that hunger in human history has never been so low. Also, the relative number of well-fed people in countries with greater economic freedom tends to be much higher than in countries where this doesn't exist. But we need to achieve a perfect world, or else we aren't qualified to talk about anything, right?
If we take some of the countries most associated with hunger, like Yemen and Sierra Leone, a significant portion of them either have a history of flirting with socialism (or dictatorships and guerrilla groups with a socialist bias), or they have an absolutely laughable amount of market and peace due to constant wars. But it's capitalism's fault, right? Makes total sense.
I also find this game of 'no access to health services' extremely amusing when the very notion of health services has developed to this extent precisely because of capitalism and the advances that the industry has provided. Or do you think peasants in periods prior to the Industrial Revolution lived 'happy in their disease-free communes, with access to free quality medicine'? Or that primitive tribes that even kill their babies literally because they can't feed them are also fruits of capitalism? It seems to me a pretty heavy measure of ingratitude against the benefits that you only enjoy thanks to the market and initiatives that only existed in capitalism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shivac_fgrude
I'm treating as if it implies ontological separation because it [does imply] that, this not only is obvious from a very immediate observation, it is already well defended in the pom literature (see, for example, Searle view on the topic in minds, brains and science).
It's an "assumption" as saying "the sky is blue" is an assumption, we don't just assume it, we know it is because we see it, it's part of the very nature of perception itself. You can say those things are "different vantage points on the same recursive structure", it says literally nothing about the problem at hand unless you remove this fundamental part of human experience from your equation.
And it is, indeed, a dodge, something people were trying to do for a long time now (see for example, the weak attempt of Skinner to frame subjective consciousness as "the world behind the skin", his behavior is your process here).
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amputatedhairstrands
Brother, I literally live in Latin America, are you saying that you know more about my country than I do living here? If this is capitalism then the United States is flying super-capitalism, because there is literally nothing of a free market here that doesn't come from the gray and black market. I selected Yemen and Sierra Leone because they are some of the countries with the highest rates of hunger on the planet; they (along with a few others) concentrate most of the numbers, that's why I chose them. And I don't consider that only first-world countries are capitalist, but the notion of capitalism has been so distorted that they call countries like Brazil (where I live, and I really doubt other latin america countries in general are any better considering our news here about them) capitalist, when to open a tiny company we have to go through an unimaginable amount of bureaucracy and literally fight against what we affectionately call 'the lion' (aka the state) to survive. I would really love it if you could cite for me 3 countries that have a wide free market, freedom of trade, and political freedoms that are going through these terrible conditions that you mentioned, because it doesn't seem to be the case that the countries most cited in the rankings of hunger, death, and violence can be classified this way. As for your final statement that capitalism is doomed to collapse, that's socialist bullshit, but I don't expect anything better than futurology coming from you guys really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amputatedhairstrands
Well, now I will respond. I understand that in your case, the Brazilian health care system has helped you, I really do. However, this, for better or worse, is still anecdotal evidence. Just like my grandmother received terrible healthcare through our system when she was alive and eventually passed away, and many people in my family have suffered similar fates, unfortunately (as have thousands of other people). I'm also not going to say that our healthcare system is trash in its entirety; it naturally helps millions of people every year, and that's wonderful. But it's also not the be-all and end-all, and what they sell on the internet is not compatible with the reality of thousands of people who are actually dying in its queues. And while it's true that healthcare treatments tend to be very expensive, I recommend caution in blaming the market for this and not the real problems that are well known, such as patents (one of the main barriers to entry in the healthcare market, basically because you're at the mercy of some large corporations protected by the state to acquire some essential things in the treatment of people), regulations and bureaucracy (something that makes a huge difference, and that can be the difference between having a more accessible service and not; there are hundreds of thousands of small barriers that accumulate when it comes to creating your own healthcare service), and all the tax burden that we already know about. So, I wouldn't say that the 'free' Brazilian healthcare system would be the only possible solution for cases like yours (although due to world conditions, it is your only option); it seems hasty to blame the market for something that is essentially caused by state actions.
When I said that Brazil is approaching socialism because of its high bureaucracy and limited freedom, it wasn't an attempt to literally equate the two things, but to say that bureaucracy is a reflection of socialist thought being transferred to the state. Bureaucracy implies the indirect control of the state over production and distribution, which represents 'degrees of socialism' over what would be considered our 'capitalism.' When they start to put dozens of barriers and compliances to be resolved so that you can have a business, and they put you under the gun (metaphorically and literally) to lose all your assets in case of non-compliance (as happens with the very high fines that are imposed when companies do not comply with these bureaucracies), the difference between what we call the market here and a centralized economy starts to blur more and more, and it's in this sense that I attribute this issue.
As for the problems of corruption and money going to the wrong places, I agree with what you say, but see that the problem turns out not to be simply 'evil capitalism,' but rather a series of other considerations that need to be taken carefully when analyzing these issues?
1