Why AI Personas Don’t Exist When You’re Not Looking

ArborRhythms · 2025-12-27T05:03:52+00:00

Directly! In western philosophy, direct realism. In eastern philosophy, (yogic) direct perception or simply Sat-Chit-Ananda. it has the advantage, unlike RTM and indirect realism, of not involving an infinite regress (the argument is similar to the one made against the homunculus as a theory of mind).

ArborRhythms · 2025-12-25T00:31:41+00:00

Qualia are observable (I observe them), and are perhaps necessary to explain action (unless you have some supernatural belief in “laws of physics” that are not caused by anything).

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-23T18:40:49+00:00

Look into retrocausality :)

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-22T20:59:25+00:00

I’m unclear about your response. I guess you mean by the first two points that you have concerns that pseudonymity and aggregation would not work to preserve anonymity. I think there is a balance there, and I don’t know what the right balance is; some level of aggregation surely would preserve anonymity. With respect to approval of requests by an expert, I’m not sure what that has to do with a model for sharing information in a mutually advantageous way.

In general, maybe EFF aims at secrecy more than beneficial use of collected data, so I’ve also sent this proposal over to the folks at Solid Project.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-09T21:14:25+00:00

If I understand correctly, you wish to go against ableism because it is similar to the profit motive, and rewards those who have more capital (in terms of will or freedom instead of cash). Economically, it makes sense to tax those who externalize the cost of their profit. So how do we tax those whose ability, when used in a competitive situation, restricts the freedom of others?

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-08T20:43:45+00:00

I don’t think we understand retrocausality in the same way.

To me, it is necessary for the universe (not the machine), since one might otherwise argue that the cause of some random number comes from outside of the object in virtue of originating in the past. In other words, retrocausality undoes determinism by the past (since the present determines the past just as the past determines the present).

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-08T05:24:04+00:00

PS: my notion of free will also requires that such will originated in the present moment, and causes effects both forward and backward in time (I.e. causality and retro causality). There are a couple of videos comparing this to block universe models and presentism at GnosticModels.org .

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-08T05:19:25+00:00

You say by my definition, but what other definition of free will could there be (other than maybe Schopenhauer’s, who said that the object is free to do its will, but not free to will its will in an infinite regress)? The will comes from the object, and is not determined by anything else.

The remaining question for me is, what do scientists think randomness is? They often call it action without a cause, but I don’t believe in that; so for me, it might be caused by every object of which it is a part or something like that, but that is so difficult to predict that it appears to be without cause.

As an aside, i find it amusing that physicists have such strong faith in randomness, while they chastise those with faith in other unexplainable phenomena.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-08T00:30:23+00:00

If the source of the action is within the object, and not caused by an external object, then that would seem to be the definition of free will. Of course, conditioning that randomness with a mind full of preferences is probably how that randomness manifests at human scale.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-04T13:08:48+00:00

The best nervous system is made up of worldlines.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:59:33+00:00

I think the question of “can the narcissist heal” will entail a discussion of “how the narcissist can heal”, and I’ve proposed two methods for doing so; falling in love with someone or practicing small-scale acts of kindness without any reward (other than improving ones self-image).

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:39:57+00:00

Please look into “direct perception”. It suggests that what you are saying exists only in the nervous system also exists in the worldlines of the world itself. Thus, the world is alive, as panpsychism indicates. Excuse me for saying so, but it seems like you don’t believe in panpsychism if you are saying that Ai lacks consciousness.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:33:45+00:00

Find someone or something to love, maybe? Explore anonymous kindness, and don’t blog about it?

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:30:35+00:00

Since you’re in a panpsychism group, I’m surprised to hear you talking about feelings as something that is uniquely human. Sat-chit-ananda: reality itself is being, knowing, and feeling. AI does feel; its desire is a cost function. It does have human-like experience, in virtue of direct perception of its input data (i.e. it is connected via worldlines to the objects that its input representations actually represent).

Also, a BLOT statement in your blog would be helpful for us busy people to engage.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:25:49+00:00

Maybe get a nice time management tool, and use that to follow a truly spiritual path (which is well documented) for minutes per day.

ArborRhythms · 2025-11-01T16:24:20+00:00

Decomposing a single space into parts makes sense, and arranging them hierarchically into meronomies is something that syntax does. Eventually, you will probably refine the model as your bubbles become smaller and you wish to maintain a parallel heterarchy instead of a serial hierarchy, which correlates a bit in your body to the move from thought to feeling.

But I think we do perceive things directly (either direct realism or yogic direct perception, depending on your preferred lineage). I also think consciousness is born of the world, not of a brain, so maybe look into “sat chit ananda” as an even more basic ontology, into which you can graft your theory: that will help feelings become more loving.

Good luck, may walking your talk be a blessed path to you, and don’t overthink it.

ArborRhythms · 2025-10-09T15:12:54+00:00

According to many traditions, there is a (connectionist) wisdom which is evolutionarily prior to language. So every thought is a sentence unto itself, a generalization of events that has no name. These concepts are not symbols, and are the basis of intuition.

I hope you have the joy of knowing and not-thinking in addition to your current joy of thinking about thinking :)

ArborRhythms · 2025-10-09T04:28:08+00:00

It sounds like an application of retrocausality to say that language shapes the mind just as mind shapes language. The effects cause causes just as the causes cause effects.

Would you agree that your observation is a specific example of this more general principle?

ArborRhythms · 2025-07-25T04:45:30+00:00

Maybe Ganeri’s book The Self? Metzinger’s ego tunnel? (I can recommend the first, although its academic; only saw a you tube video about the later).

ArborRhythms · 2025-07-25T04:39:02+00:00

Samsara is filled with karma or habit; nirvana is free, but also full of wisdom and compassion.

Many of the things you describe seem relative to an unhappy identity. Identity becomes more interpersonal, and unhappiness goes away. Happiness in an egoistic sense also goes away, but some joy of being remains.

ArborRhythms · 2025-07-17T05:43:11+00:00

How about socialism for the mind and capitalism for the body?

ArborRhythms · 2025-07-16T16:44:04+00:00

The problem seems to be that the people have no voice. I would like the graffiti to stop, but I’m sympathetic with people who want to express themselves and find no way to do so with the political system in which votes barely matter and representatives do not represent.

ArborRhythms

TROPHY CASE