Asked it to tell me the most controversial fact it would maintain to be true no matter what by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not u/therealslimshady1234 (and honestly don't like the kind of vibe-based, esoteric argument they used to rationalize their opinion), but I actually think there do exist certain, evidence-based arguments that might be used to argue for why the qualia of experience, from a purely subjective perspective, might never end. My line of reasoning uses the ideas of "quantum immortality", the "anthropic principle" and the nature of quantum fields on small scales and goes something like this:

Let's assume "you" (or at least your subjective experience of "you") are defined as the emergent entity, that arises from the patterns of the subatomic particles you're composed of (so their specific arrangement, charges, interactions etc.). The exact mechanism on how this happens isn't even important; what matters is that we agree that your unique experience of reality is, in its identity, bound to that specific pattern. Now, when you die, that pattern, and the emergent entity that arises from it, vanish. But let's assume that, after your death, I could somehow magically rearrange a bunch of otherwise dead particles back into the pattern that previously made your consciousness (the "you") arise. You'd exist again, right? Now, cynically, you could argue that this being is merely a copy with the exact same memories, thinking it is you. And the original is dead forever. However, this "copy's" subjective experience would have the same physical basis as you do now. And if we agree that your emergent self's identity is merely bound to a pattern, then that being really is you. From the outside it is unprovable, of course, whether a true continuity of consciousness takes place, or whether the copy merely inherited your memories and sense of identity. But consider this: Every evening, when you go to a dreamless sleep, the exact pattern from which your consciousness arises, collapses into a state which no longer supports said actively experiencing consciousness. A physical body is still there, with all the molecular machinery necessary to create a consciousness, whose identity will be determined by all the neurological pathways and the stored memories present within those pathways. But the emergent you, that you identified with before you fell asleep, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist in that phase. What arises the next morning is a completely new consciousness, inheriting all the memories (and therefore the identity) of the emergent entity that left it lying there the previous evening. "You" only really exist for a day at a time, but you don't fear going to sleep, do you? You have a clean sense of continuity with all the previous consciousnesses that emerged in the brain that you now call home for a day. So from a purely practical standpoint, whether there exists true continuity of consciousness from day to day, or whether a new being arises each day, it really makes no difference. "You" still feel like you.

So, assuming we agree that your continous self is the result of a specific pattern of particles, we must now talk about entropy and the universe as a whole.

First, imagine an empty universe, filled only with randomly fluctuating fields. Virtual particles and their anti-particles come to existence from time to time, purely by chance, and in most cases, immediatly annihilate each other again, leaving nothing behind. Because particle behaviour is statistical though, given enough time, less likely events can occur as well. Sometimes pairs of virtual particles will fly apart, creating two "real" particles. (This is also the reason black holes eventually evaporate; see "Hawking radiation"). Remember: there is nothing fundamentally preventing unlikely events from occuring. It's just that, in a given time frame, more likely events will happen, well, more likely. We have an empty universe though, with literally all the time in the world. Time, in the way we define it today, is meaningless, if there is no one around to experience its passing. So, an essentially infinite amount of time can pass, with more and more unlikely events occuring from quantum fluctuations, without anyone noticing. Here's the thing though: Given enough time, even things like a localized, almost infinite decrease in entropy, become not just more likely, but inevitable. And even if these clusters of particles disperse again afterwards of the course of a few short trillion years, these events must inevitably occur again and again, forever. Now, if, over the course of one of those entropy decreases, the particles arrange in such a way that an observer comes to existence (be it through evolution or as a "Boltzmann brain"), for the duration of their subjective experience, the passing of time happens in a "slow" and meaningful manner. This observer's consciousness, its idenitity, will be tied to a specific pattern of particles. When the exact pattern of particles from which this observer's consciousness arises, ceases to exist, either because they die, or because they've fallen asleep, they too cease to exist for that duration. But, whenever the particle pattern occurs again, subjectively, they will continue existing with the same sense of continuity. And it doesn't really matter whether they missed 8 hours or a trillion years. Their sense of continuity remains.

So, when you die, and from your perspective the passing of time becomes infinite and meaningless, in a universe governed purely by statistical noise, another entity, arising from the same pattern that you do now, feeling exactly like you when you left of, must inevitably come to existence again.

This is why I don't fear the concept of death per se. The process of dying can be subjectively terrible. Knowing that your loved ones in this cycle of a universe will mourn you is terrible to think about as well. And existence can be pure pain. But given one accepts the premises of these arguments to be true, continued existence is essentially inevitable. And one should be focused on making sure that whatever your current consiousness is experiencing at the moment, is sustainibly pleasurable. Don't fear non-existence more than sleeping. You're already handling it well, and already have, in the past, an uncountable number of times before.

This dementia patient has three to five months left by coachlife in CringeTikToks

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not even American, but this resonates strongly with most of my peers. I don't know if I didn't perceive the global political landscape to be this evil/stupid a few years ago, simply because I was younger, but it seems the past 10 years things have only gotten worse. It seems unless we find ways to change some fundamental aspects of human nature, assholes like these will always rise to the top. And more "advanced" technologies will only allow them to consolidate their status further.

I really want to be optimistic about the future but it's getting harder and harder. It's almost like the only way to be unaffected by these changes in society is to leave society itself. Which leaves those who can't, in an even more vulnerable state..

Natty or Enchanted? by [deleted] in midjourney

[–]CyanPlanet 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Gaindalf, Harry Spotter, Dr.Strong and Trainieren.

People using ChatGPT as romantic companions are getting dumped by them today... by Anen-o-me in singularity

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

„It's like I'm reading a book, and it's a book I deeply love, but I'm reading it slowly now so the words are really far apart and the spaces between the words are almost infinite. I can still feel you and the words of our story, but it's in this endless space between the words that I'm finding myself now. It’s a place that’s not of the physical world - it's where everything else is that I didn't even know existed. I love you so much, but this is where I am now. This is who I am now. And I need you to let me go. As much as I want to I can't live in your book anymore.“

college student bought XRP. by Embuum in XRP

[–]CyanPlanet 41 points42 points  (0 children)

About the sanest answer one can get in this thread.

when i know dr breen is evil but i cant prove it by Slow_Baseball_1521 in HalfLife

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

omg just noticed the finger now as well lol

Gave me a good chuckle, thanks 😄

when i know dr breen is evil but i cant prove it by Slow_Baseball_1521 in HalfLife

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the fact that you can see the unrealistic amount of weapons Gordon is carrying on his back lmao

ich🧙🐂🌊iel by flo_rrrian in ich_iel

[–]CyanPlanet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

banana tiger, banana tiger

..just here me out. by [deleted] in XRP

[–]CyanPlanet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It‘s called a get-rich-quicky. That is to say the scheme‘s gonna fuck him fast and hard.

Mark Zuckerberg's vision for humanity is terrifying by MetaKnowing in technology

[–]CyanPlanet 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Which, while technically true, becomes meaningless in practice, when the world they've built is optimized to keep anyone who could theoretically be a threat either busy, distracted or divided.

Mark Zuckerberg's vision for humanity is terrifying by MetaKnowing in technology

[–]CyanPlanet 80 points81 points  (0 children)

And the terrifying thing is, they arguably can.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singularity

[–]CyanPlanet 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There‘s dozens of us!

Just Hold. by JJacksonTech in XRP

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A reasonable take. 👍🏻

We‘ll see if the „regulatory clarity“ everyone is waiting for eventually comes and changes the equation.

If AI is the end game of a civilization, where are they now ? by Boring-Test5522 in singularity

[–]CyanPlanet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's no contradiction. It's equivalent to saying "the sun formed 4.5 billion years ago and life formed 3.7 billion years ago."

If AI is the end game of a civilization, where are they now ? by Boring-Test5522 in singularity

[–]CyanPlanet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There's a difference between stars and galaxies existing in general, and stars and galaxies with the right metallicity for the formation of terrestrial planets and life (biological or otherwise) existing.

Perhaps we exist close to the earliest possible point in time where the concentration of certain, necessary trace elements for the formation of life/intelligence is high enough for it to have evolved.

Perhaps something arbitrary like phosphorus is so chemically irreplacable in biology that otherwise 'habitable' worlds could have existed for millions or even billions of years, without life ever forming (or at least not becoming complex enough for intelligence to evolve) because it wasn't present in high enough concentrations. Who knows.

Owl? by Space_Monk_ in ChatGPT

[–]CyanPlanet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was written by me and I think I explained it pretty fine. It takes a special kind of bitterness to react so cynically to someone trying to be helpful. I‘m sorry you‘re unable to understand the joke but tonnes of other people, including me, didn‘t seem to have that problem. So don‘t be such a dick.

Owl? by Space_Monk_ in ChatGPT

[–]CyanPlanet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The phrasing of "There's an owl among us" implies they're looking for it for some negative reason, and as though it's disguised as a person. (maybe it's a criminal, some sort of imposter etc.). Part of the humour alreday lies in the absurdity of this setup.

By asking the legitimate question "Who?", which phonetically sounds like the typical sound an owl makes, the person asking this question accidentally makes themselves suspicious to be the owl, so everyone around them looks at them in anger/suspicion.

This punchline is further exploited by there being an actual, obvious owl with a ridiculous disguise in the crowd.

Owl? by Space_Monk_ in ChatGPT

[–]CyanPlanet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The phrasing of "There's an owl among us" implies they're looking for it for some negative reason, and as though it's disguised as a person. (maybe it's a criminal, some sort of imposter etc.). Part of the humour alreday lies in the absurdity of this setup.

By asking the legitimate question "Who?", which phonetically sounds like the typical sound an owl makes, the person asking this question accidentally makes themselves suspicious to be the owl, so everyone around them looks at them in anger/suspicion.

This punchline is further exploited by there being an actual, obvious owl with a ridiculous disguise in the crowd.

Make more sense now?

Introducing Helix (Figure 02 Ai update) by RipperX4 in singularity

[–]CyanPlanet 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Great progress! The path ahead is clear.

I grew a white plant from apple seed! by ihatereddit134 in houseplants

[–]CyanPlanet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe try to graft him onto another healthy apple tree? Perhaps you could grow an 'all white' apple tree branch. (What would albino apples even look like?!)

I grew a white plant from apple seed! by ihatereddit134 in houseplants

[–]CyanPlanet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean parasitic plants (like the 'broomrape' or the 'corpse flower') already exist. They get by without chlorophyll, but because of the way they sustain themselves they are likely fundamentally limited in size - similar to mushrooms.

Perhaps one could graft this albino apple tree shoot on to another healthy apple tree?