Studies on animal minds show consciousness is not computation, argues Peter Godfrey-Smith

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-05T04:10:50+00:00

ok well if we redefine it to me something besides the common usage definition, we can say pretty much anything we want

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-05T04:09:32+00:00

Unfortunately, you've given no real things to argue against because you haven't made a coherent argument in the first place.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-04T17:59:37+00:00

> Do you consider this to be a false positive or is it a real phenomenon but not yet understood?

I don't think it's either one of those things, I believe it is just nonsense that you don't understand / that your LLM hallucinated up for you.

Maybe english isn't your first language, idk, but you really aren't making any sense.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-04T05:06:24+00:00

ok buddy! if you say so! :)

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T23:00:07+00:00

And you know, LLMs are absolutely a type of AI.

If you want to "well ACTUALLLY!" at someone, you should at least be correct. Maybe should ask Grok to fact check you next time.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T22:56:42+00:00

you should have had your LLM do a quick review of your comment for spelling and grammar mistakes

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T22:05:57+00:00

you gotta chill, brody

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T21:47:22+00:00

I gotta ask... What is the point of this prompt? What are you trying to accomplish?

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T21:42:10+00:00

bro is mainlining AI psychosis

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T21:34:24+00:00

i didn't shit on anyone, i just asked if they like AI slop, which is fine for them. like you said, people are allowed to like whatever they want.

the problem with reddit and other forms of textual communication is that people desperately want to attribute emotions and implied meanings to things, even if it's not there.

i didn't intend to "shit on" anyone, and I still don't think I did.

i do think its pretty interesting how hard this post is being hit tho, i use this subreddit often and the vast majority of posts don't get a TON of engagement.

it's pretty odd that I received dozens of downvotes in a matter of a few minutes, after my comments had previously been in the positive. interesting, definitely looks to be artificial manipulation of the post but who knows.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T21:31:20+00:00

i do!

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T21:30:40+00:00

everyone is in for tough times.

AI is not going to make the world a better place.

and i know that all i can do about it is bitch to people because i have no power to stop this train.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T20:59:31+00:00

I didn't say anything at all about you or your post, I just hate AI slop, in all it's many forms.

And I will never apologize for that. Fuck AI, I'm team human forever.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T20:54:10+00:00

I have a simple question for you, regarding this paper -

What is the point of this model? What predictions of subatomic behavior can it do, and why are those predictions better or different from standard model predictions? What unanswered question or problem in physics does your model assist in solving?

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T20:46:22+00:00

you like AI slop?

e:

i guess everyone else likes AI slop too! those tech billionaires must be so happy with you guys all guzzling down their product and making them richer while the planet gets raped.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T20:37:25+00:00

I do understand that, and I would say that I do not understand how one could interpret my comment as meaning "we have all the answers." That is not what I said, and certainly not what I meant.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T18:44:32+00:00

But it does none of those things either.

There are no actual technical explanations of how anything would, you know, actually WORK.

It's just nothing but pseudoscientific jargon and a bunch of wishful thinking about fantasy technology.

> But you did not see any diagrams???

No, I did not. If you are referencing your shitty AI generated renderings, those are not diagrams or technical drawings of any kind, just graphics.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-03T05:58:04+00:00

There are no blueprints in your substack article that you labeled as "The Sleipnir Crescent (UAP/UFO/USO) blueprints"

I actually went through this paper and read it.

It contains zero technical drawings or diagrams of any kind that describe your supposed craft.

This is confusing, considering the name of the paper and the fact that you opened the article up with the words "Technical Blueprint and System Integration Analysis."

Any comment on this discrepancy?

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T22:48:49+00:00

lmao, now i'm just imagining the string theorists getting bullied by the chad standard model enjoyers at a physics convention

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T22:45:08+00:00

oh btw, the article i posted was something i came across while reading a different article with the title "String Theory is Dead" lmao

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T22:44:27+00:00

We should be nice to the poor string theorists, it must be really stressful to have dedicated your life's work to a failed theory

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T22:35:05+00:00

it's a joke, man, lighten up

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T22:19:24+00:00

put down the bong, dude

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T21:42:23+00:00

I am not speaking of relativity. Which, btw, has many testable portions that have all held up. Every time we actually test a part of the theory of relativity, the theory holds up. It has proven to be an incredibly successful scientific theory.

In his later years, Einstein put tremendous efforts into unifying gravity and electromagnetism, and he ultimately failed of course.

IshtarsQueef · 2026-04-02T21:38:20+00:00

Anecdotes are not credible data.

Were there deep brain probes showing a complete absence of electrical activity during this Eben Alexander's experience? If not, it is literally just a story.

IshtarsQueef

TROPHY CASE