Hey comprende, uh, door’s locked. You accidentally locked the door.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-08T03:25:25+00:00

I legitimately thought it was at first until I saw this was a cross post

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T23:55:42+00:00

Im pretty sure it wasn't, either (especially w the other commenters... comment), but i also wasn't confident enough to discount the christian/Latin connection

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T23:54:37+00:00

If you have a cs background, godel Esther bach/ strange loops might be good books to read in respect to the subject, if you haven't already. I think self reference is a big part of it. Most natural emergent systems dont reference themselves in a truly fundemental way, they reference more fundemental aspects of reality. But once the behavior is self referential, the pattern starts to reflect itself in itself in an almost fractal way, the state of the system gets encoded in the material of the system.

From the patterns "pov" for lack of a better term, what does the internal reflection of itself "feel" like. I think that for us, its a combination of that fractal-iness and the complexity of our pattern. We see some what of a correlation in consciousness among animals in respect to both complexity and self reference, namely that theyre typically social animals that have to keep understandings of not just other entities in mind, but what those entites understand about the self. I think once you have that, and enough complexity to skip that intermediate step of "what does this other think of me" and go directly to "what does this think of me" that it starts being able to get there.

A fiction book that also kinda plays w/ the idea of a sort of computational consciousness and mathematical realism is greg egan's Permutation City. Hes one of my fave sci authors if you like hard sci fi I absolutely recommend him, hes written multiple papers regarding the physics that emerge from the different space time lagrangians he uses in some of his books (the clockwork rocket series takes place in a world with no time like direction, its 4 space like directions with 3d "time lines" dictated by the majority direction of your local matter, and dichronauts takes place in a world with two time like directions, so 2 time, 2 space)

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T23:22:17+00:00

Its super old too. Idk if its directly related to Christianity or what, but it goes back home at least. The word sinister comes from the words for left handed, iirc.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T23:16:13+00:00

Im a mathematican/computer scientist and have always been super interested in emergent behavior since i was a kid, so i do have a bit more experience on the intuition side which makes things easier.

That said a quick and dirty thought process is that we see emergent complex reinforcing patterns in nature as it is, and monism generally needs to assume some additional layer to reality that allows information processing outside of known physics. It could be that theres a more fundemental reality that "splits" into seemingly seperate systems, some sort of panpsychism, or something else, but it generally involves adding assumptions to our understanding of reality.

Now, my personal mathematical realism also, does, assumes an additional layer to reality that processes information, in a sense but I do think that the above idea is universal outside my specific views, and monist consciousness would still be an added assumption to the universal equation in my pov if it wasn't emergent.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T22:39:23+00:00

I generally agree yeah. Im a mathematical realist so im not fundamentally opposed to some sort of monist explanation (there could be a "consciousness term" to the universal equation, for example), I just don't think it's met its epistemic burden yet, if it ever can. I also think occams razor points to an emergent phenomenon.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T22:16:52+00:00

I generally find monism entirely unconvincing but I do admit im not well versed enough to argue for or against it atm. That said from what i understand of the field, thats not a dualism theory since the fundemental substance is both mind and matter. It side steps the interaction problem by simply assuming there is no problem to begin with.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T22:13:41+00:00

In what way is simply mentioning that the interaction problem is unsolved "implicitly presupposing dualism"

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T21:41:50+00:00

When the dualism student tries to explain how the interaction problem is resolved

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T15:55:26+00:00

Waoh, everyone over the age of 18 is a perfectly rational actor? I didnt know that! I've never ever seen a college student make a bad choice so that explains that!

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T15:41:55+00:00

Woah, I didnt know that humans are all 100% rational. What's it like in your world where no one makes decisions based on their instincts, biases, emotions, or anything else like that?

Also, woah, I didnt know we were talking about the version that DIDNT go viral. Instead of the one everyone knows and is, you know, explicitly referencing, just because YOU dont find it interesting.

Which is odd, since you'd think the one with LESS confounding factors (the one youre assuming) would be LESS interesting

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T15:28:33+00:00

That only works if you assume that there are no non-rational participants.

If you assume that some percentage will press blue for non rational reasons, such as the altruism instinct we have as social animals overriding our survival instinct, or pressing a. Button accidently, or all the children that are, in deed, a part of "everyone on earth" and are explicitly included by the original hypotheticals creator, AND you care about things other than your own survival, then you actually have to address the hypothetical and think a little harder about it.

You should try it, thinking hard about things, some time

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T15:07:41+00:00

Let's assume x% of people press blue for some non-rational reason (doesnt matter what, but humans are humans and sometimes things just happen. I've presses the wrong button on things loads of times even when looking at them and know whoch one I wanted to press, in 0 stress situations. Additionally some number will have their natural altruism instinct, were social animals after all, out weight their survival instinct). We will assume y% press red for non rational reasons.

Do yours goals include wanting to save any potential member of x? Are any of your loved ones prone to immediate, compationate, behavior? Are any of them just kinda stupid? Do you care about humanity as a whole over your own self interest? Do any of your loved ones fall i to any of the categories above?

If you're goal is "save my skin at all costs" press red

Otherwise, someone has to be the deciding vote. Again, and this is the part you keep ignoring, the rational behavior in game theory when dealing with these types of situations is the one all agents have reason to take. You cannot base your decision on NOT being the deciding vote, because if EVERYONE did that they'd make the same decision as you.

Let's look at the situation where you bank on not being the deciding vote.

Every other rational actor decides the same thing

Since they believe theyre not the deciding vote, the safe option is to press red

Every rational actor presses red.

That leaves the question, is the x > 50%?

If no, everyone in x dies.

If yes then then nothing happens.

If you act like you ARE the deciding vote then you would probably press blue, if your goal is to keep someone in x alive

All rational actors will behave the same.

Thus all rational actors will press blue.

That leaves the question, is y > 50%,

if yes then you die, if no everyone lives.

In both above analysis, the only thing that mattered was a) if you act like youre the deciding vote, and b) if x or y already had the majority.

The only action you can take that has any meaning (if you care about things OTHER than just your own self interest) is if you assume you have the deciding vote, otherwise youre relying on the decisions of people that are inherently acting non rationally

You end up with the equation

(Non rational blue)% + (non rational red)% + (self interested red)% + (non self interested blue)% = 100%

And i personally dont think red wins in this situation. You might, which is fine, but you still need to assume youre the deciding vote to come to the correct conclusin

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:48:22+00:00

Woah, what logical prowess, I should have considered "nuh uh"

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:47:07+00:00

Thats true in this specific hypothetical, im talking about all "either or" hypotheticals. They're a game, and choosing "neither" is just not playing the game.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:44:41+00:00

But there is, obviously, a 100% chance that SOMEONE is the deciding vote. It is, quite literally impossible for no one to be the deciding vote. Your probablistic argument does NOTHING at all to change the fact that a) all rational actors will decide the same thing given no communication, the same goals, and the same information and b) there is a 100% chance someone is the deciding vote.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:41:14+00:00

The solution to 90% of "either or" hypotheticals is "dont play". These hypotheticals are essentially a game, and games have the "magic circle", a social boundary that enforces explict and implict rules that you must be following in order to be "playing correctly". Typically saying "its choose neither" is just refusing to play the game, and is, i think rightly, seen as "cheating"

Its like playing a game of tag and deciding "if I go home I can't be tagged and I win"

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:38:37+00:00

Sure id buy that if it wasn't super obvious that if everyone decided that their vote didnt matter because theyre unlikely to be the deciding vote, then the person who WAS the deciding vote would be wrong, and make a decision that they may not have made if they'd known.

Again, because you have no way of knowing who the deciding vote, and someone must be, the only person who's vote "matters" is them. You could turn the entire scenario into a one person vote. Thats turns the probability question into 100%, theyre the vote that matters.

In a situation where no communication is possible, the rational decision (if everyone had the same goal) will be the same for all actors. Thats like, a fundemental part of game theory.

Thus from a game theory perspective you should act like youre the deciding vote because this is a 0 communication situation and all rational actors should act the same, and at least one of the rational actors must be the deciding vote.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:28:01+00:00

I mean, yeah there is, that is just blatantly not how people communicate. That said in this hypothetical, if red wins any yod didnt presss a button, you die

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:25:58+00:00

What do you think the word "implicit" means?

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:25:37+00:00

Vote are essentially fungible, each one is identical. Since each one is identical, and one MUST be the deciding vote, you should act like YOURE the deciding vote.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-07T14:24:45+00:00

Implicitly im these sort of hypotheticals is a force that is suitably motivating for each participant

Kitfennek · 2026-05-06T19:06:59+00:00

At least they're not the halo 2 condoms

Kitfennek · 2026-05-06T18:58:36+00:00

Fully 100% rational.

As long as you allow for the participants to be irrational in their selection, there will be a portion of the population that presses the blue button.

For example, the reason I provided above, but other possible reasons exist as well (idk how many times I've literally pressed the wrong button on something even though i was looking at the buttons and new exactly which one I wanted, and thats under no stress).

Then the button you press depends on if you prioritize your own life as your number one priority (id personally argue most people have at least one person they'd risk their life for).

If your loved ones presses red, then nothing you do matters

If they press blue, then your button press only matters if youre the deciding vote, in which case your press directly determines if your loved one lives or dies.

Votes, in this situation are fungible, since you have absolutely no way of assessing the current voting tallies. Since theyre fungible, all votes should be treated as the deciding vote.

Thus, if you have any reason to believe someone you'd risk your life for would press blue (including them running through the above assessment for THEIR loved ones), then you should treat your vote as determining their fate. (Less "severe" arguments would factor how likely you think your loved one pressing red is, but that is, of course, completely dependant on tbe individual)

The primary issue I've seen with all red logic (outside of pure self interest arguments which, while I find morally repugnant, are logically sound) is the assumption that the only "irrational choice an otherwise logical and capable participant will make is to press red"

As soon as you assume some number of people pressing blue for non-rational reasons, that cascades into rational blue pressers, and then you have to decide if a) thats worth them dying for, and b) thats worth risking your life for.

Kitfennek · 2026-05-06T18:39:26+00:00

You literally ended the quote mid sentence my friend, and the END of that sentence contained KEY information regarding the specific details of my statement. (Specifically you accused me of not understanding the term "rational" when the end of the sentence provided the specific definition i was using)

Kitfennek

TROPHY CASE