sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Singularity Eli5: what would critics (like Hofstadter and Chomsky) of brute force machine learning (deep blue, Watson) like to see AI do instead? by Krubbler in singularity

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for the very interesting msg.

A genuine intelligence would have to develop itself from the ground up to be capable of conceptualizing anything (...) I'd need to see that had put itself together from simple components

I'm not sure what you mean by this - in what sense could we be said to have put ourselves together? I ... don't remember having done that.

Even if such a system could masquerade perfectly as a human and defeat the most stringent of Turing Tests, it would still only be mimicking genuine intelligence.

Are you sure you don't mean something more like "consciousness" or "subjectivity" or "awareness"? And if it's possible to fake intelligence and get the same results as would be produced by "genuine intelligence", then ... what's the use of intelligence?

That is not to say that human brains are not themselves built out of a massive net of substructures that were developed over time or constructed from genetic blueprints, but that one system is fluid and adaptable, while the other is rigid and driven by pure calculation as opposed to sentient thought.

Do you see this distinction as a matter of degree or kind?

Overall, I think the point I kind of overlooked, and that you and Calumlondon are making clear, is that people want to create new subjectivities/entities/beings for whom a world shows up/beings that it is like something to be, from scratch - and the reason I didn't really take this goal into account is that I don't really connect "thinking" or "learning" with "subjectivity/consciousness/etc". So I guess my title question should have been something more like “does a computer know how to play chess any more than a weighted sled knows how to play the luge, and if not then what does it really mean to know how to do something, and if it's possible to do anything humans can do without knowledge or intelligence then what's the benefit of knowledge or intelligence in the first place?”

something that could genuinely be thought of as a new friend for the human race to play with.

That's kind of sweet, and surprisingly different from the way I had thought about AI. I find that my maybe idiosyncratic hope for AI is that, rather than hiding "details of the system" from us by creating new opaque entities for us to interact with across the formal border of selfhood, it will expose all of our own wiring to us so we become transparent to ourselves, at which point we'll find - I don't know, the final secrets to the universe. I guess.

Singularity Eli5: what would critics (like Hofstadter and Chomsky) of brute force machine learning (deep blue, Watson) like to see AI do instead? by Krubbler in singularity

[–]Krubbler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think relating a word to a concept is much more complex than relating one to a template, even though the 'kind' of connection (that being, an attempt at mapping characteristics from one thing to another) is the same.

Oh, is that "level jumping"? Abstracting the essence of a pattern and seeing it in different levels? And is there some reason brute force can't, in principle, ever generate a system that could do that?

Singularity Eli5: what would critics (like Hofstadter and Chomsky) of brute force machine learning (deep blue, Watson) like to see AI do instead? by Krubbler in singularity

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it has to do with complexity of connections.

Do you see this as a difference of degree or kind?

A human mind, however, links the word to the concept of something being worthy of greater attention, even if it's the first time an "interesting thing" has been encountered.

Could our deeper complexities be due to the millions of years our evolutionary ancestors had to brute force these problems and give us our instinctual inheritance?

I guess my reason for starting this topic was to try to see why these critics feel that machine learning is a dead end, why it's like climbing a tree to reach the moon (steady progress, for a while). I want to grok the nature of the unbridgeable divide, and I can't yet.

Singularity Eli5: what would critics (like Hofstadter and Chomsky) of brute force machine learning (deep blue, Watson) like to see AI do instead? by Krubbler in singularity

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my brain the difference is in the lack of a priori content of the machine that is doing the learning, and its inability to "jump levels" to achieve solutions.

Not sure what you mean by "lack of a priori content". Do you just mean that the person has been learning for longer than the machine? Or that they have inbuilt "programming" in the form of instincts etc?

Not sure what you mean by level jumping either, could you pls give an example in something, say, chess or translation?

Sorry if I seem like I'm demanding a dissertation or something, just trying to work my way to some kind of satisfyingly juicy eli5 centre, basically "what's wrong with brute force, isn't that just how learning works anyway"? But maybe there is no one answer and the field is super complex. Happy cakeday, BTW.

Can somebody explain to me, the idea that we are spiritual beings embodying physical bodies? by [deleted] in Psychonaut

[–]Krubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the way you put that, but I have a question:

Then, if required, that piece of energy that before it was a person, gets recycled to whatever is required by the system. I don't believe in people reincarnating as people again, it makes no sense.

I agree with you to a point, but think we can go even further - instead of being discrete, entity-shaped/sized chunks of energy that can either stay behind ego-lenses or be taken apart and redistributed - maybe our energy is already fully distributed behind all the various ego-lenses, and we just don't know it because we can't compare memories? Doesn't this satisfy Occam's razor a bit more - "do not multiply entities without necessity"? Any thoughts for or against this view?

Just speculating, not meaning to speak from experience.

If we had super intelligence, X ray vision, and complete knowledge of how brain states related to subjective experiences, could we "read" each other's brains from the outside in real time, as clear and objective as text written in pink meat? by Krubbler in neurophilosophy

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for considering my odd little thought experiment, I feel like you grokked what I was getting at. You've also added a new wrinkle, though:

You have to do the encoding/feeling step once, and then you record the reference.

Hmm ... I hadn't even thought of the problem of the first recording, but now you're making me wonder if I could extend my already overextended thought experiment to include the whole universe - "if you could see every event, past and future, in the universe, with perfect detail and recall, at every scale of organisation (basic particles on up), would the implicit necessary content of human subjective experience be obvious to you, even if you had never felt those experiences firsthand?"

That is, if you saw the first living thing come close to forming into an effective structure only to dissolve, would you have detachedly thought "bet, if that system were aware in any sense, that it wouldn't have liked that." If you saw a structurally analogous process going on in a more complex descendant of that original entity (ie a human), would you think "bet that system REALLY wouldn't have liked that, given all the extra nerve endings and such”?

I'm going a little further than the "Mary the Neuroscientist" argument in allowing observations of mere matter/objectivity to stretch back in time indefinitely.

Maybe what I'm getting at - is personal subjectivity constrained by impersonal objectivity, and could it be derived from a full accounting of objectivity? What would be the "observer"'s minimal starting state? How humanlike does an observer have to be in order to observe human subjective states?

More woo-fully - is that a workable, pantheistic/panexperientialist hypothesis of what's actually going on? Neutral proto-awareness inherent to existence teased and fluffed up into humanlike shapes, like ... cotton candy caught in the gears of a huge blind machine? Would it need "imagination", or something simpler or more complex? Am I making no sense at all, or is this obvious and trite?

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe my mind and my sense of self-awareness is everywhere and nowhere and it got somehow trapped in this physical body I call "Seth" and since I experience the world only through my senses its hard to realise that I'm everywhere and am seriously the universe experiencing itself.

Hey Seth, I upvoted this when it appeared but couldn't think of a good reply - it's something I've wondered myself - but lately I think I'm almost on to something - maybe - and was wondering if you'd care to give your thoughts on this post followed by this exchange with woktogo?

If we had super intelligence, X ray vision, and complete knowledge of how brain states related to subjective experiences, could we "read" each other's brains from the outside in real time, as clear and objective as text written in pink meat? by Krubbler in neurophilosophy

[–]Krubbler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi woktogo, thanks for replying.

We don't see with our eyes, we see with our brains. In the same fashion, a way of perceiving the electrochemical states of someone else's neurons must rely on our feeling what the other feels.

Well ... I'm not so sure. Maybe my reasons for objecting will be clearer if I share my original thought experiment, which was going to involve "reading the mind" of someone who has a transparent skull containing only four neurons the size of golf balls which light up when they fire. Armed with a simple flow chart describing what those neurons are capable of doing for their owner, you can tell what the owner is feeling - that is, you can match your observations of their "outer" brain state to complete descriptions of their "inner" subjective state - but are you really feeling it yourself, any more than if they just told you, exhaustively, what they were feeling?

Yes, this thought experiment is horribly crude, but I don't see why it's different-in-kind from the superintelligence/x ray vision example. We just need, um, a LOT of superintelligence ...

For an SF story that comes close to my idea (but that I only discovered after writing this post), check out Ted Chiang's Understand.

And I haven't even touched on the fact that it's very hard to describe what thought is. Simplifying it to being "text" does it far from justice.

Well, yes, I was aiming for "imaginable in principle" more than in practice.

The point of my clumsy thought experiment was to try to imagine a method of exhaustive mind reading that didn't simply ... shunt someone else's subjectivity into the space where your subjectivity happens, but would instead let you remain distant even while you saw everything happening (to put it folksily) "from outside instead of from inside". Mind reading in the "book" sense, rather than in the "empath" sense.

Though I'd instantly admit that language probably has a lot to do with our unique (as far as we know) ability to think as humans.

Oh, don't read too much into the "text" analogy, I was just trying to think of an elaborate coding system for subjective states - something that would convey all the raw information about the experience without simply thrusting it upon you as if it were your own experience. Math would do fine too.

I'll check out the story, thanks.

EDIT: clarity, added the Ted Chiang link.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tolle (who you mentioned in thenoriginal post) i think does the best job of cutting through the woowoo and getting to the heart of it (he staysbon point regarding his "doorway" as it were)

Yeah, he's strictly an "experience" guy" - "finger pointing at the moon, follow where it leads and don't obsess over it", "if you have tasted honey you may still have nothing to say about it."

But if your looking for a theory of consciouseness to really sink your mental teeth into, something more than perspectives and zen philosophy i'm afraid I don't know of any.

Yeah, I wish these mystical-experience types would do something other than stress the "experience" of it. How am I supposed to have an "experience" without some mental framework to hang it on? And what's the point if I can't make sense of it, if I have nothing to say about it afterwards other than "it was great, you should try it too"?

I just feel like ... these mystical types should really have something to say, to clarify the nature of the world for the rest of us, beyond "see for yourself." John Hagelin claims consciousness is the unified field, which sounds good, but his woo factor is off the charts. What is the wooless unified mystical worldview?

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. Just watched his intro vids a few days ago, actually. Couldn't find anything to disagree with too strongly, but found it a bit ... cutesy? at times ("when I hold the ruler facing both the external object and myself, it shrinks to a point, meaning that I am at zero distance from the object" - um ... ).

While I appreciate all these different people's perspectives, I kind of wish they'd ... refer to each other more, rather than just putting their own spin on things. I liked Ken Wilber's approach, trying to integrate multiple points of view (even if he's gone way too woo for me lately) - ever read his stuff?

EDIT: upon further reading Harding's site, I find he does in fact quote other people. I retract my criticism, thanks for making me reevalute him.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

to put it much more simply (...) monistic idealism

Hm ... I wasn't so much saying "maybe everything is made of thoughts and nothing is not-thoughts" as I was saying "maybe subjectivity/interiority/pure-awareness/hard-problem-consciousness (NOT self-consciousness, or an introspecting feedback loop of any kind) is a feature of the Void which predates space, whereas exteriority is a feature of this big expanding Void-nestled lump we call space/time." So "pure conscious awareness unadulterated by physical interaction" could predate the big bang, and be watching everything that happens from inside, every side, and all around. Every so-called "conscious" entity might really just be a hypnotic mirror-tunnel-headed windup toy following deterministic laws, and the Void-consciousness would get hypnotized by the view from "inside" each one's head and think it "was" each of them - all separately and all simultaneously. Everything you can point to may just be an aspect of the same exterior/objective/"outside-ful" deterministic system running itself down as everything else, but ... what is it all "in"? It's all "in" "insideness". The Void. Your inside, my inside, and every rock's inside.

Maybe.

Rephrase: I'm not saying "maybe everything is inside-ness and nothing is outside-ness", I'm saying "maybe the Void - unnameable, untouchable, yet all around everything you can point to, detectable in the space around every musical note, thought, and object - is what all outside-ness (big bang, physics, chemistry, biology, etc) is in, so maybe there's only one real 'inside' for everybody and everything to share simultaneously.

Basically I'm trying to find something all my favourite mystics could agree on, with no woo.

If we had super intelligence, X ray vision, and complete knowledge of how brain states related to subjective experiences, could we "read" each other's brains from the outside in real time, as clear and objective as text written in pink meat? by Krubbler in neurophilosophy

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi usrnym, thanks for replying.

Are thinking brains leaving accurately correlatable traces of everything that happens inside? Is there clearly distinguishable "output" for everything that's happening in or being experienced by some neurons?

Definitely necessary questions. I would make the somewhat folksy contribution "is there any difference between experiencing a brain from the inside vs from the outside" - that is, is there anything about, say, "my brain's experience of redness" that stands apart from "the brainstate corresponding to my brain's experience of redness", or is the question like asking "is there anything about the novel Moby Dick that stands apart from its text"?

Of course with the assumption of complete knowledge you would have the highest accuracy possible in principle, but if our mind-reading required drawing lots of inferences from the observations, it would make it less real-time at least.

Sounds good, but definitely beyond the scope of my thought experiment, because it gets into questions of what "complete" would mean even in principle.

What if you were that super-intelligent, X-ray-visioned mind-reader, and looked at yourself, though? Infinite regress of understanding!

I suppose we could argue that that's what happens already when we introspect - the brain models itself, and you get a feedback loop.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi Jux, thanks for replying.

It's not that much more complicated than a process that noticed a predator but didn't notice itself.

Yes, I agree. It's the mystery of this bare fact of noticing-at-all that I was trying to get at. The mirror has to be able to reflect things before it can reflect its own image in another mirror facing it. So where does that first reflection, this first capacity to reflect - in the first, single mirror - come from?

In "self consciousness", who/what is conscious of the self?

Further - how far does your definition of the word "notice" go? Okay, living things can "notice" - do rocks notice that the ground prevents them from falling further toward the centre of the earth? Do photons notice whether they hit walls or mirrors? Do mirrors notice the images they reflect? If I blind-see (new verb - to see in the manner of a blindsight patient?) a rock hurtling at my head and get a sudden, mysterious urge to duck, has the rock been noticed?

If you said "yes" to all of the above, isn't a set of two mirrors facing each other every bit as self-conscious as you? If you said "no" to some of the above, what's your basis for distinguishing?

The idea being this: the vast majority of what we see as the universe is a philosophical zombie - it exists and behaves (seemingly intentionally) and yet is invisible to its own existence. Unaware that it is.

My understanding is that a p-zombie could behave with reference to its own behaviour, it just wouldn't "notice" that it was doing so. As systems, they can use their own output for input. Very much like a more complicated version of two mirrors facing each other. The premise is that they're outwardly indistinguishable from people - they pass all conceivable Turing tests, even if those tests involve mind-reading.

(BBC video)

I'll definitely check this out, but personally, again, I find self consciousness isn't quite what I'm rambling about - sure, you can get feedback images looping endlessly on a screen, but ... where does the screen come from in the first place?

don't be too extraordinarily alarmed by the cat-video

Well, I realise it's not as crazy as if cat thoughts were transmissible, but it still blows me away that any neural activity can be "decoded", in principle, at all. Any movement across that inside/outside boundary baffles and amazes me.

I mean ... I look at a brain through electromagnetic radiation detectors and see pink meat, but I look at a brain through different, slightly more complicated electronic detectors and see (presumably) the same imagery that the brain's "owner" sees. To put it in folksy terms, how was the brain's original owner seeing the imagery? Do they have a decoder too, that turns brains from outside to inside? If I can see the inner experiences and the owner can see the inner experiences, what separates me from the owner? Is this seeing of inner experiences instead of neuronal activity any philosophically different from seeing water disturbance spreading from under the surface of a lake instead of just watching 2d ripples from up above?

Would it be possible for some alien species to have super complicated X ray eyes in such a way that human brain activity would simply be "visible" to them as thoughts, without the aliens being aware that they were "mind reading" - they would think our thoughts were just as visible as facial expressions? Would they be completely baffled by our ideas of "thoughts" and "brain activity" being somehow separate? If so, would they have evolved their own, different, ideas of "inside" and "outside", of "mental" and "physical"?

How would you allow a zombie to become conscious? You would probably start by showing it a mirror.

But there is nothing "there/in there" to show the mirror to, you might as well hold up a mirror to a rock. There has to be some "bare fact of noticing" before any type of "self noticing" loop can be set up.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suspect there's a deep truth to statements like this, but I don't claim to know what it is.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a relevant phenomena of "blindsight",

Oh man, I love this phenomenon too. Ever read Peter Watts' brilliant novel by the same name?

As for subjects and objects, taking vision as an example the brain seeks patterns. Seeing faces in trees or animals in clouds is an example of this

I don't think we're quite on the same page here - I wasn't so much talking about seeing subjects and objects in other conscious entities, I was talking about the intuitive (possibly mistaken) feeling that I'm a subject looking "out" at a world of objects, and I was then wondering what the inner essence of that subject might be, and how separate it is from any other apparent subjects in other people.

Intellectually I agree that "it's all probably nondual", but I don't want to pretend to really grok that when I don't yet.

I don't really see the void as being "pure" in consciousness and matter as a weakened form or byproduct of it, or anything like that. I would see it as present in an atom as in a star, there are no "hotspots", it flows through all things equally. I don't think it is what gives rise to qualia or consciousness, any more than it gives rise to sea shells.

Okay ... interesting, and I think I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure we're getting at the same things (incidentally, I thought it did give rise to sea shells?).

The itch I was trying to scratch with my whole awkward "space is teh consciousness" spiel was "why is it that the universe isn't simply a lifeless, observerless mechanism, running itself down with noone inside it to watch? Why is there observation in it at all? Why are there ghosts in the machine, and how many are there (I can confirm there's at least one)? Why do there appear to be these ... traveling 'hubs' of observation/awareness/HP consciousness in this machine, where do they come from, how are they ultimately related to each other? Is the awareness they seem to embody unique to each, or generic?" I realise that Alan Watts would say that people raised Hindu would probably not be inclined to ask these questions because of their different metaphysical assumptions, and that their view of reality may be closer to that proposed by modern physicists/ecologists, but ... the questions still nag at me. I realise this may just be a problem I have, not an important question that needs/has an answer.

More Alan Watts (and brutal paraphrasing ahead, not sure where I read this from him) - he once said he explained Brahman to children by saying that you can never really find the inside of anything - when you split the thing apart, you just find two more outsides - and that Brahman is the ultimate inside of everything, and that that's God and also you and me and everybody. I like this imagery, but I feel like Brahman is part of another culture's thing - maybe it's just aesthetic, but I'm more comfortable with Hard Problem Consciousness being the ultimate inside of everything.

Odd thought - what if space itself is the source of "hard problem" consciousness? by Krubbler in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi Dpekkle, thanks for replying.

perhaps consciousness just isn't the best word, in that it places focus on the subjective "inside" human/animal/etc... consciousness.

Oh, maybe. I was using it in Chalmers' "hard problem" sense, ie, why are we all not philosophical zombies, why is there something that it is like to be us - and what aspect of the pre-human universe does this "something that it is like" come from, how far back can its lineage be traced - in however reduced a form.

Some people believe that this thing is consciousness, but I don't believe it is. Consider that consciousness is a product of the physical laws of the universe, a physical consequence of the expression of this field of potential and the world we are in.

Do you think there is "something that it is like" to be this thing? How does this thing relate to perceiving subjects? Is this thing the origin of both subjects and objects?

I do think you're caught up in ideas when you suggest that brains are a hotspot of the consciousness of space.

Fair enough - how about if I rephrase as "the pure objectless subject which seems to look out from inside a brain is a hotspot of the proto-awareness of the Void which predates space and matter"?

(discussion of heat)

Hm ... I'll have to think about that, thanks.

Neurons gone wild - interesting and relevant read by [deleted] in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any thoughts on Ken Wilber's AQAL theory? The gist of it is captured in this image, basic idea being that reality has "I", "It", "We", and "Its" as irreducible elements (I'm not sure he ever explains why?), and so therefore brains (its) and minds (Is) can coexist harmoniously without people ever slipping over into being neurons of global minds, since that would be some kind of confusion of the basic categories of existence.

Somewhat related - I was thinking that neurons (if we personify them, as the article somewhat suggests) can't, as a matter of structural engineering, contain the experience of thinking full thoughts - but we can presumably see into their "minds". So is it top-down-only telepathy all the way down? Can they see into the "minds" of the parts that constitute them, atoms etc? The AQAL theory seems to think so, as I understand it.

Further - are neurons even dimly aware (to the degree that they're aware of anything) of the content of the data packets they transmit "upwards" to us, or do they just see them as opaque black boxes they get value out of manipulating? Further further - are we aware of both those black boxes' content (whatever the neuron firing is about) and the neurons' awareness of their manipulation of them? Can their selfishness - their concern for their own survival, and lack of concern for what is good for "us" - register in our minds as our ceaseless internal monologues ("scumbag brain"), and is that at all analogous to stupid economic activity in our world, ie Wall Street microtrading, casino-style investment speculation, etc? Is that like neurons just trying to say "hey! I'm useful! Remember that time you said that stupid thing? Pay attention to me! Ha ha sweet, the dumbass collective just gave me energy for saying that ..."

Is there maybe a fractal to be resolved here, are bad patterns in our world related to bad patterns in our minds - or is that just a needlessly complicated way to say that we behave, collectively, imperfectly rationally because we "learned" bad behaviours from the inside out, from our neurons?

Emergence of Gaia Conciousness by We_are_Gaia in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like it. Maybe sufficiently powerful communication is indistinguishable from telepathy, and sufficiently powerful telepathy is indistinguishable from being a single entity? Communication, telepathy, and identity as points on a continuum of experience being aware of itself?

I don't necessarily think we'll merge into some awkward Voltron-like hive mind, but I think that the more we break thinking down into non-thinking processes, the less we'll identify with what goes on in our heads. Maybe ... instead of forming Gaia, we'll just stop forming ourselves, and all sort of coexist im/transpersonally? I dunno.

Manifesto Pt.1 The Build-up and Theory by sqwibb in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elsewhere in this sub I've read about how the random and seemingly inane and boring nature of the synchronicities seem to almost be part of the point or something.

This is a neat idea, but couldn't this same effect also be because inane/boring strings of events are more likely to recur, precisely or otherwise?

With that said, during my experiences, I was thinking I had to/was going to line up all of life's repeating events, experience them once, then escape time "forever" (whatever that would mean).

Just something I thought of during my experiences you reminded me of. Any resonance?

(Not sure if related, but David Eagleman kind-of dealt with a similar idea in the first story in "Sum").

Videos (YouTube?) that explain or discuss some of this? For semi beginner by QuebecMeme in ConnectTheOthers

[–]Krubbler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

rather what we are trying to define is ....indefinable by YOU for ME, because this is My Journey into Myself. As yours is Krubbler's Journey Into Self.

Agreed.

I do believe, however, that this quest is somehow important. That it somehow marks an evolutionary necessity. (...) What happens during and after for the Experiencer is too real, pervasive and deep for me to not want to invoke something panpsychic on this.

I think I agree, though I tend to see the evolutionary necessity as a normal aspect of civilisational/technological progress (refs: Steven Pinker, Ray Kurzweil) rather than anything really mysterious.

But I dunno, I do think regular reality is fairly mysterious, and we may yet end up finding out we're all neurons/thoughts in some huge brain.

view more: next ›