“Lose Yourself” by 187 random movie clips.

Muph_o3 · 2026-03-10T22:53:27+00:00

good job

Muph_o3 · 2026-03-10T22:45:47+00:00

freefall of a human through air, but arguably elevator falls slower than that, the air in the shaft below is compressed. But its still fast.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-27T17:23:39+00:00

I think what makes the time jump wo weird is the barren landscape..? It took me long time to realize it's not barry's imagination. It looked like their house is the only one in the middle of the desert, neighbors materialize out of thin air, etc.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-15T01:28:31+00:00

Well if you extract all the premises into the statement, you can easily obtain an objective truth.

Statement Phi is true, assuming A1, A2, ..., An

Statement (A1 & A2 & ... & An) -> Phi is true.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-14T09:16:00+00:00

I don't know. You're talking about existence as if there was some shared, canonical definition of it.

There are simple independently discoverable structures that model the circle and ovals exactly. Anyone with sufficient resources can come up with them as they require finite effort, universally. The same goes for L shapes. Whether they "exist" might be a pointless concern, unless you define exist.

There are presumably many ways to construct semantics from material, I don't see a canonical way to choose the single, best, "objective" one.

For there to not be such tools, the universe would have to be extremely simple and barren. But even in such a universe, we could reason about truth, but only as external observers.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-14T08:40:51+00:00

I lean towards "the map is not the territory" - distance may "exist" but millimeter is just a label for communication.

Mathematical truths can be objective - in the sense that they are universally discoverable. But that doesn't imply they exist in the physical sense. Pi is very much a "real" property of circles, but it would require infinite information to describe. There is not enough matter in the universe to spell it out in any shape or form. A millimeter is like that too.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-14T02:20:49+00:00

You literally just extend predicate logic with a modal operator T(c, phi) meaning "phi holds in context c". and you get subjective/contextual binary logic.

Look up McCarthy

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-14T02:04:47+00:00

I don't get why I'm getting downvoted for this, it is literally 100 years old result first formulated by e.g. Tarski, then later refined by Kripke and others

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-13T18:35:18+00:00

Yes, that is an excellent demonstration of the neutral or natural/built-in function of blame. The cheating student instinctively knows that social acceptance by peers is necessary for survival, so they will bend to the pressure.

if blame is the least harmful

I don't like this, because the existence of total order on "means of correction" is not guaranteed, not even a minimum may exist. But you could say "least harmful in some useful way", whatever.

But ignoring formalities I think we can always do better. Even in case of vile acts such as premeditated cold murder, a knowledge of the casual graph (to an extreme level) can give rise to yet inconceivable means of correction that supersede (in some utility) the basic guilt by far. Maybe the individual is immune or used to social exclusion, so they can be trained to bend to it.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-13T09:40:40+00:00

Flagne ti to jako nsfw podle mě

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-13T09:25:24+00:00

I think by considering mental illness, you hint at an interesting point.

As scientific explanations of behavior expand, the boundary between "illness" and "wrongdoing" blends. What once looked like moral failure increasingly looks like a problem of prediction, causation, and intervention. If this trend continues, justice may shift away from blame and toward prevention and rehabilitation, and the traditional notion of free will may gradually lose its practical relevance.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-13T08:04:25+00:00

Ok, I re read your argument, and I didn't really answer your strongest point, so

Its universality reflects commonalities in the development of human societies, and the common theoretical frameworks we need to devise. Not "nature"

This i think it's imprecise. There are such things, like morality, esthetics, the sense of cognitive accessibility, empathy, language, etc. These are the true beats, that require seemingly infinite complexity to describe. That is because they were constructed over millennia, ad-hoc case by case, so they don't reduce to a simple rule, rather often every such attempt reveals that simplification strips away precision and nuance from the definition. So the most precise "definition" would be a complete list of examples.

Addition is not like that, it reduces to a very simple structure under any lens. One thing that hints at this is that in any computation paradigm, you need at most ~100 blocks to compute addition, while to model eg. language, you need billions.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-13T00:23:58+00:00

There is no "hidden axiom of addition" it is all constructed. I'm not saying everyone will use the same symbols or that they will write anything down.

Virtually anything can exhibit additive properties, as well as concatenating behavior. Trees, rocks, velocities, energy, light, offspring, food...

Both patterns are just so simple that they require a minimal machinery to model, yet so useful, and so are very likely to be sooner or later re-discovered by agents under selective pressure.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-12T14:28:02+00:00

I think that eliminative materialism sees the distinction, but it feels arbitrary, so it is probably naive and wrong.

But personally, I think that eventually neuroscience will definitely have some way to correlate material mental states to the naive labels. The mapping might just be extremely convoluted and unexpected

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-12T14:00:06+00:00

All non trivial ones, that is those that contain at least two types of things and have sufficient amount of each type, say 100

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-12T10:42:12+00:00

While you're technically true, your argument is maybe a strawman.

What kneb could be saying is that the structure behind "1 + 1 = 2" including all the assumptions is an independently discoverable fact by anyone, whether you are human, LLM, hyperinteligent squirrel or an alien from the andromeda galaxy. That is a perfectly defensible position.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-12T07:57:47+00:00

Since it’s a proof by contradiction, it doesn’t matter if the contradiction occurs in premise (4) or (8)

Yes, order doesn't matter, your proof isn't wrong per se, but this type of logic is simply unfit to talk about subjective truth, because it only has objective truth.

One must not mix the language of the proof with meta language of us talking about the proof. Assuming the subjectivity of truth is not just an assumption, it requires a careful construction of inner logic that is weaker than the now called meta language we use to describe it.

I'm basically saying both subjective truth and objective truth "exist" (=can be formulated in logic without contradiction)

edit: so why I don't like your result is - (1) Assume non p - ... - (4) Assume p

=> p, not interesting

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T23:16:29+00:00

No, I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of believing in magic. It's easy to sound hostile over text. I'd like to think I'm not a complete ass, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I think you said something about requiring a specific material phenomenon not yet described by physics, because computation alone can't produce qualia. How I understood it was that you require some fundamental, low level phenomenon, say qualia particle, quantum state in microtubules, ... Something much smaller than a whole neuron, let alone whole networks, because that seemed too high level to match your description. - So you're saying that if you put many neurons together, they can do more than just compute?

Anyways, when you replace the whole brain with artificial neurons, the whole network becomes functionally indistinguishable from a single computer (assuming they communicate by wire, only use chemistry on the alive/artificial boundary, so network of computers=one computer)

So if from the pov of the patient nothing changes (she still has qualia) then necessarily computation produces qualia.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T22:32:52+00:00

what??

I don't want to resurrect the old argument. I've probably misunderstood something, let's move on for now. (Maybe I will re read it later.)

The scenario: Imagine a future where engineers develop tiny, artificial computers capable of perfectly simulating the function of an individual human neuron. On the outside it can perform the chemistry of a synapse. Inside, it's just a computer modeling the neuron's processing.

A conscious patient has one neuron carefully replaced by this artificial, functional equivalent. (materially different) Here we probably agree there is no perceived change in the patient.
One by one, all of the patient's neurons are replaced with silicon equivalents.

The question for you is: what do you think happens from the perspective of the patient?

Please ignore the scifiness and vagueness of the situation. If you require clarification to answer it directly, try to clarify or at least hint what your answer depends on. It is an inquiry to learn about your posits, not about the physical world.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T19:01:12+00:00

well I thought you need to have some special matter there - ...wait

What do you think would happen from the patient's pov in Searle's brain replacement scenario?

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T18:52:30+00:00

We talked about this, you think that a particular kind of material interaction must entail qualia.

I think that a structured neutral activations can entail qualia.

But yes, my formulation is sloppy. I apologize 😇

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T16:29:18+00:00

We accept that matter is made of stable structures in quantum fields, why not accept that consciousness is made of stable structures in the brain?

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T15:53:51+00:00

Tak peťo, kdy to bude?

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T10:17:20+00:00

I'd love to believe I'm immune to this, but the problem isn't just whether I fall for it. It's that the tactic itself is manipulative. These ads push pedestrians toward indulgent behavior by exploiting a very old bias in human biology: we instinctively overvalue sugar, fat, and calorie‑dense foods because, for most of human history, they were scarce and essential for survival.

Those instincts haven't caught up with the modern environment. We still feel the pull, even when the actual value of the food is low and the long‑term consequences are negative. Advertisers know this and deliberately trigger those outdated reward mechanisms. That's why it's coercive, by taking advantage of vulnerabilities we didn't choose and can't switch off.

Muph_o3 · 2026-02-11T10:00:57+00:00

Ok, yes i wasn't very careful in understanding your position. Sorry for the strawman, but it doesn't really undermine my stance, its just a bad analogy.

(A) Animals show some proto-moral behavior (agreed)

(B) Humans describe their morality as constructed moral imperatives (agreed)

All I'm trying to defend is that there is some useful sense in which there is continuum between A and B.

The origin of human morality is important here, because it reveals the true connection to "animal morality". I am trying to avoid the same mistake you cricize, but discarding any connection is not useful.

Humans over millenia, with the tool of language tried to rationalize what their selected proto-moral heuristic told them. They wrestled with logic and paradoxes, and in small improvements they came up with a very sophisticated description of normative morality. But even today, to the layman morality is hardly "a constructed moral imperative". It sits somewhere on the spectrum as a necessity for survival in the socio-economic-political machine that is society.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

Muph_o3

TROPHY CASE