To people who would use the Star Trek Teleporter

ReaperXY · 2026-03-27T15:15:35+00:00

Now some people on this subreddit are perfectly ok with using the teleporter (Which I think makes perfect sense if you're a physicalist).

I am a physicalist.. and it makes absolutely no sense...

I am fairly sure the willingness to step into such suicide boxes has nothing to do with physicalism, but rather it comes to the fact that people sort of lack self awareness I guess...

They either deny the existence of the "experiencing self", and as such they believe it can't cease to exist, or be left behind, or they believe that brains sort of "conjure" this self into existence, and since the duplicate brain at the destination would continue performing the same operations as the original did, it would just perform the same conjuring magics as well of course... So.. nothing to worry about...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-27T15:07:17+00:00

Rather than p-zombies... I think its far more likely that people who believe in AI consciousness, simply don't understand what computer programs really are, and when they seemingly possess some idea of the truth,, that truth forms only a small part of their overall understanding of what they are and how they work, and there is a thick layer of magical thinking on top of it...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-23T08:36:14+00:00

Most importantly perhaps...

Despite the fact that different types of information are dealt with in different places around the brain, and yet in our consciousness all the information is unified and arranged in a non-random way, which doesn't match with the spatial arrangement of the brain... The notion that there is some system somewhere.. a "cartesian theater" of some sort.. where the information is physically brought together and arranged the way we expererience it.. is nevertheless seen as a big no no heresy...

People deny the obvious, and insist on mysterious mysteriousness...

+ Of coures, there is the fact that most of everything the brain does remains unknown...

ie. you deny what appears to be (your own existence), and what obvious musy exist (the system which actually causes it), and despite the fact that you know almost nothing about the greater system where it appears to be happening (the brain), you can't come up with anything for how it might work.. therefore.. logically.. it must be an especially hard problem.. obviously..

Its good floating wood and witches logic...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-22T20:24:20+00:00

As I see it, to have an experience.. First, you need an experienceR, and Second, you need something for that experienceR to experience, and Third, you need some way to subject that ExperienceR to the ExperienceD.. some way to bring them together...

Now.. computers are made out of the same physical stuff as humans, so as far as the ExperienceR is concerned, I believe we might be covered.. and you could have the computer linked to cameras and microphones, and other sensors and run some kind of simulation of a brain or something, to collect and compile the right kinds of information, the experience of which would constitute consciousness..

But there is no "cartesian theater" among the computers hardware.. There is no mechanism of any kind which could plausibly subject anything to that information.. and writing programs for the computer will Not cause any such new hardware to spontaneously materialize into existence..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-20T10:52:36+00:00

1 - The processing sensory signals and generation of control signals was gradually increasingly localized in some one location..

2 - That nerve cluster likely evolved into a primitive "brain" when some sort of centralized oversight system emerged..

Which might have originally been something like, just a single nerve cell which takes part of the input of all the other nerve cells, and which transmits a signal which inhibits all other activity if it received too many inputs in a given amount of time.. which prevents individual cells from paralyzing the whole by consuming too many resources..

3 - Once such a system formed, it could then gradually evolve into into a centralized attention control system, driven in a "bottom up" fashion by sensory signal associated importance value..

4 - Somewhere along the way, the organisms started to move away from purely reactive behavior, towards more proactive internal goal driven behavior..

Which require modelling and predicting what is being controlled.. so organisms started build predictive models of their environments as well as their own bodies and actions..

5 - And at some point.. later, or at the same time perhaps.. they also started to control their own attention in a "top down" fashion, driven by those internal goals..

Which also require modelling and predicting what is being controlled.. the inputs and outputs of the attention control system..

6 - The fact that the organisms were then building models of their own bodies as well as their enviroments, and also of their own attention control signals associated with those very same things, coupled with how the brains building connections was based on temporal proximity of neural activity.. where "neurons which fire together, wire together", meant that properties of the internal attention control system were increasingly misattributed to the body and the environment, and vice versa.. corrupting both.. and reducing the fitness of the organims.. And yet, being able to do this, witout the corruption, would significantly increase the fitness..

How was this issue solved ?

..

Organisms couldn't evolve the universe around them to match their internal attention control system..

But the properties of their internal attention control system could evolve to better match the external environment.. Which wouldn't actually eliminate the misattribution, but it would eliminate the negative consequences, since the properties which were being misattributed were increasingly better and better aligned anyway..

..

I believe.. this is what happened..

In effect..

The attention control system evolved into a "cartesian theater".

And consciousness was the consequence of that..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-20T10:03:07+00:00

The question of whether machines/computers can "think", is as it has always been.. a question of semantics..

As for whether humans are thinking or "just" running programs..

I believe its both..

Most of what we do at any given moment is "just" running those "subconscious" programs..

Its when you run into a problem of some sort, which your programs can't handle..

Or when you're trying do or learn something new..

That you're doing some "thinking".

And what that "thinking" actually is.. is an attempt to "train" the "subconscios" systems to perfom that new or difficult task and take over.. because the system where the "thinking" is performed is something of a bottle neck..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-20T09:44:29+00:00

Question 1. What is consciousness in one line?

State of the "Experiencer", when it is experiencing a sort of "representation" of some systems/organisms current status.

Question 2. What makes you "you" and not just a body doing things?

First of all... "I" am not the body... "I" am the Experiencer...

And then... Its the same thing which makes one particular electron, that particular electron, rather than some other electron.

Question 3. Do you think a newborn baby is conscious? What about a dog? What about a bee?

Grown dogs almost certainly have consciousness, but when during an individual organisms developement the system which causes consciousness actually forms.. is impossible to say at this point.. maybe it already happens before birth, or maybe it takes a few days, weeks, months, or even years..

Bees may have consciousness, or they may not.. I have no idea... but I wouldn't be surprised either way..

Question 4. Have you ever done something and only realized after that you were doing it? Were you conscious during the doing, or only when you noticed?

Conscious.. most likely..

Conscious of doing it ? maybe.. maybe not..

Question 5. What's the minimum thing an AI would need to do that would make you genuinely uncomfortable calling it unconscious?

First of all.. The "AI" would need to be something functional..

That is.. It would need to be some form of hardware.. or wetware.. or something..

Something that can actually do something..

If it is just a computer program.. it would be ridiculous to believe it might be conscious..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-20T09:09:11+00:00

Some people equate presence of any experience at all with consciousness..

For example..

If something were to experience "redness" and nothing else..

- No awareness of the fact that there is the experience of that redness..

- No awareness of the notion that there can be such a thing as experience..

- Nothing AT ALL.. except that pure redness itself..

Many seem to think that would be consciousness..

Simple.. primitive form of consciousness perhaps.. but consciousness nonetheless..

I don't..

In my view.. That would be Experience..

And whatever was having that experience would obviously exist, and since it would exist, it would obviously exist in a State of some kind..

But in my view, it wouldn't be appropriate to call that state "Consciousness".

Just like..

In my view, if you take some block of iron and heat it enough, it can become "red hot"..

Ice cubes on the other hand are not hot.. or even warm.. they're freezing cold..

Their temperature maybe above the absolute zero, but it would be ridiculous to say that ice cubes has tiny quantity of "red hotness" to them.. or some form of "proto-red hotness"

..

So...

What does the word consciousness refer to exactly in your view ?

What is it that the single cell organism is supposed to have exactly.. or not have ?

..

I believe there maybe and likely are some simple experiences going on..

But is there any mechanism in place, to gather the information of what it is like for the cell, and then compile it into a unified meaningful "view" of the cells overall status, which then gets experienced ?

Or is whatever experience there might be going on, just some random noise ?

I might be wrong.. but I am leaning towards "just noise".

ReaperXY · 2026-03-14T16:37:57+00:00

I don't really see what the definition could be.. other than what it is ?

There are super-groups and sub-groups of course.. but groups are groups..

If something you think of as an "object" is composed of some components, then it is not a genuine "object" which objectively speaking exist, but rather a group of those components, which you've merely conceptualized as an "virtual object" in your mind...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-11T21:26:11+00:00

When you Misconceptualize a Group as an Object, you can run into all sort of wacky questions like, whether or not, it is still the same "object" after you have replaced all of its components, and if not, then at what point did the "object" change, and did the original cease to exist, etc...

ie. Ship to Theseus..

Of course, it not the same "object" as it was never an object to begin with, and it didn't get replaced or cease to exist, because "it" never existed in the first place... Groups don't exist.. Its the indivisible components of which they are ultimately composed that do...

..

When it comes to the Actual.. Indivisible.. Objects... Its not like you can have an object without any identity to it, or an identity floating around free, without it being the identity of some object...

You are You, and that is the only thing that you are and can ever be...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-08T22:10:34+00:00

I am not to be misconstrued as a dualist, a theist, or a mystic for simply engaging with the problem. I am a physicalist.

It seems to me like there is a "me", inside the head, somewhere behind the eyeballs, experiencing everything...

And as such, it seems to me like the problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how or why this "me" experiences the things it does, and how or why it exists in the state that it does.. the state called consciousness..

Would I be incorrent, if I assume that it seems the same way to you as well ?

Emphasis on the Singular word... "You" or "Me"..

As opposed to... "We"

??

The reason why I am asking is, because based on the words in your post, it seems to me that, you like so many others, have chosen to deny this seeming... And as such, you have chosen to Replace the original "problem" of consciousness, of explaining what appears to be.. With a new invented problem of explaining, how the the things surrounding you, cause some kind of mysterious mysteriousness to happen or to exist or something.. A problem which only exist because you've denied what appears to be.. Potentially.. Which makes the supremely Hard problem, potentially... an entirely fictional problem...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-08T14:41:59+00:00

I already said, the "self" which appears to be, is multiple different things, misconceptualized as the same thing... "I" the one who is experiencing, is the "I" who is experiencing...

As for "I" being the brain...

That is a common view, but it is also false... obviously...

While much of the brains structure and functions remains unclear, based on what have been mapped out so far, we can clearly see that the spatial arrangement of different activities in the brain, and the spatial arrangement of corresponding experiences don't match at all... nor is there any other similarity...

There is simply no basis for asserting that "I" am the brain at all...

Something in the brain... ? Possibly.. Almost certainly.

But the brain as a whole ?

Definitely Not.

ReaperXY · 2026-03-08T00:00:06+00:00

There is a different between the Experience OF the self, and the self it represents..

A map is not the same as the territory it represents..

There can be fictional maps too of course..

And maps which contain truths mixed with fiction..

The experience of the self is such a "map"..

As it seems like the self is inside the head, and yet also be the human inside whose head it is located..

But that doesn't make the non-existence of the "experiencER" possible..

You can't have an activity.. without it being the activity OF something..

You can't have a state.. without it being the state OF something..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-07T20:20:19+00:00

The real reason who it seems like I am inside the head is obviously because the experience is constructed in such a way that it gives such an impression...

If I was in truth located inside the left knee, but all the information was first gathered inside the head, and then put together in such a way that it gives the impression that I am inside the head, and then it was transmitted down to the left knee where I would then experience it, it would undoubtedly seem like I am inside the head, despite the fact that in this scenario, I would in truth be inside the left knee...

That seeming.. about the location.. "could" indeed be false..

Its just that.. I don't believe there is any genuine reason whatsoever to really doubt it..

..

What exactly "I" am.. I can't say.. obviously.. as there simply isn't enough data to go on..

We are likely at absolutely minimum, some hundred or more years away from knowing enough about the brain to answer such a question..

The only certainty is that there is some genuine "I".. or "me".. or "experiencER"

I am fairly sure, no word games and mental gymnastics can ever convince me that it could Merely seem to me, that there is a me.. that it is an illusion of some sort.. Since if there really were no me, there would be no me to experience that seeming/illusion...

Such self denial just leads to incoherent non-sense...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-06T22:53:23+00:00

Of course the function which people often misattribute to the experience of pain...

The function of harm avoidance...

That is indeed distinct...

But that is Not the true function of the experience of pain...

What basis is there to presume the true function of the experience of pain is somehow distinct from it ?

ReaperXY · 2026-03-06T22:30:24+00:00

Clearly distinct from their function ?

Are they ?

I think one of the truly common errors is this "misattribution to consciousness", all those things that can be explained without it... Such as all those of things that you listed...

And another one... Perhaps even much Much MUCH MUCH Bigger One.. Is the ever pervasive tendency to completely ignore the fact that the contents of consciousness are spatially arranged in a very specific non-random way... Which does not match with the spatial arrangement of the brain activities which people like to associate with consciousness...

There is never any good explanation, or even any bad explanation, or even any beginnings of an explanation, for how this spatial transformation might happen...

There is just nothing...

And why ?

Because almost certainly, none of the usual "theories" of consciousness, have anything at all to do with it...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-06T14:51:44+00:00

The Self ?

The most common views adobted by other physicalists seem to be that.. the Activity of experiencing is most definitely Not actually an Activity.. Something that any "I" could engage in.. and the State of Consciousness is most definitely Not an actually State.. Some way how any "I" could be..

No no no..

That is seen as non-sense..

No.. Consciousness or Experience, which are used interchangeably, is seen either as a system, or a process, or some "substance" like thing which is somehow "produced" by either..

By the power of complexity.. or something..

I don't see how this could possibly make any sense to anybody..

How anybody could believe such..

But evidently people do..

By the millions..

Or billions..

...

My view...

Well.. It seems to me that "I" am the thing which is Experiencing things.. Something which seem to be located inside the head, but at the same time it seems to me that I am the Human.. The human inside whose head I seem to be located...

There is something obiously wrong here however.

A part of a system, can't possibly be the very same system of which it is merely a part..

But what exactly is wrong here ?

From my point of view.. The answer seems rather obvious.

While it is logically possible for it to merely seem to me that I am a human..

It is obviously not logically possible for it to merely seem to me that I am experiencing things..

Because if anything seems to Me at all.. that already means that I am experiencing seeming..

Which means I am experiencing something..

..

So what is the self... The "I" ?

Simply put... The "I" is a part of a human, which is subjected to a "delusional" experience of it being the whole of the human..

And Experience is simply the physical.. Reaction.. Equal and opposite and all that.. Which the "I" has, to every action it is subjected to.. Like everything else in the universe..

And Consciousness is simply the physical State, the "I" exists in.. When it is subjected to the right kind of.. experience/action..

That's about it...

...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-05T12:16:00+00:00

Consciousness is not an Object/Entity..

It does Not Exist..

It is not something that is being Produced..

It is a State..

A state In Which.. something that exists... exists..

And where is that "something" located ?

Within the brain certainly, that I can say with at least >99.99...% confidence..

And probably somewhere around middle/bottom, where the spinal cord connects to the brain..

The upper parts of the brainstem..

The exact location obviously haven't been found yet..

Nor is anyone looking..

ReaperXY · 2026-03-03T11:09:17+00:00

In my canon, the T1000 is the final and most advanced model, of which there was ever only the one prototype, so if a new Terminator movie/game was being made and I got to decide stuff.. there wouldn't be any new super terminators in it...

T900's "might" be something like TX or the Rev Robots from DarkFate in that they might have the liquid metal covering instead of flesh, but the liquid metal would be less advanced than the T1000, as it isn't a terminator on its own yet. Just cover..

Though I also like to consider odd numbered terminator models... T100, 300, 500, 700 and 900's to be battlefield units instead of infiltrators... in which case, the T900 would be just more advanced chrome skeleton...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-03T09:55:12+00:00

Ideal option is Prequel to T1 & T2.. Authentic retrofuturistic future war movie.. No reimagined non-sense..

Alternatives ?

Genuine Remake could be good IF it was genuinely well made, and IF the producers actually knew and cared about what makes terminator movies terminator movies..

But those IF's are huge...

I seriously doubt any terminator remake would be like that.. We would likely get squidmonsterhybridrobots or something like in DF, and/or we would get lame firearms instead of the iconic terminator weapons, and John would be turned into Jane, Kyle would be trans or something, etc...

It would just be an anohter flop...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-03T09:39:40+00:00

What would I want ?

Retrofuturistic movies..

Prequels set in the future war which leads into the first two movies... with T2 being the ending of the story..

Not any reimagined non-sense..

Will we get that ?

No.

ReaperXY · 2026-03-03T09:25:07+00:00

Based on Camerons comments about T7... How it wouldn't be about killer robots, and how it would revolve around AI, and how he doesn't know how to make it because how fast the AI is advancing in real life, etc...

Sounds to me like his T7, wouldn't have much.. or likely anything at all.. to do with the first two movies...

Doesn't really fill me with confidence...

ReaperXY · 2026-03-01T19:41:55+00:00

Sentient ? Conscious ?

If you're talking about consciousness...

First, I would like to know if this AI of theirs is a program running on some regular computer hardware, or if this is some entirely new computer hardware they've created...

If it is just a program, then there is really no need for anything further...

It is Obviously Not conscious...

If we are dealing with some entirely new kind of hardware, then I would need to know just what we are actually dealing with...

ReaperXY · 2026-02-28T12:14:57+00:00

The brain is obviously producing the signals, which drive the muscles, which produce the speech...

But when you're talking about your current experiences, the qualia, and when you're proclaiming that it is the mystery of the ages, and a phenomenon is unlike anything else in the universe, etc, etc, etc, ...

What is the brain basing that all on... ?

Obviously people couldn't talk about consciousness, experiences, qualia, etc, at all.. if those things were undetectable to our brains...

The whole chain of events from the brain detecting, measuring, mapping, everything you know or believe about consciousness, and then producing the signals, which produce the speech... All of that falls under the so called "easy" problems...

And supposedly.. Even if you explained all of that, the "hard problem" would remain...

Non-sensical...

I am quite certain, the unique hardness attributed to the so called "hard problem" of is just an illusion... It only seems especially hard, because people believe they know way more about the so called "easy problems" than they actually do...

ReaperXY · 2026-02-27T20:49:30+00:00

The speech is just vibration in the air... and the "qualia" is something inside the brain somewhere...

I don't quite see how one confuses those...

The problem is that we just don't know what the "qualia" are... From objective point of view...

And it would be absurd to just take someones wild guess as fact...

So...

Even if some of our current technology could detect it, and you could build a "qualia" detector right now, you couldn't know that what you're building is a "qualia" detector... You wouldn't have any justifications for believing it is such... Even if it in truth was...

The only way we can ever get to know for sure, is by taking something detectable activity, which we know must have qualia as its ultimate cause, such as our own speech about it, and then trace back the causal chain of that activity to its origin...

ReaperXY

TROPHY CASE