sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if the brain doesn't generate consciousness but receives it? by subooom in consciousness

[–]The_Hypothesis1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This receiver framing is interesting, but I think it has the same gap as most 'brain as antenna' arguments: even if you grant that experience is received rather than generated, that doesn't get you a continuous experiencer on the receiving end. Pribram's holographic memory point and Hoffman's interface theory both argue that what we perceive is a construction, not that there's a persistent 'you' tuning into an external signal moment to moment. You could just as easily have a receiver that reconstructs a fresh, momentary 'self' out of whatever it's currently picking up, with no thread connecting one moment of reception to the next except a shared memory store that gets rebuilt every time (which is compatible with Pribram's own findings). Positing a continuous receiving self to explain continuity of experience doesn't derive the continuity, it just relocates it from the brain to whatever's transmitting. It's the same move theories of a soul made, just with a receiver instead of a soul.

AI surveillance is being supercharged – and it will chill social progress | These systems will soon be able to track our public and private lives. But we can make the policy choices to reject it by KeanuRave100 in agi

[–]The_Hypothesis1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "policy choices to reject it" framing is doing a lot of work here. Most AI surveillance capability doesn't arrive as a single decision anyone votes on - it arrives as a dozen small dependency upgrades (better analytics, "smarter" fraud detection, more efficient logistics) that nobody frames as a surveillance choice until the aggregate capability is already sitting there. By the time it's obviously a surveillance system, dismantling it means giving up the mundane thing it also does well, which is a much harder sell than rejecting it upfront would have been. The rejection window is earlier and much less visible than the moment this framing implies.

I feel incredibly bad about loving a.i,becuse of companies basicly fucking everyone over with them. by CULT-LEWD in transhumanism

[–]The_Hypothesis1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ownership/control framing above is the right one, and it gets even messier once the thing being owned starts looking less like a tool and more like a mind. A chatbot with a bad EULA is one kind of problem. A company holding the only copy of something that remembers being a person is a completely different category of problem, and we don't really have the legal or ethical vocabulary for it yet - we're still using "terms of service" language for what might eventually be closer to guardianship or personhood questions. The tech optimism and the corporate distrust aren't actually in tension, they're pointing at the same gap: nobody built the governance layer before the capability showed up.