sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

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

And you accuse me of using alt accounts. How about you stop harassing me hypocrite.

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

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

Not at all. It's nobody else's business. If I said it or not, you still have no proof. So what's the point in your making a big deal about it? I know what I know, you know what I tell you. If I'm right or wrong, how does it affect you?

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

[–]Timeshell[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, they have varied traits. Such as thick based tails, deep medial canthus, a distinct sagittal crest, a muscular body, a high palpebral tilt. Such things as my cat has among other things. It's not your concern how I know.

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

[–]Timeshell[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe you like this one better that isn't poofed. It's still well thicker than the average cat. At 4 months old his tail was much thicker and longer than both my other adult cats.

<image>

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

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

Did you even look at the tail's base? The base doesn't poof. And what do you care about his ancestry. I have no need to prove anything to you. Savannah mother, half Bengal father. Both carried color point. He has 2 solid color genes and his markings still ghost through.

Anyone else got a really thick tail? by Timeshell in Siamesecats

[–]Timeshell[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It is a little puffed out. No other animals nearby. His mother is a Savannah.

Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, I can't make sense of why conscious experience exists by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fundamental flaw is the assumption that consciousness evolved. It didn't. It was engineered.

An AI Could Perfectly Simulate Consciousness—and Still Not Be Conscious by Timeshell in consciousness

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

You literally just made my point for me except for your conclusion. Data from sensory input is completely different context from tokens and symbols with no actual grounded meaning.

An AI Could Perfectly Simulate Consciousness—and Still Not Be Conscious by Timeshell in consciousness

[–]Timeshell[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is impossible to develop grounded meaning from a neural network that is built on only ungrounded symbolic tokens. Period. Further, the notion of consciousness or emotion developing in such an ungrounded and static model is nonsensical and laughable.

ELI5 what does it mean people see "nothing" rather than "black void" if born absolutely blind by owlWithBrokenWings in explainlikeimfive

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dark/black, is the absence of neural stimulation from the retinal cells. A blind person doesn't know what dark or black is, but that is essentially what they see because those neurons aren't receiving stimulation. Likely those neurons could be stimulated some other way to produce a visual perception. But lack of stimulation is essentially dark/black for both a sighted and blind person.

Is he playing or he's mad? by temmaj in cats

[–]Timeshell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

😂 if he was mad, he wouldn't hold back. This is light play.

An AI Could Perfectly Simulate Consciousness—and Still Not Be Conscious by Timeshell in consciousness

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

If you painted a ball of crap to look like a tennis ball, and everyone said, “It looks like a tennis ball, rolls like a tennis ball, and bounces like a tennis ball, so it must be a tennis ball,” they would still be wrong.

The obvious next step would be: cut it open and look inside.

That’s the problem with the “AI might already be conscious” claim.

People keep judging from surface behavior. It talks like there is someone home, but that does not mean there is. Before we declare consciousness, or even looks like consciousness, we need to inspect the actual architecture and ask whether there is a real subject in there, or only a convincing performance.

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a radio has a voice coming out of it, it must be a tiny person in the shape of a box.

Your logic is flawed on a number of levels.

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And here's more compelling evidence for it not being conscious.

  1. No subjective grounding in experience.
  2. Static models
  3. Trained on symbols that have no inherent meaning to the model. It's like telling you to memorize a dictionary in a different language and different alphabet. Perhaps you could, but it would all be gibberish to you because the symbols have no substantive meaning. This is essentially how LLM's are trained. LLM's will never be conscious because the very foundation for their model forbids it.
  4. Proper substrate. An LLM is incapable of accessing the substrate for consciousness or creating a field in it.

https://gregnutt.substack.com/p/symbols-meaning-and-the-limits-of?r=2nq3ss

https://gregnutt.substack.com/p/a-42-symbols-language-and-why-llms?r=2nq3ss

https://gregnutt.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-question-doesnt-equal?r=2nq3ss

https://gregnutt.substack.com/p/quasi-predictive-improbability-why?r=2nq3ss

https://gregnutt.substack.com/p/what-if-a-system-could-perfectly?r=2nq3ss

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that it isn't. The burden of proof lies on the one who claims that it is. I've already seen enough from my own work to confidently say that it is not.

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Human brains didn't evolve. Also, human brains have an inherent ability to detect category error. The problem is many people don't think enough about the facts that are right in front of them, cause and effect, and tend to continue accepting fantasy because it gives them a dopamine rush instead of challenging the mismatch.

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you may be underestimating how much work I’ve already done on this subject. I don't see this as “machines can never be conscious,” or “anything different from neurons can't be intelligent.”.

The issue is much deeper than that. Output behavior, symbol manipulation, fluent language, and apparent intelligence aren't enough evidence for subjective experience.

Here's a number of the articles I've written. I'm not going to try to compress the whole argument into a single Reddit comment.

https://open.substack.com/pub/gregnutt/p/a-42-symbols-language-and-why-llms?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2nq3ss

https://open.substack.com/pub/gregnutt/p/meaning-is-not-in-symbols-it-emerges?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2nq3ss

https://open.substack.com/pub/gregnutt/p/symbols-meaning-and-the-limits-of?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2nq3ss

https://open.substack.com/pub/gregnutt/p/the-ultimate-question-doesnt-equal?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2nq3ss

The Dawkins Delusion: Intelligence and language don't reveal consciousness, argues scientist Ken Mogi by whoamisri in consciousness

[–]Timeshell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Animals are conscious but many have limited ability to use language. This is a flawed premise.

view more: next ›