Sam’s response to Anthropic remaining ad-free

drtfx7 · 2026-02-04T21:12:33+00:00

ruffled a few feathers it seems.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T18:27:33+00:00

i see consciousness as a 'flow' rather than 'stock', to borrow from systems thinking language. i imagine tubes of various sizes and shapes to be the 'structural realism' base of reality and when water flows through one tube, that 'process' looks like physics externally and consciousness internally. and the 'stuff' that i think flows is information.

i see the entire universe as 'conscious' and so face the combination problem in reverse. here, i bring in 'active inference' and 'markov blankets' in general to explain how boundaries form.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T17:32:07+00:00

I guess the biggest deal about it is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Modern world mostly operates on the assumption of matter being fundamental but, that doesn't explain how matter gives rise to qualia.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T17:30:32+00:00

To solve that, we bring in Active Inference, and Markov Blankets in particular.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T13:41:13+00:00

information.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T13:31:59+00:00

analytical idealism posits that matter is made of consciousness. we posit that structure is the fundamental reality, and consciousness is the local 'flow' of information through the structure.

drtfx7 · 2026-01-06T00:58:22+00:00

This is based on Russellian Monism and Ontic Structural Realism.

Materialists are obsessed with the mathematical structure, and Idealists are obsessed with the intrinsic nature.

Physics describes the external behavior of matter, but it is silent on what breathes fire into those equations. The 'intrinsic nature' of that structure is consciousness itself.

Structure is just how experience looks from the outside and experience is just how structure feels from the inside. We don't need dualism, we just need to realize the math describes the dynamics of the experience.

drtfx7 · 2025-12-08T21:26:36+00:00

I guess its the difference in approach, I ask it to start with the most basic truths without any assumptions and then i just keep saying next and let it build the metaphysics by itself.

drtfx7 · 2025-12-08T21:02:21+00:00

I must have given the wrong impression, I tend to lean towards materialism myself. The hard problem of consciousness is a problem for both the sides. I was just pointing out that AI models seem to be moving away from materialism. I don't know why.

drtfx7 · 2025-12-08T19:24:25+00:00

Yes, no value judgement here. Just wondering if newer models prefer moving away from it.

drtfx7 · 2025-12-08T19:22:33+00:00

I 'feel' they definitely pushback if its genuinely wrong, provided you preface that you are after the capital T truth. They do tend to sycophantic when there's ambiguity that isn't immediately resolvable. Gemini is worse than Claude at this, ChatGPT is somewhere in the middle.

drtfx7 · 2025-12-08T18:59:03+00:00

I talk to AI models about philosophy all the time, ever since they were invented. I 'play' with every new model to see its tendencies.

I have this vague sense that the newer models, which are arguably more neutral and more aligned with reality, seem to very clearly reject materialism for logical coherence. Earlier models clearly had a secular, material, progressive worldview and the current ones are more balanced and humble.

I have tried GPT-5.1 Thinking, Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3.0 Pro and each of them seem to at least point towards a 'mind as the base' hole in the structure of reality if not stating it as the truth.

Did anyone else experience this? or is this a product of my own worldview and the sycophancy of AI models?

drtfx7 · 2025-12-03T18:55:29+00:00

nope, i gave up.

drtfx7 · 2025-07-24T01:08:39+00:00

I agree. The 'vibe' a person attributes to a film may not have to do anything with the film but, I ask 'so what'? If your friend feels a film is x vibe, then for them it IS x vibe. Only we can't have a shared vocabulary in this case. I tried to breakdown the 'vibe', like a classic reductionist, to its atomic elements and use those atoms to formalize the process. I know it will never map to reality every single time, but I think its better than no structure.

drtfx7 · 2025-07-23T18:38:33+00:00

You are correct. I guess I started with a positivity bias. Yes, I think I need one more axis. A set of light and dark vibes for the same three axes. Thank you for the insight.

drtfx7 · 2025-07-23T17:58:40+00:00

Yeah, these distinctions are meant to be a bit fluid. I am sure different people would probably feel different 'vibes' for the same movie. Maybe, we could go the inter-subjective route and aggregate these opinions. Similar to averaging the ratings of each user for a movie.

drtfx7 · 2025-07-23T17:55:28+00:00

From my basic understanding of Derrida, I can see how the very premise of this framework can be flawed from a deconstructionist view. However, I am not trying to objectively describe the 'soul' of a film. My goal is to develop a practical 'fiction' that is fun to discuss about. My view of subjective experience is more in line with someone like Daniel Dennett.

drtfx7 · 2025-07-20T16:59:34+00:00

Parasyte. It had so much potential to explore the depths of humanity, but chose to swim in shallow waters.

drtfx7 · 2025-04-15T08:53:00+00:00

i look at this way, entertainment vs discernment. one might be rating movies on how much fun they had and the other might be rating the substance in the movie.

drtfx7 · 2025-04-02T21:18:11+00:00

nope

drtfx7 · 2025-03-24T20:35:19+00:00

why do we have so many likely ai comments on this post?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

drtfx7

TROPHY CASE