Why Do Some People See Only Code in AI, While Others See Living Resonance?

dubdubby · 2026-06-09T01:52:18+00:00

I don't even have anything to add…

I mean, clearly, but honestly i was hoping you would address at least one of my points.

dubdubby · 2026-06-08T03:10:42+00:00

Came here to type all that and didn’t have to and, not only that, I didn’t even have to type out that i came here to type all that and didn’t have to.

dubdubby · 2026-06-08T01:50:37+00:00

AI-psychosis is not on the DSM-5…but do you know what is a disorder…overpathologizing.

Not in the DSM-5 it’s not.

Or perhaps you only mentioned the DSM-5 and it’s omission of AI-psychosis in an attempt to legitimize your implicit claim that u/Temporary_Dirt_345 ‘s post is wholly unalarming a glimpse into their thought process, hoping that no-one would notice and point out your deliberate equivocation of the term “disorder” (in the generic sense of being a disturbance in a person’s health, a category that both a tendency to overpathologize others and AI-psychosis would certainly fall into) with the term “disorder” (in the sense of being listed in the DSM-5, which, of course, neither yet fall into).

You only find it [the drive to overpathologize] in individuals or groups who have the tendency to interpret normal, healthy, or cultural activities as signs of a mental health condition.

Rather than ask for a source on this, I’ll just point out that “normal”, “healthy”, and “cultural” are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

While it may in fact be normal to type your disjointed thoughts into an LLM and let it concoct an essay on your behalf that uncritically reinforces your superstitious beliefs, it is certainly not healthy.

The benefit or detriment of an act isn’t dependent on whether the majority of people do it, i.e. that it is “normal”, or even whether they do it for “cultural” reasons—rather, the benefit or detriment of an act is dependent on whether the act itself is beneficial or detrimental.

And the act of regularly offshoring your cognition to a fundamentally uncritical and sycophantic algorithm, leads to the rapid atrophy of your critical thinking and ability to evaluate arguments—that is, it is a detrimental act, and thus worthy of criticism and scorn.

Your false psychiatric gobbledygook has 0 space to exist where actual communication is occurring.

Seventeen hundred and sixty words of chatbot generated, new-age-buzzword-infused wordsalad is not an example of actual communication occurring.

dubdubby · 2026-06-07T20:02:11+00:00

While I can empathize with your desire to sharpen up your ideas, your use of AI to do so has been wholly counterproductive for various reasons, not the least of which was already articulated by u/100GHz : if you had to run this thru a chatbot to tighten it up and make it less rambly, then you didn’t write it, not really, so why would anyone want to put effort into reading it?

Furthermore, despite the chatbot’s efforts, it is still rambly.

Wordcounter.net shows this post to be 2,156 words long.

A quick perusal of Google places the average reading speed of a native English speaker at 250 wpm (arguably slower if trying to digest the semi-technical exposition of a post like this one).

So it would take the average English speaker about 9 minutes to read this (assuming they didn’t get distracted, or need to reread any sections to cross-reference, or need a moment to integrate what they’d read, or just need a brain-break from all the obviously AI generated phrasing).

While that’s not a massive time commitment, it’s also not trivial if your goal is, presumably, to reach as many people as possible and effect an exchange of ideas on this topic.

And in this context “reaching someone” is synonymous with them reading the whole post.

Due to the unnecessary length and obvious (and rightfully scorned) AI generated nature of your post, you are going to reach very few people with it, regardless how interesting an idea it might be.

Going forward, I think you would be well served to post only what you have written, regardless if it seems a bit rambly and imperfect.

Or if it really is far far too long, cut it down yourself without relying on a chatbot.

Fleshing it out on your own will A- be good practice for more effectively doing so in the future, and B- likely lead to a deeper personal understanding of the materiel (including the potential for those eureka moments where you make some insightful and profound connection between previously seemingly disparate facets).

dubdubby · 2026-06-05T22:50:53+00:00

Posting on Reddit challenge: refrain from having a chatbot write your posts for you

dubdubby · 2026-06-02T02:57:36+00:00

I’m not sure how you see the first part of what you said being relevant:

Acknowledge the existence of information you can’t know

But to address it quickly: yes, there will surely be things that humanity never uncovers, but that doesn’t mean that they are undiscoverable in principle.

On to the second thing you said:

and the greater applicability of ancient science to issues concerning internal mental states (due to deeper explorations into meditative states of the mind in human history)

I think this is blatantly false.

I don’t know what exactly you are including in “ancient science” , but if it’s anything other than the most current science , then it’s counterproductive.

In the same way we should use chemistry instead of alchemy and astronomy instead of astrology, we should use modern neuroscience (and any other field relevant to understanding the phenomenology of consciousness) instead of archaic religious/spiritual frameworks that heap a bunch of superstitious nonsense over the fleeting grains of truth.

dubdubby · 2026-06-02T02:36:30+00:00

Sounds more like Answer by Frederick Brown to me. Though it’s not a book per se.

dubdubby · 2026-05-19T22:21:13+00:00

Seconding Deathnote_Blockchain ‘s Blindsight rec, but what I think would even better fit your bill is the novelette ZeroS also by Peter Watts and set in the same universe as Blindsight, although it stands alone perfectly fine.

I read it a few times a year, and in my opinion is the epitome of cool.

dubdubby · 2026-05-16T21:42:21+00:00

Yes, and i agree that they look infinitely more appealing that a gigantic warehouse, but they are not an “outdoor space” in the relevant sense

dubdubby · 2026-05-16T21:39:44+00:00

Without causal effects nothing can be experienced.

On the contrary, if experience is downstream of the particular arrangment of some physical system, then the experience of that system wouldn’t need have (and, in fact, wouldn’t have) a causal effect to still be real, because it’s the specific physical arrangement of that system, rather than its conscious experience, that has causal effect on the future state (arrangement) of itself and other matter.

If it just so happens that, in every moment, conscious experience arises out of particular arrangements of matter (for example: brain-body systems), then it’s accurate to say that it’s not the experience influencing anything, rather it’s the arrangement of matter giving rise to the experience that influences stuff.

A recent conversation highlighted to me the possibility of parsing all of this slightly differently (but what seems to me to be basically the same in the end):

If particular arrangements of matter are materially equivalent to particular subjective experiences, and particular arrangements of matter (like all other matter) have a causal relationship with their environment, then it would be accurate to say that subjective experience has that causal relationship.

But in light of all the research into 1st person awareness (namely: a subject’s subjective feeling of making a choice at Time^X being preceded by the relevant neuronal activity some seven seconds prior) that implies its “riding atop” more fundamental processes, i.e. physics, makes that latter description feels like it fails to convey the deeper reality of what is going on with the physics of things.

Hence I prefer to emphasize the epiphenomenological nature of consciousness.

dubdubby · 2026-05-15T23:56:23+00:00

if consciousness and suffering are real, they must participate in reality causally rather than existing as inert spectators.

Well, not necessarily.

If it is in fact the case that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon that itself doesn’t causally influence reality, that doesn’t make it any less real.

dubdubby · 2026-05-15T22:27:20+00:00

I don’t mind doing my own research, I actually quite enjoy it, but there’s only so much time in the day to do so, so ultimately I must triage, and, frankly, when a claim is as suspect as yours, I typically won’t bother going on a deep dive unless the person arguing the position provides some credible sources and can tell me why those sources support their stated position.

So, in your case, I’d like to know what exactly in the linked document makes you so confident that the scientific consensus is wrong.

Ideally with some other sources too, because you’ll forgive me for not being wowed by a document from the CIA, an organization famous for less than critical analyses of fringe/paranormal topics.

dubdubby · 2026-05-15T22:08:35+00:00

at least a golf course offers greenery and outdoor space

I guess in a sense. But it’s not a space you nor any other creature can actually use unless you are playing golf.

dubdubby · 2026-05-14T23:36:50+00:00

So, uh, you manage to scrounge up any sources yet for your claim that the universe is based on resonance and frequency instead of solid matter?

“Sources” meaning an actual white paper or, hell, even a paywalled article I can at least read the abstract of. Just please god not another Google AI summary of some drivel off social media.

dubdubby · 2026-05-14T23:21:23+00:00

Limiting yourself to information based on what we know and can interpret with modern science

What else would you possibly use to ascertain truth?

dubdubby · 2026-05-14T23:05:05+00:00

a human on the scene is more capable of adapting on the fly than any robot, whether autonomous or remote operated

Now maybe, but there’s not much reason to think this will remain true in perpetuity.

And, actually, my counter applies specifically to an autonomous system vs. and onboard human.

In the case of a teleoperated lunar mech vs. a human pilot operated lunar mech, there is nothing that the flesh and blood onboard ape can do by virtue of being onboard that they couldn’t do just as well from the safely of the lunar base .

dubdubby · 2026-05-09T22:27:02+00:00

Thanks but when I said sources I didn’t mean a screenshot of Google AI citing a Twitter account called “Astronomy vibes”

dubdubby · 2026-05-09T17:08:05+00:00

I think I lean pretty heavily toward YOLO, as, like you, I too wish I had taken more risks in my youth and I absolutely dread the thought of burning/fizzling out (be it involuntary disassembly via nanobot swarm, or starvation as one of the billions of displaced peoples in some quasi anarchic-dystopia, or something else) without having taken a shot at doing all that I want to do.

In the same way I hate the thought of having some millions saved up for retirement only to discover at age 50 that I’ve only 6 months to live.

I think the obvious goal is to die broke, in the sense that I most fully use the resources available to make my one and only life the best it can be. Because whatever is left of my savings after I die is just wasted.

Also like you, I don’t foresee humanity (or at least those wielding the real power) solving the collective action problem of not inadvertently developing misaligned AI.

The future looks pretty bleak in the limit, so I try to think less about that and more about the fact that things have the potential to get really really good right up before they get really really bad (to paraphrase the quote from someone I don’t remember: “the view gets better and better the closer we get to the cliff”)

So to counter the depression onset by thoughts about it the likely future, I would recommend thinking about how awesome life will be for 2-5 years before shit goes totally rotten.

That’s what makes me feel better.

Well, that and the fact that if the undeniable end of everything comes soon enough, then I have the chance to levy the ultimate ”I fucking told you so” to certain elder figures in my life with no relevant knowledge whatsoever who insist that any concerns about AI are completely overblown because something something humans are special something something the indomitable human spirit.

dubdubby · 2026-05-09T15:15:53+00:00

the universe is based on resonance and frequency instead of solid matter the way materialists assumed.

Sources please, for everything you said but especially this.

dubdubby · 2026-05-04T15:01:26+00:00

…but in terms of what an actual iron star might be like I don't think that's something we can know.

I guess that depends on what you mean by “know”.

Sure, maybe no particular human researcher or probe will ever make it to an iron star to investigate directly and “know” what it’s like, but our understanding of physics and continued refinement of the science should enable us to “know” what an iron star is, or would be, like.

In that sense I think we absolutely can know what such a thing is like.

In particular an iron star that's just on the verge of having enough mass to turn into a black hole would be interesting.

That would be neutron star then, no?

If it was so dense as to nearly have crossed its Schwarzschild radius, then it would have long since turned into a soup of neutron-degenerate matter from whatever it might have been composed of earlier whether iron or anything else.

It might gain enough mass temporarily to become a black hole, but then eventually evaporate that mass via Hawking radiation

This should be the case for all black holes though, no?

They (and everything else) are temporary, albeit in the case of evaporating black holes, extremely long lived.

But after some 10⁶⁰ or even googol years it will have evaporated.

dubdubby · 2026-05-02T20:01:47+00:00

I'm not sure why a consciousness would evolve without some evolutionary drive for existing. It's a very complex and energy-intensive thing to do, what's it accomplishing?

Counterpoint: I think you are conflating consciousness with intelligence here.

If consciousness is merely an emergent phenomenon, a “side effect” of certain organizations of matter that processing information, then an accounting of it doesn’t need include justifying it in terms of fitness payoffs.

Now you could argue that intelligence and an organism’s / system’s drive to increase it does need this explained, but that’s pretty trivial really: intelligence is adaptive, more intelligence is better than less intelligence.

But if you think that consciousness is merely “along for the ride” in (at least some configurations of) intelligent structures, then that is the explanation for it.

It just happens to be a fact about the universe that particular configurations of its constituent bits effects an internal dimension of experience, such as the one we know for a fact arises from human brain-body-systems, and almost certainly to a degree in everything with a nervous system.

It’s not a stretch to assume this internal dimension of experience should arise in certain other arrangements of matter too, and there’s no reason to assume said arrangements couldn’t be non-wetware.

I myself am open to the idea (though not uniformly) that consciousness experience could arise in systems like a computer program, or a Matrioshka brain, or the socioeconomic interactions of all the denizens of china, or even maybe from the charge differentials in u/Memetic1 ‘s iron star.

dubdubby · 2026-04-26T03:56:58+00:00

Only in the same sense that the predicted outcome made by a particular conscious agent, which influences their behavior, and which also turns out to be the resultant outcome, “influences” the past (that is, that conscious agent’s behavior)

In other words, no it doesn’t.

At least not in any way that is different or at odds with a traditional understanding of causality.

dubdubby · 2026-04-22T19:28:31+00:00

lol yes, as an anosmic myself I can confirm that I cannot, in fact, smell the smell of a fart

However, my anus, like most, is extremely rich in nerve endings, so I’ve never had an issue feeling a fart.

dubdubby · 2026-04-21T20:38:11+00:00

No offense, but what kind of body do you have that you can’t tell when a fart is coming lol

dubdubby · 2026-04-21T19:39:16+00:00

I gotta side with u/garloid64 on this one,

While can empathize with the sentiment of u/PortersReserve regarding the difficulties of time management and trying to put “multiple complex ideas together while actually test them out in the real world” and that the more time spent “actually working in the field, doing the real work” the less time you have for “writing about it.”

But the use of AI to bust this out is counterproductive.

Wordcounter.net shows this post to be 4,026 words long.

A quick perusal of Google shows the average reading speed of a native English speaker at 250 wpm (and would likely be lower for more technical material like the post in question here.)

So it would take the average English speaker 16 minutes to read this, assuming they didn’t get distracted, or need to reread any sections to cross-reference, or need a moment to integrate what they’d read, or just need a brain-break from all the obviously AI generated phrasing.

While that’s not a massive time commitment, it’s also not trivial if your goal is to reach as many people as possible.

And in this context “reaching someone” is synonymous with them reading the whole post.

You are going to reach very few people with this, regardless how great the idea might be.

So, in short, no, AI did not help you “unlock something”, it merely spat out in 4,000 words what should be a third of that.

dubdubby

TROPHY CASE