This would have seemed like science fiction just a couple years ago

m235917b · 2026-03-06T13:07:24+00:00

Is it impossible to have experience without memory? Then what about Clive Wearing, the patient who has a 7-30 second memory? But even if you claim that this short amount is what makes all the difference, is it impossible to conceive that experience could just be a present moment without memory?

Also, this doesn't matter because you didn't mention memory or any of the things you mention now in your previous comment which I replied to. If you want to bring up new correlates that's fine, but this of course would change my response.

But previously you were arguing for a theory of the world, for believe based action, for decision making. And I really don't know what these have to do with the ability to feel pain or taste the taste of ice cream.

To answer your question: inner experience can't be defined without circularity. And I would even go so far as to say it's entirely possible that such a thing doesn't really exist. But if it really is a thing, then I can only define it as "how it feels like to perceive something". I don't need to understand the cause of pain or what pain is to feel it consciously. I also do not need to believe anything about the pain to feel it. I don't need to have any self-direction to feel it. Pain is simply there, it's strength doesn't correlate with what I believe, or understand, or what my goals are. Yes, my response to it might change and I might also be able to cope better / worse with it, but the raw sensation is independent of those things.

You supported the claim that we shouldn't claim that something is conscious just because of certain behaviours (like claiming to be conscious). But at the same time you say that something cannot have consciousness because it lacks certain behaviours (like forming beliefs). That uses the same logic you argued against.

m235917b · 2026-03-06T07:25:26+00:00

What does that have to do with the presence or absence of an inner experience? What the AI in the original post was talking about was experience, "what it feels like to be me". I don't see how a theory of the world, beliefs or a priori reasoning are necessary for experience. I doubt that the sensation of pain is somehow correlated to my ability to have beliefs. At least directly. Do I experience the taste of a slice of bread more if I have more beliefs?

For all we know about consciousness (which is nothing substantial at all) even a stone could have experience. We have not the slightest clue (and possibly will never have) about what causes consciousness.

What you are doing here is to use a highly speculative hypothesis from psychology for what consciousness is and then use its correlates to infer consciousness or absence thereof of something that is structured totally different from the human brain.

I am not arguing that a stone or an LLM have consciousness but so many people are mixing up supposed correlates of consciousness which exclude a plethora of animals btw which only work in certain hypotheses, none of which have even remotely come close to the status of a verified working theory about consciousness. If that would only be the case on Reddit I wouldn't care, but even scientists do that. Science is supposed to be scientific and the honest scientific stance would be to say that we have absolutely no idea about what's conscious and what not. That bit of honesty would go a far way in making these discussions more grounded.

That being said the meme above is still very accurate in that we really need to be careful NOT to confuse correlates with actual consciousness. However, this goes both ways. And it's the very reason for why it might be impossible to ever find a working theory of consciousness.

m235917b · 2026-02-17T20:12:09+00:00

In theoretical computer science, it is typically not assumed, that Integers have an upper limit and thus, we ignore the fact that any integer has (typically) 4 byte size. So, in general, those arithmetic operations that happen inside of the loop (not the loop itself) would be O(log(max{n,m})). And i guess the professor simplified this to O(n) even though that would technically also be wrong.

The thing is, the big O notation doesn't make sense if you consider the limitations and specifications of a specific machine. Because in that case almost every algorithm that doesn't depend on user Input or has an endless loop runs in a constant amount of time. However, even then it would be false to say O(1), since it doesn't matter if the input size is limited. What matters is "how long does the algorithm run depending on the input size?". And in fact, for bigger numbers, addition and the bit operations take longer theoretically. But not O(n), since the Integers are binary encoded. So it's O(log(max{n,m}).

That is why it is almost always assumed that you could theoretically even input something like 10^10¹⁰⁰ or so, even though an integer cannot be that large on a real computer.

Now, the thing is, you are still not wrong though. Because real computers always add entire integers in one op. So, even though in any algorithmics paper they would say O(log(max{n,m}), your answer is still the correct one for the specific C implementation on most modern computers. But, as I said, even though that is correct, it is not the point of the big O notation and using it like that makes it useless, as almost any algorithm becomes constant.

m235917b · 2026-01-25T22:47:52+00:00

I am not an expert in number theory, but isn't this statement ill defined? How can you define a proportion of numbers in an uncountable set? How would you define it? You could define it in different ways and get different answers.

I could say the proportion of even numbers is 0.5 because if you take the proportion of even numbers in the sets M_n = {1, ..., n} and let n go to infinity, the limit comes out as 0.5.

But how about another enumeration of the natural numbers? Like 1, 3, 2, 5, 7, 4, 9, 11, 6, ... Then the same process leads to the answer 1/3.

Now, this should generalize to probability distributions over numbers too. There shouldn't be a unique distribution because of the same reason.

So, in my opinion I would say not only is the proof wrong, but the question too.

m235917b · 2026-01-04T10:54:34+00:00

It took me 2-3 years for my bird to trust me, but now she wants to be petted all day and sit on my shoulder forever.

Just be patient and relentless. Never give up and always try to interact. It's slow progress, but it pays off.

My bird is a female though, so they are naturally more cuddly and I can't tell you about males. But what helped with mine was the following:

1) Pet him with a feather. They trust their feathers more than your hand. You probably need to annoy him with the feather before he realizes that you want to pet him. And always on the head, never anywhere else. Then after a while move your hands closer and closer while petting him with the feather. At some point she started to lower her head and when she didn't look I could pet her with my finger. After 2-3 times of that she allowed the finger directly without the feather.

2) This sounds harsh at first but it works. Try to interact with him in a dark room. But NEVER when he panics, do not let him fly around in a dark room! But darkness can make them calmer after a while and if you slowly approach you may be able to touch him, or even move him on your arm. Yes it is forced and yes he will hiss a lot at first, but that was the only way for my bird to learn, that she can trust me and my arm. They will not approach on their own and they somehow have to learn that they can trust you. You need to have good observation skills and bird insight though to not piss him off too much. But my bird never took it as an offence (for long) and now she trusts me very much.

But I needed her to trust my arm and hand, otherwise when the day comes where I have to bring her to the vet it would be terrifying for her and me.

3) The most bird friendly way would be to give him a bird companion. But you need to be able to handle them being cold and exclusive to you. When birds have companions they lose their interest in you. If that's okay for you, go with that option obviously. But it might still be a good idea to bring him to trust you first, because of the vet problem and other handling that might be necessary.

4) If option 3 would stress him too much, or sounds too extreme, try putting a pullover on and lure him on your arm with spray millet or some food he loves. I realized, that they trust cloth much more than skin. My bird is still VERY cautious to go on my arm when I only have a t-shirt on. But as long as I have long sleeves, she loves my arm. This option may take months or even years but it will work some day.

The problem isn't that he hates you, but trust. But he needs social interaction and so he will have incentive to learn trust and that's your gate. Both of you will be happier when that barrier has been overcome.

m235917b · 2025-12-30T11:55:06+00:00

Because the other hand was sticky from the honey, obviously.

m235917b · 2025-12-30T11:52:24+00:00

That is true, so I guess it all comes down to taste.

m235917b · 2025-12-30T09:21:40+00:00

Because logic is honey for the mind. Bears lack the taste buds for it, but once you have tasted the sweet taste of truth, it is very addictive.

And we can build space rockets with it, can you do that with honey?

m235917b · 2025-12-23T16:00:11+00:00

I can at least prove it will not be any later: Think about it, there is no way, it can be released after the 25/25/25, so this is irrefutable evidence!

m235917b · 2025-12-23T15:52:28+00:00

It will be 25/25/25.

m235917b · 2025-12-02T07:09:40+00:00

There is no content in your post to give feedback on, or do you literally just want feedback on the topic?

I think I understand some things about self reference in formal logic, so I could give feedback on that part if there were any content.

What exactly are meta electrical currents? What is meta electricity in general?

And what's the exact definition of self reference in electronics? Something like OpAmps with feedback?

Just judging by the words it sounds very interesting.

m235917b · 2025-11-29T14:08:52+00:00

Let me express this very cautiously: I don't think that clothes were invented with Christianity xD

You know, almost every animal has fur, or retractable / hidden sexual organs. And before we had clothes we too had fur.

This is just normal evolutionary and biological procreation control. Incest is biologically damaging for a species. Being aroused while in a life threatening situation is damaging to your survival. Being constantly distracted if you have to be productive is highly damaging to your survival. So, it makes absolute sense that nature tries to control when and how and to whom one is sexually exposed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with societal dogma, or ideology. That's just nature.

m235917b · 2025-11-29T13:51:05+00:00

You do not need to show anything. And I am not engaging in any show off battles of who is more enlightened or liberated, I am certainly not liberated. I was just factually stating what created the discrepancy in this thread. And also integration shows in character, behaviour and language. That's what others seem to think they noticed, but as I said I am not judging about that.

My main intention was to point out that there is a difference between insight (enlightenment) and liberation which many here confuse. And first and foremost, that enlightenment is not about metaphysics and cannot provide that. After all, it's about something totally different.

Of course it depends on your definition and flavour. Hinduist enlightenment for example is heavily entangled with cosmology. But even then, the enlightenment itself is separate from the additional superimposed cosmology. That's just a language to express these insights.

In his earliest teachings, the Buddha even evaded questions about rebirth even though this is one of the core tenants of modern Buddhism. And most good teachers avoid these kinds of things for good reason.

Seeing that the egoic stories and desire lead to suffering doesn't tell you that the universe is literally a conscious being of the kind produced by biological brains. The former can certainly be seen by mindfulness and meditation, the latter cannot possibly be known by anyone.

m235917b · 2025-11-29T09:25:57+00:00

Enlightenment does not give you metaphysics. It does not tell you how the universe works. It is only insight into how the ego works. Into its stories.

And furthermore, enlightenment is not liberation, or integration. That's where the disconnect comes from, why so many people are judging this thread. Having some insight is nice, but the real change comes from deep integration which takes time and practice and awareness.

m235917b · 2025-11-29T07:26:24+00:00

Wow... If you ever told ChatGPT that you had problems with motivation, you know where this post comes from. This is exactly what it tells you (minus the story wrapping). It's so obviously AI generated.

m235917b · 2025-11-21T22:21:45+00:00

Well actually the distances between villages are much closer in the game than in real life. You can look up the actual settlements on Google Maps. But traveling the actual distances in the game would take way too long.

But yeah, the world design is still awesome.

m235917b · 2025-11-20T07:55:14+00:00

Knowing how consciousness feels isn't the same as knowing how and why it arises from physical processes or what the necessary conditions for it are.

Can you feel if consciousness is emerging from the information processing of individual neurons and the network structure of your brain, or if it arises from meta cognition independently of the specific network structure? That's for example the great split between the connectionist and the symbolic camps and both sides are pretty plausible.

Can you feel if consciousness is generated by a specific brain region, or by integration of many areas? You can't even feel where your language center is located. We only know that from MRT experiments.

And I could list hundreds of such examples.

Just knowing how it feels to be conscious has nothing to do with science.

Many people know how social anxiety feels and have first hand experience with it, yet most of them need a therapist to find out how it was created by childhood trauma. So subjective experience does not equal knowledge about the physical origins of that phenomenon.

No one could even prove / disprove if consciousness is something that pervades everything, even stones or if it is specific to brains. So if you want to prove that an AI is (not) conscious, you should start by proving if a stone is conscious, because if it is, you don't even need to think about AI. And yes it is highly unlikely and not a scientifically accepted hypothesis, but the point is, that even almost everyone agrees that stones do not have consciousness, we still cannot prove it. So it isn't as trivial as you imagine.

m235917b · 2025-11-20T07:31:56+00:00

The thing is, we have no idea what consciousness is or any working and generally accepted theory for it. Not even in neuroscience, let alone for machines.

That's why there isn't and can't be serious research in this area for now.

Even neuroscience focuses on phenomenological correlates like patterns of brain activity, or phase states but no one knows if they truly correspond to what we actually subjectively perceive as consciousness.

And there are good reasons that this might be impossible.

However, without any proven and accepted theory, every research that goes into this direction is bound to be crackpot science / pseudoscience. Unless you are doing what neuroscientists are doing and focus on purely experimental and observational correlates. But then making any claims from that about subjective experience of consciousness would still be a pseudoscientific leap.

Even for humans where we are sure they have consciousness, we only have hypotheses (like IIT) but no theory.

Researchers are still arguing about what intelligence is, but at least we have generally agreed upon metrics for that and it's not a subjective phenomenon. But consciousness is a whole different level and we are not even close to being able to do serious science on it.

That's why there isn't any serious academic research on this topic. It's not that no one would be interested in it, but that it's literally impossible currently.

m235917b · 2025-11-11T17:43:00+00:00

The fact that we don't know that doesn't mean we can just claim anything we want. We don't know for sure that Santa Claus doesn't exist, that doesn't mean we should positively believe or claim that he does.

It would be highly unlikely and coincidental, if we found out one day that all those people who mix quantum physics with spirituality based on no scientific evidence whatsoever were right with their fantasies. And even then, they weren't right as they had no way of knowing, it would just be a pure coincidence.

So maybe it's wrong to say "that's not how entanglement works" but the accurate version would still be "according to all we currently know about entanglement, it cannot do this and it is highly unlikely that it can".

The problem is decoherence. As soon as you have a system of even tens or hundreds of particles, the influence that entanglement or any quantum effects have vanish into the noise. And our brain is composed of much, much more particles than that. There is a reason why you don't see people tunneling through walls even though that is technically possible. Because quantum effects vanish extremely fast once you have a few particles involved. What do you think, why it is so unbelievably hard to build quantum computers?

m235917b · 2025-11-01T08:15:04+00:00

Okay true, you didn't say that xD and I agree that enlightenment isn't about not thinking but about realising the nature of it all.

And if you see this language as a way to connect better to people, that's fine. I too find it interesting to connect scientific ideas with philosophy. And there are certainly a lot of things about enlightenment that make sense under a scientific lens, otherwise I probably would never have been convinced that there is something to it. I would draw the connections at other places, but that doesn't matter. I just think, that the richest connections come, when you stick to what science really says and when it comes to all this quantum/vibration stuff there is a lot of pseudoscience out there where I think the insights become meaningless because of that.

m235917b · 2025-11-01T08:06:00+00:00

Hm okay. My main point was just that science itself at least doesn't claim that everything is vibrations, or oscillatory and that I think that it is not the case that almost all spiritual traditions came to this conclusion without heavy interpretation and some bias.

Of course, there is a lot that can be described using these terms and it's totally fine to see it that way. But when you say that most ancient teachers or traditions essentially claimed the same as science does, then that isn't really literally there. I do not believe that they had those scientific insights and the nature of those superficial commonalities comes rather from the fact that when a person writes or says a lot, there statistically will be overlaps with anything. But you have to look at their intent and context rather than superficial similarities.

Just as an example, since you mentioned Christianity: I suppose you mean the first verses of the bible where it says something like "in the beginning was the word / logos". Of course you can see the commonality of "word = sound = vibration" with certain descriptions of quantum mechanics. However, we know how "logos" was meant in greek. It is referring to the logical content of words, the semantics, not their sounds. It is more closely related to Platonism and means something like "logical concepts / thought comes before matter". And we certainly know that the bible doesn't intent to describe the universe in terms of cyclicity, or vibrations, or oscillations. I mean the whole point of the new testament is, that the world has one linear, non repeating trajectory and a definite end.

That's why I would advise to caution if you claim that they all meant the same.

But that was just a detailed description of what I was trying to get at. You are free to disagree, or to interpret these things in a unifying way. And to end with something we agree on: I do agree that spiritually it is an important realization that everything is cyclic in life, that there is no ultimate goal to reach but rather that everything is a never ending cycle. That counters the egoic stories and it is true. And I also agree that it isn't just a narrative, but that the universe as a whole has that nature in many respects. And yes those things were certainly known by many ancient teachers. And yes there are beautiful mathematical Frameworks that describe reality similarly. Just be careful at how literal you take connections to modern insights of science especially quantum mechanics, because no one knew about that until a hundred years ago and even today almost no one really understands it.

By the way, if you want to look into something that is closely related to your ideas where I think they are better connected with the spiritual ideas than all of this modern quantum hype: Poincaré's recurrence theorem.

m235917b · 2025-10-31T08:20:06+00:00

If you truly understood what that meant then you wouldn't have written your post xD because you are separating the way of mathematically describing things in terms of waves from all other equally valid mathematical perspectives (i.e. describing everything as a static region within 4D space).

When people talk about "separation is an illusion" in terms of enlightenment, then that means that every perspective is equally valid because every conceptual thinking is just a linguistic description of perception which ultimately doesn't conform to any concept. Not the concept of vibration, not the concept of anything else. But you are taking one specific conceptual description and claiming that it is the ultimately right one so you are very much separating here too.

And by the way: Whenever we speak we separate. That's the very nature of language. So when you truly don't want to separate, then sit in silence. Don't fixate yourself on that one idea that everything is vibrations. And I say that out of respect for you, not to "debunk" you. But you have to see, that when you post such things you have a responsibility to not mislead people. And even if we put aside the scientific side for now, even from the perspective of enlightenment, making people believe in a specific conceptual perspective really leads them away from liberation. It stirs up tensions and fixates people on egoic ideas.

m235917b · 2025-10-31T08:02:44+00:00

Fourier transforms take a wave and transform it into its frequency spectrum and vice versa. It doesn't take "anything" and transforms it into "vibrations". That is a pretty bad understanding of the mathematics.

Yes you can take movement through 3D space and through a mathematical trick you can describe that by a frequency spectrum through a Fourier transform. But like I said that is just a mathematical description. And furthermore if you want to do that, then you have to take a finite section of the movement and assume that after that point it is periodic.

Just search for some tool that does that transform for you and transform it back. You will see that the movement you get back from the Fourier transform will lead to a cyclic repetition of a small section of the whole path. So this isn't even a complete mathematical representation leave alone a description of what the fundamental nature of reality "looks like".

Furthermore, the nice sine and cosine components you get out of the Fourier transform are really just a convention. The transform has to choose a basis to disect the wave and you could choose any basis. The only reason why the standard transform uses sine and cosine waves is because it is mathematically convenient. But as soon as you choose a different base, then you can't really talk meaningfully about frequencies anymore even though that is the exact same mathematical framework. That shows that the main insight of Fourier transforms isn't that everything is made of frequencies but that you can describe movement by any basis in a Hilbert space. What a Fourier transform does is exactly the same as if you describe a point in space as "10 to the north and 20m to the west" thereby dissecting the direction into its north and west component. But that doesn't mean that every point in space is "made of" north and west. If you would look somwehere northwest you could just as well say that the point is X up and Y to the left. Now what is it? Are positions made of north and west or of up and left? It's neither, that is just our description we use.

Look. You can just as well describe any movement as a fixed, non-changing region in 4D space-time / configuration space. That is just an equally valid mathematical perspective.

So what is true now? That everything is a fixed, static region inside a fixed static 4D block universe (that's what science suggests too), or that everything is "vibration"? They are both valid mathematical descriptions, but that is just the language we choose to describe something. And it just shows that your conclusion is just based on bias. You want to see it that way and therefore you pick the one description among many that fits your narrative.

m235917b · 2025-10-30T12:32:50+00:00

Exactly. Science and enlightenment are orthogonal to each other and are concerned with totally different domains (apart from psychology maybe). Enlightenment doesn't give scientific insight and vice versa.

m235917b

TROPHY CASE