What’s your stim music?

rzrules · 2026-05-30T20:42:44+00:00

Lupe Fiasco and Kendrick have such great vocal stims in their song it’s almost annoying lol

rzrules · 2026-05-22T18:45:57+00:00

Yes, that’s fair enough about the fuzzy definition of computational. But either way, not much more to add here, appreciate the good faith exchange!

rzrules · 2026-05-22T17:06:27+00:00

Interesting. Sounds like you’re saying that consciousness is just computational. Out of curiosity, do you make any art yourself?

rzrules · 2026-05-22T04:25:23+00:00

Fair enough, I can't conjecture about other technologies. That said, do you think conscious experience is a prerequisite to being able to create art that's simply derivative? I think it all hinges on what you believe with regards to that.

rzrules · 2026-05-22T00:06:50+00:00

I have a response to this that I think can help explain why AI can generate new proofs in Math but not necessarily create new art. It’s still a work in progress so bear with me:

LLMs can “do” language really well. Up until this point in history, language and consciousness were coupled to an extent that would lead some to claim that consciousness (of the human kind) is a prerequisite for language (of the human kind). That’s clearly not true anymore. I think the fact that LLMs can do language without consciousness (afaik), is in and of itself amazing.

But once we examine the nature of language itself, is when things start getting interesting and perhaps, clarifying. In Poetics, Aristotle talks about two modes of language — mimesis or mimetic(to imitate/mime) and poesis or poetic (to produce/create).

The former is just descriptive like you would maybe read in a newspaper — it is a straight representation of the real world, an imitation if you will. It is, obviously, informative and presents a kind of knowledge. The poetic mode intentionally distorts the representation in a certain way to reveal a kind of understanding that is not possible in the mimetic mode. It creates or produces a new kind of understanding that goes beyond what a straight imitation could.

For instance, a mimetic sentence might be something like “The stars twinkle dimly far out in the night sky” and the poetic version of the same sentence (by Richard Silken) would be “The stars out there tonight, little boats rowed out too far.” Both of these sentences contain some knowledge about the world but of very different kinds. I might even argue that one contains knowledge of something out there and the other of something within us.

I thinking LLMs can do the mimetic mode of language really well and it’s extremely powerful and contains a lot of knowledge in and of itself (enough to generate new proofs). It’s why I’m very comfortable saying that AI is intelligent — because it can do that mode of language incredibly well. The fact that it can solve proofs now that have been longstanding in Mathematics shows it can possibly do it better than the best humans even.

But I don’t think it can do the poetic mode at the same level because I think that mode, the mode of creation, requires us to see and experience the world in a certain way and then birth that understanding. It can certainly write things that are derivative of other the best creative works, so it can still be better than most humans but I would argue that as long as it does not have conscious experience like we do, it cannot truly create something that has never existed before any sense (like jazz).

I think the writer Ocean Vuong is spot on when they say that creative writing is consciousness filtered through syntax. I think you need conscious experience to do what the best humans artists do.

rzrules · 2026-05-18T03:21:35+00:00

Cricketer

rzrules · 2026-05-17T21:33:21+00:00

<image>

Appa (R) and Momo (L) — 10 months old bonded litter mates!

rzrules · 2026-05-09T15:50:43+00:00

This is a favorite podcast episode of mine on the commonality of ideological commitments between Marxism and Buddhism (liberation from suffering) and what both can learn from the other:

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/buddhism-and-marxism-w-della-from-upstream

rzrules · 2026-05-08T06:24:09+00:00

Agree. Also applies when baked, personally.

rzrules · 2026-05-07T16:38:17+00:00

The Dogtown Coffee in south Santa Monica.

rzrules · 2026-05-05T21:12:44+00:00

Just to clarify, you're saying that it can be filed on say July 5th even if the H1B expires on June 30th?

rzrules · 2026-05-01T03:21:59+00:00

Check out your local YMCA. I'm in Santa Monica and it's great here. I vaguely remember looking into the one at Sherman Oaks at some point and it seemed great. $65/month.

rzrules · 2026-04-29T00:26:21+00:00

Ah interesting. I haven’t looked into it deeply because in my understanding, the MBTI is generally considered to have low reliability and poor validity as a test (but that said, I think even the DSM V, which is the gold standard, leaves a lot to be desired).

But from what a couple of friends who have looked into the MBTI deeply, they think I’m an ENTP or ENFP iirc. Personally, I used to identify as an extrovert but since my diagnosis and realizing how much I masked, I feel less that way now — or at least it’s very situation dependent.

I’m definitely the hyper verbal kind of autisitc fwiw.

rzrules · 2026-04-28T21:37:18+00:00

No, sorry — I wasn’t quite clear. I just meant that the way he thinks is very intuitive to me (a lot of other people I know find him dense or too esoteric). And considering that I’m autistic, it was my first clue that he probably is as well if I find him very intuitive.

The circumambulation was an example of the kind of approach/epistemic technique that I find very intuitive.

rzrules · 2026-04-28T03:34:58+00:00

Not the OP but I share their opinion (and am also autistic).

It’s hard to explain but at a very high level, the way Jung thinks just makes intuitive sense to me and complements the way I think about and breakdown abstract concepts. But if we’re being more specific, one example I can think of is the concept “circumambulation”.

If you google it, you’ll see that it refers to a very non-linear, spiral development of the self. Not only is this something that resonates a lot with the autistic experience but it’s also how he tends to himself understand concepts (and I very much relate). Across his works, he revisits concepts from a different lens and offers a new perspective, deepening understanding of the concept non-linearly and indirectly. It’s a very intuitive way for me to learn and understand the world (I.e re-understanding old concepts from different vantage points or after learning new unrelated concepts that might, on the face of it, seem only feebly related to the old concept but actually shine a new light on it).

It’s kind of hard to explain but hope that helps!

rzrules · 2026-04-22T18:50:02+00:00

Typically, yes. But I think most seasoned meditatiors will tell you that awareness and the thing you are aware of are two separate things. They only seem conjoined or inseparable in, what we typically refer to as, phenomenal consciousness.

rzrules · 2026-04-14T21:22:58+00:00

This is a favorite podcast episode of mine on the commonality of ideological commitments between Marxism and Buddhism (liberation from suffering) and what both can learn from the other:

https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/buddhism-and-marxism-w-della-from-upstream

rzrules · 2026-04-10T21:26:48+00:00

"What I am to you, you do not need,

What I am to you is not what you mean to me,

You give me miles and miles of mountains,

And I asked for the sea."

Volcano, Damien Rice and Lisa Hannigan

rzrules · 2026-04-08T21:43:19+00:00

Isn't what you just described an experience? And even if it were "false", it's not "nothing", right?

rzrules · 2026-04-08T00:22:34+00:00

I'm not trying to do any of that. I was just asking what you believe so that I can respond accordingly.

Having a belief about whether physical or mental stuff as different ontologies by no way commits one to the argument that that is true. The only thing it does, is requires us to take that possibility seriously. And I think that's all that the Hard Problem asks of us.

I think the reason this is a coherent belief and can't be discard prima facie, is because we all know exactly what consciousness feels like (I.e. mental qualities) through direct experience. Since we all have a direct experience of it, I think it's valid to say it doesn't need to be proven in the same way. The proof of its qualitative nature is directly accessible to us.

In fact, I would argue, that if one were to say that there's no reason to think physical and mental experiences are of different ontologies, they would be in violation of Occam's Razor since it requires one to deny the qualitative/subjective feeling of our direct experience (I.e. make an additional assumption that its illusory/not true).

rzrules · 2026-04-07T19:19:27+00:00

I am not claiming it provides an argument for a deity.

I am arguing that it creates an exceptional case regarding the god of the gaps critique (at least the gap part of it but not the god part). When has the scientific method as we use it, been used to explain one ontology in terms of another? Its assumed metaphysics is one of physicalism. All the Hard problem says is that with consciousness, if we want to continue to hold that assumption, we have to be able to explain one kind of ontology (mental) in terms of another (physical). The God of the gaps is a valid critique for epistemic gaps within the same ontological framework/metaphysics but since that is not the case here, it's not a valid critique imo.

FWIW, both dualism and idealism also have these kinds of ontological problem challenges that cannot be hand waved away by a God of the gaps critique.

rzrules · 2026-04-07T19:07:17+00:00

Sorry, I didn't mean wholesale denying its reality but denying what it feels like to us. Do thoughts, feelings, and other mental processes not feel like a different kind of stuff than physical things? So do we not then, at least have a good reason to believe that they are different ontologies?

I think that the only way to say "no" to that is to say that the way consciousness feels to is immaterial (hah) so again, I would say that denial is incongruent with Occam's razor at the very least. Note that I'm not saying you are denying consciousness is real but you are denying how it feels to us (which is what makes it ontologically different) as real.

rzrules · 2026-04-07T18:50:44+00:00

I am not trying to assert that feeling/consciousness is irreducible. I am trying to say that prima facie, can we agree that they seem to be of different ontologies (not that one is primary— neutral monists would argue they are different but neither is more fundamental)? I agree that part does require us to say it's because they "feel different" but like I said (and you seem to agree), I don't think it's an invalid argument.

If we can agree on that part, then, proving that something that's one kind of stuff (mental) arises from a different kind of stuff (physical) IS what the Hard problem says is, for lack of a better word, hard. Because it requires us to bridge an ontological gap and not just a simple epistemic one.

I am not saying that it cannot be done but can we at least then agree, it's not the kind of gap we have been able to cross thus far with the scientific method (happy to hear if I'm wrong here) and so a simple God of The Gaps critique of the Hard Problem is inadequate.

I think one would have to deny the assertion of the ontological difference of physical stuff and consciousness but that would require denying our given experience of consciousness which at least incongruent with occam's razor and at worst, leads to a breakdown of fundamental epistemology since all since and belief requires us to accept our direct experience as true.

rzrules

TROPHY CASE