The Supreme Court gave the office of the president full immunity for discharging duties of the office.

You’re distrust of AI hype is fine, but you’re missing the point. OP said AI makes it simple to compile dossiers on everyone, meaning it’s now far less labor intensive to take all of the data being gathered by SIGINT and turn it into reports. The amount of labor required to build 10M dossiers on mostly impotent randos makes it completely unfeasible, but with generative AI being able to quickly summarize a dataset, suddenly we can have shitty, somewhat lossy dossiers on every moron shitposter.

It’s not really valid to conflate Irish-Americans with the Irish - they are materially different. We’re not eugenicists here.

There is nothing we can say to one another that would prove that one model or the other is the correct one. I understand your position, and you understand mine. We also understand our point of disagreement. Therefore, I don’t think much else can be said here.

I disagree, but I respect your desire to disengage. I will not ask you further questions, but I will say these last few things to clarify my position, because I do not think you understand my position at all nor that you understand our point of disagreement. I have not seen any evidence in your writing that supports this claim.

Dark energy and dark matter aren’t proven things.

Dark energy and dark matter are words we apply to a specific problem in our current model of the universe. Specifically, there is more observable gravity in the universe than the matter we can account for. That excess gravity is represented by “dark matter”, that is to say, we believe that the gravity is caused by matter, but we have no idea what matter because we’ve never observed it. We have observed the gravity, however, and 85% of the measured gravity is unaccounted for in all of the measured matter. As deGrasse Tyson says, Dark Matter is a misnomer, because it implies the gravity is caused by matter, when in actuality, we have absolute no idea what is causing the gravity. Dark Energy is the name we give to whatever is driving cosmic expansion, because again, when we take all of our observations, everything we believe exists accounts for only 4% of the behavior we observe. Call that Dark Matter and Dark Energy, or don’t. It’s just a symbol representing a real true fact about what we know we don’t know.

On the one hand you dismiss science and on the other hand you use scientific theories as the basis for dismissing it. That’s actual circular logic.

That’s not circular logic. That’s reductio ad absurdum. I don’t dismiss science. I dismiss unscientific dogmatic behavior, like ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the assumptions and begging the question. I’m a big fan of science, which is why I use science’s own self-criticism as well as the criticism from the philosophy of science to work with it. This is the root of your confusion about my position - I am not anti-science and I still critique it.

I assume that all things must be physical because there is zero evidence for anything that’s not physical

Any possible evidence for non-physical things would, by the definition of philosophical materialism, make those things physical. It’s not an evidence-based position. Philosophical materialism holds axiomatically that matter is the fundamental substance of nature. It is common that people don’t understand this and instead believe that philosophical materialism was arrived at through scientific inquiry. It was not. Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary, but you can also use the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

Unless somebody can actually demonstrate a thing that we have observed experimentally that does not have a physical basis in material reality there is zero reason to assume otherwise.

I described this happening in scientific history with the discovery of the EMF. There was a time before knowledge of the EMF where observations didn’t fit the model of the universe at the time. That means that, at the time, we experimentally observed something that did not have a basis in the consensus material reality. Then, we discovered entirely new physics and were able to explain the observations but in doing so had to expand the definition of physical to include electro-magnetic phenomena. So, it started as outside of physics and then physics expanded to include it. I posit that, likewise, given how little we know about the universe, that it is more likely we will discover new physics than it is that everything about consciousness can be explained with current physics. Again, remember that 99% of the matter in the universe is neither solid, liquid, nor gas and that over 95% of the observable phenomena in the universe is completely unaccounted for in our current physics.

All you’re doing is starting from a different assumption that has no basis, and then dismissing my assumption without presenting any actual evidence for your own position.

I have presented evidence:

1. The experimental observations of the universe that show the gap between what we know and what we don’t know, gaps we call “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
2. Previous expansions of the ontology of physics resulting in a massive multiplication of possible explanations for phenomena.
3. Eons of first-hand reports of experiences not explainable by current physics from all cultures, in all eras, in all locales.

Again, however, I am not arguing against philosophical materialism with evidence because philosophical materialism is an axiomatic assertion and not something arrived at by evidence. I am instead arguing against your assertion that consciousness is explainable by current physics on your purported basis that this is the only possible explanation for all possible phenomena. You will no doubt accept expansions of physics as just more physics, but you will not accept that current observed phenomena may require such an expansion and in fact denigrate such a possibility as magical/supernatural/unrigorous.

And finally:

I encourage you consider that Marxism is fundamentally a materialist ideology.

I have wrestled with this. The literature is quite clear that Marxist materialism and philosophical materialism are separate and distinct concepts with confusingly similar names. Marxist materialism is an Ethical position (not to be confused with a moral position) that states that the only things Marxism chooses to concern itself with are things that have causal relationships. Marx and Engels had debates on this topic, specifically with Engels attempting to pin down the nature of the Universe and Marx stating quite clearly that it doesn’t matter what’s happening metaphysically, all that matters is how it works to produce society. As Marx said, nature is “relevant to dialectic only when there is an implied reference to the way in which it conditions social and historical activity”. Marxism makes no metaphysical claims, only claims on what ought (ethics) to be the focus of analysis and intervention.

Marxist materialism stands in opposition to idealist conceptions of society that posit non-causal relationships as explanations for why things are the way they are. These include things like suffering is the result of failing to live up to an ideal model of morality instead of part of a direct causal chain of social elements. Marxism doesn’t have any opinion on whether magical spirits and angels and demons inhabit mystical bubbles in dimensions beyond our own, but it does have an opinion on when it would be appropriate to make them subjects of analysis and intervention - that is to say, only when such things have a causal linkage with social and historical activity.

Do not confuse Dialetical and Historical Materialism with Philosophical Materialism. They are fundamentally different despite sharing a name.

We’re talking past each other.

I asked:

What aspects of recursion lend themselves to consciousness?

and you replied:

I think there is a clear evolutionary reason why the mind would simulate itself

Which doesn’t answer the question at all. If you believe consciousness is not fundamental but rather emergent, you will need to explain your reasoning. There are plenty of examples of recursion that you would not classify as conscious and there are plenty of things that have evolutionary reasons for being that you would not associate with consciousness. You are making a leap here without explanation.

I think Hofstadter makes a pretty good case for the whole recursive loop being the source of consciousness in I Am a Strange Loop. At least, I found his arguments convincing and in line with my understanding of how this process might work.

I am not intimately familiar with Hofstadter’s work, but my understanding is that he is doing speculative and descriptive reasoning from the base premise that matter is inanimate and that consciousness is animate and that somehow consciousness arises from inanimate matter. That is his starting point. He assumes, axiomatically, materialist reductionism. This is the starting point of nearly all the concepts you’ve drawn from in your response.

You said:

Our brains construct models of the world that they are themselves a part of. […] These constructs form the basis for the patterns of thought that underpin our conscious experience.

I said:

There is no argument that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience that isn’t inherently circular.

And you replied with:

I think patterns of thought arise in response to inputs into the neural network that originate both from within and without. The whole point of thinking is to create a simulation space where the mind can extrapolate future states and come up with actions that can bring the organism back into homeostasis. The brain receives chemical signals from the body indicating an imbalance, these are interpreted as hunger, anger, and, so on, and then the brain formulates a plan of action to address these signals. Natural selection honed this process over millions of years.

Which is literally an axiomatic statement - you assume that patterns of thought underpin our consciousness and then argue to conclude that patterns of thought underpin our consciousness. You are begging the question.

how is this fundamentally different from electrochemical signals being passed within the neural network of the brain? Voltage differentials are a direct counterpart to our own neural signalling

Good question! The answer is that neurons are not analogous to transistors because 1) they encode information through frequency not voltage, 2) frequency is mediated not only by the neuron’s “purpose” but also by environmental factors that co-develop alongside the neuron, 3) neuron’s are changed by virtue of their own activity and 4) neuron’s are changed by virtue of the activity of other neurons and other environmental factors.

I said:

If we reduce everything to the pure math of computation, then you are correct, but you are correct inside an artificial self-referential symbolic system (the mathematics of boolean logic), which is to say extremely and deleteriously reductionist .

You said:

I don’t see what you mean here to be honest. The patterns occurring within the brain can be expressed in mathematical terms. There’s nothing reductionist here. The physical substrate these patterns are expressed in is not the important part.

Mathematics is a form of linguistics. Any given system of mathematics is a system of symbols created to represent concepts. A given system of mathematics comprises a vocabulary, definition, postulates, and theorems. Any system of mathematics is inherently a self-referential system of symbols and therefore inherently reductionist, in that anything that cannot be represented by that systems is not only discarded but also not nameable or identifiable.

I said:

The only way we get to your conclusion is through the circular reasoning of materialist reductionism - the assertion that only physical matter exists and therefore that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the physical matter that we have knowledge off. It begs the question.

You said:

I don’t believe in magic or supernatural, and outside that one has to reject body mind dualism. The physical reality is all there is, therefore the mental realm can only stem from physical interactions of matter and energy.

But you missed the key point, which is that material reductionists do not merely posit that physical reality is all there is, but also that everything we observe today can be explained by the ontology we have today. It is entirely possible that physical reality has far more components to it than that which we are of today. In fact, the scientific consensus is that what we have posited in our ontology today only accounts for 3% of observable phenomena. I’ll get to that later.

You said:

I fundamentally reject mysticism.

This position is almost exclusively the position of Western dominance. Not a single culture outside of Western European culture took this position when encountering other cultures, ways of knowing, and systems of thought. It is only Western imperialism that fundamentally rejects mysticism. I encourage you to examine that.

All these human experiences are perfectly explained in terms of the brain simulating events that create an internal experience.

They aren’t perfectly explained at all. The only way to assert this is ultimately to beg the question. You assume that’s what consciousness is, therefore assert that it’s perfectly explainable as what you assume. This is why material reductionism is fundamentally circular. Nowhere else do we create identity relationships between things so fundamentally different as “patterns of electrical impulses” and “subjective experience”.

I said:

[Our current] model accounts for about 3% of reality in so far as we can tell

You said:

This statement is an incredible leap of logic. […] we very much do know what’s directly observable around us, and how our immediate environment behaves. We’re able to model that with an incredible degree of accuracy.

Which misses the point entirely. Dark energy and dark matter, combined, make up 97% of the universe. Which is just an arrogant way of saying we know that we have no idea what 97% of the universe is. Dark matter and dark energy are not things, they are names given to the gaps between our observations. The observable behavior of the universe only makes sense when we posit the existence of so much additional stuff that literally dwarfs what we currently think we know. And the history of scientific discovery has shown us that as we discover more, we open up entirely new dimensions of observation. It’s entirely possible that in the process of making it to 5% known known we end up discovering some previous unknown unknown and expanding the whole scope even further. What we have discovered is so minuscule compared to what we know we have left to discover that it is the height of dogmatic faith to champion the idea that consciousness can only possibly come from the 3% of the (assumed) scope of the universe that we have worked with so far.

Finally, you end with:

There is absolutely nothing circular in my reasoning. What I said is that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience because the brain uses its own outputs as inputs along with the inputs from the rest of the environment, and this creates a recursive loop of the observer modelling itself within the environment and creating a resonance of patterns.

But you have no actual argument for this other than the following:

1. Assume that all things must be physical.
2. Define physical as all things that we have discovered and will ever discover.
3. Assume that the gap between what we know and what we will know in the future is vanishingly small and does not represent new physics.

By definition, literally every phenomenon is the result of physical interactions of matter and energy and there’s no argument to make at all. I am arguing that 3 is a faulty premise. The evidence we have is that the gap between what we know and what we will know is massive. Our known unknowns represent a body of knowledge 3000% larger than our known knowns. Our history of science has shown that our unknown unknowns are capable of being 1,000,000% larger than our total knowledge to date. It is more likely that we will discover new physics than that consciousness is explainable in our current physics, just from a pure statistical standpoint.

If Zelensky is so committed to fighting Russia, why does he have units in Africa?

The recursive nature of the mind creating a model of itself in order to reason about itself is very likely what we perceive as consciousness.

This is such a massive leap, though. Don’t you see that? Why is it very likely? What effects the probability? What aspects of recursion lend themselves to consciousness? Where have we seen analogs elsewhere that provide evidence for your probabilistic claim? What aspects of the nature of models lend themselves to consciousness? Same questions.

These constructs form the basis for the patterns of thought that underpin our conscious experience

Again, a significant ontological leap. As Hume would say, at best you have constant conjunction. There is no argument that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience that isn’t inherently circular.

The same concept is mirrored in the realm of computing. The physical complexity of transistors within a silicon chip plays no direct role in the functioning of programs that it executes.

This is an entirely inappropriate analogy. The physical complexity of transistors is physically connected, contiguously, with voltage differentials. The functioning of a program is entirely expressed in the physical world through voltage differentials. The very idea of a program or the execution thereof is a metaphor we use to reason about our tools but do not bear on the reality of the physics. Voltage differentials define everything about contemporary silicon-based binary microcomputers.

the underlying technology can vary dramatically while still supporting identical computing environments

Only if we limit ourselves severely. Underlying technology varying greatly has a severe impact on what sorts of I/O operations are possible. If we reduce everything to the pure math of computation, then you are correct, but you are correct inside an artificial self-referential symbolic system (the mathematics of boolean logic), which is to say extremely and deleteriously reductionist .

it’s a process arising from the dynamic patterns formed by the flow of electrochemical impulses across synapses. These patterns, emergent properties of the system as a whole, are what gives rise to our thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

Again, incredibly strong claim that lacks sufficient evidence. We’ve been working on this problem for a very long time. The only way we get to your conclusion is through the circular reasoning of materialist reductionism - the assertion that only physical matter exists and therefore that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the physical matter that we have knowledge off. It begs the question.

These processes, much like the laws of physics or mathematics, can be described using a formal set of rules. Therefore, the essence of our minds lies in the algorithms that govern their operation as opposed to the biological machinery of the brain. Several lines of evidence support this proposition.

Again, I think this is entirely reductionist and human experience has plenty of evidence that runs counter to this, from mystical experiences to psychedelics to NDEs, there is sufficient evidence that is counter to that theory.

In physics, when we have such evidence, we work to figure out what’s wrong with the model or with our instruments. But in pop psychology, AI, and Western philosophy of mind, we instead throw out all the evidence in favor of the dominant narrative of the academy.

Scientific history shows us we’re wrong. Scientific consensus today shows us we’re wrong.

Before we understood the EMF, we relied on all the data our senses could gather and as a Western scientific community, that was considered 100% of what was real. We discarded all the experiences of other people that we could not experience ourselves. Then, we discovered the EMF and realized that literally everything in our entire Western philosophy of science accounted for less than 0.000001% of reality.

Today, we have a model of the universe based on everything Western science has achieved in the last 600 years or so. That model accounts for about 3% of reality in so far as we can tell. That is to say, if we take everything we know, and everything we know we don’t know, what we know we know makes up 3% of what we know, and what we know we don’t know makes up about 97% of what we know. And then we have to contend with the unknown unknown, which is immeasurable.

To assume that this particularly pernicious area of inquiry has any solution that is more or less likely than any other solution is to ignore the history and present state of science.

However, even more to the point, the bioware plays a massively important part that digital substrates simply cannot mimic, and that’s the fact that we’re not talking about voltage differentials in binary states representing boolean logic, but rather continuums mediated by a massively complex distributed chemical system comprising myriad biologics, some that aren’t even our own genetics. Our gut microbiota have a massive effect on our cognition. Each organ has major roles to play in our congition. From a neurological perspective, we are only just scratching the surface on how things work at all, let alone the problem of consciousness.

Therefore, the specific biology of the brain isn’t essential for cognition; what truly matters is the system’s ability to express computational patterns, regardless of its underlying mechanics.

This is the clearest expression of circular reasoning in your writing. I encourage you to examine your position and your basis for it meticulously. In essence you have said:

1. patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience
2. neurons are merely conduits for information, creating the patterns and rhythms that constitute our mental lives
3. any system capable of performing a certain set of basic logical operations can simulate any other computational process
4. Therefore, patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience

What are your thoughts on American and British reporting on China?

Wow. Immediately going to the myth of laziness right from the get go.

You’re wrapped in arrogance armor, placed there by propagandists. It makes you feel well intentioned, principled, correct, and most importantly, educated. The problem is that the propagandists ensured you were ignorant and dogmatic. Now you have the terrible curse of being ignorant and dogmatic but believing you’re knowledgeable and principled.

Just study more history. Read the people that you’re scared of like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Just read more and seek after knowledge that contradicts your upbringing. Most Western communists were raised on the same propaganda you were. We all managed to defeat our training by learning more about what’s really been happening for the last 500 years and unlearning the lies we were raised with.

You can do it, too.

The idea that consciousness emerges as a functional overlay of the physical neurons is not settled science, let alone settled philosophy. It is just as likely, or perhaps more likely, that there are physical phenomena that we have yet to discover that explain consciousness in terms of a field such that emergence is unnecessary.

Further, the artificial substrates that we are designing are deeply inferior to biologics and it is far more likely that we will create biological substrates to replace our contemporary silicon substrates. It is generally understood (outside of European psychology) that it is preferable to participate in circular systems than it is to attempt to transcend them. Biological technology will take advantage of abundant resources and be infinitely recyclable, as opposed to the current mineral-based technologies that require mass destruction, are significantly non-recyclable, and have no world-scale ecosystems available to integrate with.

You should research Name.Space and Paul Garrin. He pioneered a lot of thinking around decentralized DNS and he was actually the guy that sued Network Solutions for anti-trust violations. Sadly it ended up creating ICANN. But he’s a very interesting dude

Well, at least we know where the Democrats’ priorities are.

Foreign policy: Escalation of global war.
Domestic policy: thoughts and prayers

Have we gotten any confirmation that DPRK forces are in Ukraine?

No, that belief is just a coping strategy. You haven’t studied history enough. England dominated over 80% of the world’s population at it’s height. The USA broke from England over economics, primarily the crown’s intention to reform or end slavery and the crown’s restraining the colonial genocide machine from killing everyone on the continent. For almost 700 years white, European society has been traveling around the world raping, torturing, enslaving, extracting, and exploiting all of the world’s people. Every story the white European society tells about some evil doer elsewhere is primarily propaganda (true or not) to justify its continued vile dominance.

There is no future for human society that doesn’t involve dismantling everything the Europeans built on the backs of the global majority. Every current and former colony, every economic system, every legal system, every social institution, every religion - it all needs to be dismantled and rebuilt by the world’s people in accordance with the needs of those people. There is only one empire and it traces its history all the way back to Rome. It must be ended. Anyone who pretends otherwise is an apologist.

The silliest point would be to die of old age and have Vance take over, now without limits. But the broader point would be setting the conditions for a future evolution of the program.

Wow, this presidency might actually be the next phase. I predict that he will attempt to convince Congress to remove term limits from the presidency.

Yes, they are mapping human networks because humans are the weakest link in any security. Once you know who’s talking with whom, when, where, and how frequently, you can essentially get anything you need by finding the weakest links and exploiting them.

Your own source says Obama rejected sending weapons, but approved other non-weapon aid.

The single comment you sourced says they didn’t want Ukraine’s conflict with Russia to escalate.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/when-america-toes-moscows-line-214970/

Ukrainian leaders told me that the only action that Secretary of State Kerry and other American interlocutors took was to insist that the government in Kiev should do nothing to provoke Russia, in particular strongly urging Ukrainians not to use force

So your insistence that my word choice is nefarious is only reinforced by your anemic attempt at what you pretend is “research”.

You’re misleading people, it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.

No. This is not accurate.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

Facts First: Trump is being hyperbolic here. While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.

Lethal aid is weapons. Armored humvees are not weapons.

The idea that you think I’m a Trump supporter after reading my comment history is hilarious and says way more about you than it does about me.

LOL. Continuing the time honored tradition of believing that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil nefarious paid actor.

Let’s not forget that Trump was the first president in history to send weapons to Ukraine. All prior presidents including Obama said it was far to provocative to do so.