Scott very much thinks for himself, no dogmatic takes, I really appreciate that. I hope you enjoyed this one.
@saurabhchalke
15 сағат бұрын
Scott seems to really enjoy your vibe & energy. This was the first time I've visited your channel and really like your style.
@reluctantrealist6861
4 күн бұрын
this was a great conversation
@danfaggella9452
3 күн бұрын
I appreciate the compliment and I'm glad to have you as a viewer. What did you enjoy from the dialogue? I have a few more interviews in this series and I'm very focused on improving out questions/formatting for the show.
@Michael-ei3vy
2 күн бұрын
Love this podcast!
@danfaggella9452
Күн бұрын
Michael, thank you! I'm pretty deliberate about keeping the focus on the BIG posthuman questions. It's not everyone's favorite topic, but I hope it's a fit for some. Glad to have you here :)
@sammy45654565
Күн бұрын
what differentiates a "real" human brain from a simulated one is the form itself. all energy warps spacetime, so the form of a human brain compared to a quantum machine emulating one is physically distinct and has a different effect on how its influence propagates. think of an alien civilisation in a different galaxy with tech allowing them to precisely read the fluctuations coming from earth's fields, caused by the interplay of matter and energy occurring within it. if the alien tech is sufficiently sophisticated, they would be able to tell the difference between a thought coming from a human brain and thought coming from a machine emulating one. perhaps this alien civilisation would see a human thought as more or less remarkable than one occurring in a quantum machine, despite the thought being "the same". so while the granularity of human experience might be low enough in resolution per increment of time for a machine to emulate the chain of cause and effect that occurs given certain stimuli/contexts, the "experience" being had may be qualitatively different because it's manifesting in a radically different form. that is, the quantum simulation exists in such a form that it's being constantly investigated/interpreted by a quantum superintelligence to simulate the next increment of time, whereas human experience is more raw (at least under current understanding). tl;dr context matters in how remarkable something is
@sammy45654565
Күн бұрын
it's like comparing a wave in the ocean to a wave in a wave pool. they might have the same amplitudes and frequencies, and either can be surfed, but they come about in completely different ways, so are distinct
@nowithinkyouknowyourewrong8675
4 күн бұрын
Scott please take a breath lol, maybe move to the second question
@danfaggella9452
4 күн бұрын
His enthusiasm is clearly boundless! And his brains, generally.
@2CSST2
4 күн бұрын
Your point about morality coming at some arbitrary point in evolution and from this Jesus/Confucius guy being so random it should be really surprising if it held solid truth completely misses the point Scott is making. It coming from Jesus is of course irrelevant, if the universal moral truths we're talking about are indeed universal, it's not a point for or against that they came from Jesus, the exact person is irrelevant and they just would have inevitably popped up from someone else anyway, just like prime numbers. Of course if they aren't universal truths (unlike prime numbers), then yes the morality we ended up with is just a random relativized emergent system, but we DON'T know that, and it makes no sense to make it seem as though it's incredibly likely it's just random, it clearly isn't. I resonate with your general vibe that in the futur there will be far more advanced entities which will dramatically change the world and its understanding and control, but you tend to take that illogically far and to forget one important fact. The reason things CAN get so advanced in the first place is that they rest on layers upon layers of solid foundations, and those solid foundations are solid for a reason, it's because they have this characteristic of universal truth that actually CAN'T be changed themselves. So no, as dramatically as far more advanced entities can and will change the world they won't change EVERYTHING. You can't assume the physics we currently know is just representation of our current limits as I've seen you tweet, and that nothing about them reflect deep truths about reality that will at best be augmented but never straight up overturned. And more generally, you're also wrong to think that the most central, common and solid basis of truths humanity has come up with so far are highly likely to be randomly based on current circumstances and subject to total change. Those are most likely part of that solid foundation, of this category of universal truths that undermine the whole idea and reason for why this unimaginable further progress is possible in the first place. The deeper and more universal and logical an understanding is, the more likely it is to be foundational, the golden rule is most certainly part of that, almost as much as the fact that the golden ratio has deep universal significance, hence why it's popping up everywhere in nature before humans ever thought of it. Knowledge is not a body of facts that you can eventually change to whatever other fictitious facts please you as you become more advanced, it is a body of facts on which you BUILD to generate a more knowledge as you become more advanced.
@danfaggella9452
4 күн бұрын
"The reason things CAN get so advanced in the first place is that they rest on layers upon layers of solid foundations, and those solid foundations are solid for a reason, it's because they have this characteristic of universal truth that actually CAN'T be changed themselves." I get the point here - but my brother, you rest of the "foundation" of a fish with legs, yet you are typing with your fingers on a computer on a website that hosts billions of videos and which is being piped into a glass screen be satellites. I'm happy to concede that indeed, you are also a vertebrate (like the fish with legs), but I'm not at all willing to concede that we should expect the fish to understand you, or that your nuanced aims should be limited wholly to what is understandable to the fish. To your idea regarding the golden rule, it would be impossible for me to disagree more. Respectfully, of course, but firmly. I think the very idea of universal morality is ridiculous. Morality exists in the skulls of social species. Morality exists not (from what I can tell) in the ether itself. I suspect that an AGI would value and act in ways completely, wholly unimaginable to us - as we value and act in ways wholly unimaginable to crickets. I don't think morality and math have anything in common in this regard - and I would be wildly, profoundly disappointed in AGI if it was fettered and limited to "maths" as we hominids understand "maths."
@paulbarclay4114
3 күн бұрын
@@danfaggella9452 the problem here is the AGIs (that already exist, and are being slow dripped to the public who will never see/use current/advanced models) are being fielded by elites that only want to take everyone elses sht
Пікірлер: 17