AnarchoEngineer
@AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on bro 5 hours ago:
I bet you can when I wrap my lips around you
Unfortunately I’m not bisexual so that would depend on your gender and on wether I’m going through a sex-repulsed phase atm or not
▫️Do you like me ?
☑️ Do you like me ?
- Comment on 3D Print some math. 5 hours ago:
I mean typically people refer to planes as hyperplanes once you go past 3D, but I’ve definitely heard them just called “planes” too
Hyperplanes are just a generalization of planes to higher dimensions. Often you hear the term when working with vectors because, like in 3D, you can define an n-dimensional hyperplane by a surface normal vector and a point. All lines perpendicular (orthogonal) to that normal vector which pass through the point form the plane.
It’s a useful concept and since we already have a word for that kind of structure in 3D space we just use the same term for it in other dimensions
- Comment on These various juices look delicious. 1 day ago:
Considering the pink one in the middle has no warnings and is just called a “humectant” the main ingredient is probably propylene glycol and the rest would be mostly water, both of which are edible.
Even if there are small amounts of chemicals like isopropyl, you could likely take a very small sip to realize it is not delicious and you wouldn’t die or get horribly injured.
- Comment on It made it interesting when they started with a name and not a number 1 day ago:
I hooked up an old rotary phone to our landline when I was young and was very sad that dialing 0 did not connect me to an operator
- Comment on bro 1 day ago:
Dm me a picture of the note and I’ll draw the x digitally.
But this kind of thing is why we need to break up. I can’t keep doing this. I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops like this to prove I like you, when I say it, I mean it. I feel it every time I look into your eyes. I feel it every time you walk into the room, when you smile, when you laugh, but I’m running out of ways to tell you I love you, I’m running out of ideas for how to make you believe me. I feel like we’re growing apart and there’s no way to close the gap.
I cant keep this up. I’m sorry, I’m so sorry, but I can’t keep this up anymore. I can’t keep watching you doubt every compliment I try to give you, I can’t watch you disregard praise because you think you’re unworthy of it. You are worthy of it! You are worthy of love and happiness!
But when I tell you that, you don’t believe me. I don’t know how to make you believe, and it’s just pure agony to be unable to make you see how amazing and beautiful and talented you are!
I just cant take it anymore, I’m sorry but I really can’t do it. This can’t go on. We can’t go on
- Comment on bro 1 day ago:
I volunteer to be everyone’s first boyfriend/girlfriend if needed/desired. Comment and I will respond by breaking up with you, thus ensuring proof of our relationship will be on the internet forever
- Comment on I gotcha, boss 2 weeks ago:
No, have you?
- Comment on Also, in my state, all the drivers are the worst 3 weeks ago:
I think the most extreme and consistent bipolar weather I’ve seen was in Nevada where during the night it’d get down to 30°F (-1°C) and then almost as soon as the sun came up the frost would evaporate as daytime temperatures rose to 113°F (45°C)
In terms of chaos, I’d say Utah takes the cake. Not just because it can go from snowing to 90°F weather and back repeatedly in a week, but because during those chaotic weeks you can drive less than an hour in any direction and find completely different weather.
If violence in the chaos is desired, the southern Midwest probably wins. Tornadoes and golf ball sized hail will fuck up your day and then everything is unbearably sunny again. The east is a close second since it gets wrecked by hurricanes occasionally, but less frequently than tornadoes hit the midwest
I doubt Californians think their state is bipolar. Same with other temperate states.
- Comment on It should be a strict rule 4 weeks ago:
Just abolish golf entirely, multiple problems would be solved at once
- Comment on smoooooth 4 weeks ago:
There is life deep within the earth that will likely survive no matter what happens to the planet. The sun could fade, we could nuke the surface, have an asteroid completely resurface half the planet, and microbes will survive and eventually recolonize the entire world.
Not that we’d want a mass extinction of so many unique and beautiful things, but it is a comforting thought to realize we can’t really do anything that would render earth entirely devoid of life. And even if everything we know was lost, life would rise again to reclaim the rubble.
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
Honestly, even this edit makes voting for democrats the correct choice. If you can delay the trolley’s destruction, you have more time to attempt to destroy the tracks or kill the driver etc.
- Comment on Is she saying that eating ass is bourgeois decadence? 5 weeks ago:
“Consuming” pussy sounds more like sexual-fetish driven cannibalism, which might still be a considered unethical lol
- Comment on Get that silicussy 1 month ago:
Mostly that’s due to how much restructuring would need done to fix it. Not really because we’re wired in the optimal way.
The left recurrent laryngeal nerve loops down around your aorta and then right back up parallel to itself because as the heart moved away from the head in evolution, the nerve was pulled down with it.
Could you reroute this nerve and still function? Yep, it would even reduce latency and just the amount of nerve tissue needed.
So why doesn’t evolution do this? Because it can’t…probably…
In order to reroute this nerve, you’d likely have to change how your nerves and heart develop in the first place. That would take significant changes to the genome and said changes would have cascading effects on the development of other systems. You’d need to deal with those effects to keep the rest of the organism organized like it was. (Just realized is kind of reminiscent of the transfer learning problem in machine learning, huh)
Point is, your body is wired the way it is because the “tech debt” that lead to bad routing is too much for evolution to fix easily. Much easier to just deal with it duct-tape style than refactor the whole body.
There are probably many more things like this, like our retinas being “reversed” where it likely would be better the other way, but evolution can’t fix such a primary structure so easily (our retinas develop from our brains), so instead it tries its best to make do, and we get specialized glial cells to be as transparent as possible and a neocortex capable of pattern filling in blind spots.
- Comment on The cops pay Anon a visit 1 month ago:
Fake: cops obeying the law and following due process? Really?
Gay: Anon clearly took “be gay, do crimes” seriously… too bad he didn’t take his opsec as seriously…
- Comment on Anon hangs out with a coworker 1 month ago:
Fake: two lawn chairs? In this economy?
Gay: went back to a guy’s apartment where there’s literally nothing else to do
- Comment on Anon runs some tests 1 month ago:
Fake: avoiding genetic diseases with gene editing is possible, increasing human intelligence by genetics alone is called eugenics and its 100% bullshit
Gay: Sam Altman is gay (this also makes him a fucking blood-traitor because he supports homophobic politicians; then again, just by being a billionaire he’s a disgrace to all of humanity regardless of sexuality.)
- Comment on pls no 1 month ago:
I knew a kid who would do datura. Surprisingly normal dude for someone who would occasionally decide to microdose hell itself lol
- Comment on Does smelling your food while you cook it make it taste bland? 2 months ago:
I never would’ve thought this was a thing. To be fair, I don’t get the “smell is a major factor in food taste” at all. I can taste things just as well with my nose plugged as I can without. (Possibly because allergies meant childhood me could rarely ever smell much at all)
Anyway this is fascinating, and I wonder if animals with even stronger senses of smell are fine with bland food because they get nose blind faster so basically all food is bland. Or, do they rely primarily on smell to the point that taste from the tongue just doesn’t really influence full taste as much as smell?
- Comment on fediverse reference 😱😱😱 2 months ago:
This is giving “🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷Turkey mentioned!!! 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷💥💥” vibes
- Comment on Anon gets enemy zoned 2 months ago:
Haha fair enough
Tbf though, I don’t think I said anything about genitals mate, so I think that last bit might just apply to you lol
- Comment on Anon gets enemy zoned 2 months ago:
Fake: girl actually was interested in anon
Gay: anon is implying they aren’t in the military, but Russia requires all men to be canon fodder. Ergo, anon must be a woman, and women who like women are gay.
- Comment on Anon buys a can of beans 2 months ago:
Fake: one can is surely not a bit too many beans
Gay: My gay friends eat beans. Anon eats beans. Ergo, anon is gay. QED.
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
I definitely don’t think the human brain could be modeled by a Turing machine.
In 1994, Hava Siegelmann proved that her new (1991) computational model, the Artificial Recurrent Neural Network (ARNN), could perform hypercomputation (using infinite precision real weights for the synapses)
Since the human brain is largely comprised of complex recurrent networks, it stands to reason the same holds for it.
The human brain is an analog computer and is—as far as I’m aware—an undecidable system. As in you cannot algorithmically predict the behavior of the net with certainty. Predictable behavior can arise but it’s probabilistic not certain.
I also think I see what you’re saying with the thermometer being “conscious” of temperature, but that kind of collapses the definition of conscious to “influenced by” which makes the word superfluous. Using conscious to refer to an ability requiring learning of patterns of different sources of influence seems like a more useful definition.
Also in the crazy unlikely event in which I actually end up creating a sentient thing, I’ll be hesitant to publish any work related to it.
If my theory about how focus/attention work is correct, anything capable of focus must be capable of experiencing pain/irritation/agitation. I’m not fond of the idea of going “hey here’s how to create something that feels pain” to the world since a lot of people around me don’t even feel empathy for their own kind
- Comment on Some big black corn 3 months ago:
Wait wtf? When did they add corn to the community icon? This is getting out of hand…
- Comment on It will be great, they said... 3 months ago:
It is definitely both.
The tie pattern is probably the most obvious artifact, but the lighting and focus being inconsistent is what kicks off the intuitive “this is definitely GenAI” sense
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
if you don’t think my framework is useful, could you provide a more useful alternative or explain exactly where it fails? If you can it’d be a great help.
As for “skill issue” while I think generalized comparisons of brains are possible (in fact we have some now) I think you might be underestimating the nature of chaotic systems or have a belief that consciousness will arise with equivalent qualia whenever it exists.
There is nothing saying that our brains process qualia in exactly the same way, quite the opposite, and yet we can reach the same capabilities of thought even with large scale neurodivergences. The blind can still experience the world without their sense of sight, those with synesthesia can experience and understand reality even if their brain processes multiple stimuli as the same qualia. It is very possible that there are multiple different paths to consciousness which will have unique neurological behaviors that only makes sense within their original mind and may have no analog in another.
The more I look into the functions of the brain—btw I am by no means an expert and this is not my field—the more I realize many of our current models are limited by our desire to classify things discreetly. The brain is an absolute mess. That is what makes it so hard to understand but also what makes it so powerful.
It may not be possible to isolate qualia at all. It may not be possible to isolate certain thoughts or memory from other circumstances in which it is recalled. There might not be elemental/specific spike trains for a certain sense that are disjoint from other senses. And if this is the case, it is likely possible different individuals may have different couplings of qualia making them impossible to compare directly.
The idea that other processing areas of the brain (which by the way we do see in the brain (place neurons remapping is a simple example)) may be entangled in different ways across individuals means that even among members of the same species it likely won’t be possible to directly compare raw experiences because the required hardware to process a specific experience for one individual might not exist in the other individual’s mind.
Discrete ideas like communicable knowledge/relationships should (imo) be possible to isolate well enough that you could theoretically implant them into any being capable of understanding abstract thought, but raw experiences (ei qualia) most likely will not have this property.
Also, the project isn’t available online and is a mess because it’s not my field and I have an irrational desire to build everything from scratch because I want to understand exactly how it is implemented and hey it’s a personal hobby project, don’t judge lol
So far I’ve mostly only replicated the research of others. I have tried some experiments with my own ideas, but spiking neural nets are difficult to simulate on normal hardware, and I need a significant number of neurons, so currently I’m working on designing a more efficient implementation than the ones I’ve previously written.
After that, my plan is to experiment with my own designs for a spiking artificial hippocampus implementation. If my ideas are sound I should be able to use similar systems to implement both short and long term memory storage.
If that succeeds I’ll be moving onto the main event of focus and attention which I also have some ideas for, but it really requires the other systems to be functional.
I probably won’t get that far but hey it’s at least interesting to think about and it’s honestly fun to watch a neural net learn patterns in real time even if it’s kinda slow.
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
if you don’t think my framework is useful, could you provide a more useful alternative or explain exactly where it fails? If you can it’d be a great help.
As for “skill issue” while I think generalized comparisons of brains are possible (in fact we have some now) I think you might be underestimating the nature of chaotic systems or have a belief that consciousness will arise with equivalent qualia whenever it exists.
There is nothing saying that our brains process qualia in exactly the same way, quite the opposite, and yet we can reach the same capabilities of thought even with large scale neurodivergences. The blind can still experience the world without their sense of sight, those with synesthesia can experience and understand reality even if their brain processes multiple stimuli as the same qualia. It is very possible that there are multiple different paths to consciousness which will have unique neurological behaviors that only makes sense within their original mind and may have no analog in another.
The more I look into the functions of the brain—btw I am by no means an expert and this is not my field—the more I realize many of our current models are limited by our desire to classify things discreetly. The brain is an absolute mess. That is what makes it so hard to understand but also what makes it so powerful.
It may not be possible to isolate qualia at all. It may not be possible to isolate certain thoughts or memory from other circumstances in which it is recalled. There might not be elemental/specific spike trains for a certain sense that are disjoint from other senses. And if this is the case, it is likely possible different individuals may have different couplings of qualia making them impossible to compare directly.
The idea that other processing areas of the brain (which by the way we do see in the brain (place neurons remapping is a simple example)) may be entangled in different ways across individuals means that even among members of the same species it likely won’t be possible to directly compare raw experiences because the required hardware to process a specific experience for one individual might not exist in the other individual’s mind.
Discrete ideas like communicable knowledge/relationships should (imo) be possible to isolate well enough that you could theoretically implant them into any being capable of understanding abstract thought, but raw experiences (ei qualia) most likely will not have this property.
Also, the project isn’t available online and is a mess because it’s not my field and I have an irrational desire to build everything from scratch because I want to understand exactly how it is implemented and hey it’s a personal hobby project, don’t judge lol
So far I’ve mostly only replicated the research of others. I have tried some experiments with my own ideas, but spiking neural nets are difficult to simulate on normal hardware, and I need a significant number of neurons, so currently I’m working on designing a more efficient implementation than the ones I’ve previously written.
After that, my plan is to experiment with my own designs for a spiking artificial hippocampus implementation. If my ideas are sound I should be able to use similar systems to implement both short and long term memory storage.
If that succeeds I’ll be moving onto the main event of focus and attention which I also have some ideas for, but it really requires the other systems to be functional.
I probably won’t get that far but hey it’s at least interesting to think about and it’s honestly fun to watch a neural net learn patterns in real time even if it’s kinda slow.
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
I think you’re getting hung up on the words rather than the content. While our definitions of terms may be rather vague, the properties I described are not cyclically defined.
To be aware of the difference between self means to be able to sense stimuli originating from the self, sense stimuli not from the self, and learn relationships between them.
As long as aspects of the self (like current and past thoughts) are able to be sensed (encoded into a representation which the mind can work with directly; in our case neural spike chains) exist and senses which compare those senses with other senses or past senses and finally that the mind can learn patterns in those encodings (like spiking neural nets) then it should be possible for conscious awareness to arise. (If you’re curious about the kind of learning that needs to happen you should look into Tolman-Eichenbaum machines, though non-spiking ones aren’t reallly capable of self learning)
I hope that’s a clear enough “empirical” explanation for you.
As for qualia, you are entirely wrong. What you describe would not prove that my raw experience of green is the same as your green, only that we both have qualia which can arise from the color green. You can say that it’s not pragmatic to think about that which cannot be known, and I’ll agree that qualia must be represented in a physical way and thus be recreatable in that persons brain, but the complexity of human brains actually precludes the ability to define what actually is the qualia and what are other thoughts. The difference between individuals likely precludes the ability to say “oh when these neurons are active it means this” because other people have different neural structures, similar? Absolutely, similar enough that for any experience you could find exactly the same neurons that would fire the same way as in someone else? Absolutely not.
Your last statements make it seem like you don’t understand the diffference between learning and knowledge. LLMs don’t learn when you use them. Neither do most modern chess models. They actually don’t learn at all unless they are being trained by an outside source who gives them an input, expects an output, and then computes the weight changes needed to get closer to the answer via gradient descent.
A typical ANN trained this way does not learn from new experiences furthermore, it is not capable of referencing its own thoughts because it doesn’t have any.
The self is that which acts, did you know LLMs aren’t capable of being aware they took any action? Are you aware chess engines can’t do that either? There is no comparison mechanism between what was and what is and what made that change. They cannot be self aware the same way a program hardcoded to kill processes other than itself is unaware. They literally lack any sense of their own actions directly. Once again, you not only need to be able to sense that information, but the program then needs a sense which compares that sensation to other sensations and learns the differences, changing the way it responds to those stimuli. You need learning.
I don’t reject the idea of machines being conscious, in fact I’m literally trying to make a conscious machine just to see if I can (which yeah to most people sounds insane). But I do not think we agree on much else because learning is absolutely essential for any thing to be capable of a conscious action.
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
Anything dealing with perception is going to be somewhat circular and vague. Qualia are the elements of perception and by their nature it seems they are incommunicable by any means.
Awareness in my mind deals with the lowest level of abstract thinking. Can you recognize this thing and both compare and contrast it with other things, learning about its relation to other things on a basic level?
You could hardcode a computer to recognize its own process. But it’s not comparing itself to other processes, experiencing similarities and dissimilarities. Furthermore unless it has some way to change at least the other processes that are not itself, it can’t really learn its own features/abilities.
A cat can tell its paws are its own, likely in part because it can move them. if you gave a cat shoes, do you think the cat would think the shoes are part of itself? No, And yet the cat can learn that in certain ways it can act as though the shoes are part of itself. The same way we can recognize that tools are not us but are within our control.
We notice that there is a self that is unlike our environment in that it does not control the environment directly, and then there are the actions of the self that can influence or be influenced directly by the environment. And that there are things which we do not control at all directly.
That is the delineation I’m talking about. It’s more the delineation of control than just “this is me and that isn’t” because the term “self” is arbitrary.
We as social beings correlate self with identity, with the way we think we act compared to others, but to be conscious of one’s own existence only requires that you can sense your own actions and learn to delineate between this thing that appears within your control and those things that are not. Your definition of self depends on where you’ve learned to think the lines are.
If you created a computer program capable of learning patterns in the behavior of its own process(es) and learning how those behaviors are similar/dissimilar or connected to those of other processes, then yes, I’d say your program is capable of consciousness. But just adding the ability to detect its process id is simply like adding another built in sense; it doesn’t create conscious self awareness.
Furthermore, on the note of aliens, I think a better question to ask is “what do you think ‘self’ is?” Because that will determine your answer. If you think a system must be consciously aware of all the processes that make it up, I doubt you’ll ever find a life form like that. The reason those systems are subconscious is because that’s the most efficient way to be. Furthermore, those processes are mostly useful only to the self internally, and not so much the rest of reality.
To be aware of self is to be aware of how the self relates to that which is not part of it. Knowing more about your own processes could help with this if you experienced those same processes outside of the self (like noticing how other members of your society behave similarly to you) but fundamentally, you’re not necessarily creating a more accurate idea of self awareness just be having more senses of your automatic bodily processes.
It is equally important, if not more so, to experience more that is not the self rather than to experience more of what would be described as self, because it’s what’s outside that you use to measure and understand what’s inside.
- Comment on The Sensory Biology of Plants 3 months ago:
Yes most definitely, I’d imagine most animals are conscious.
In fact my definition of sapience means several animals like crows and parrots and rats are capable of sapience.