It's so weird to have the two main areas of youtube I watch (Jon/Casey and the DR stuff) connected through Lambda it does make a certain kind of sense, but entirely unexpected
I've always liked Jonathan Blow. A brutally honest video games designer and doesn't fit the typical mold of game design. He doesn't like in game tutorials with player 'hand holding' and is quite original in game design. Will be interesting to hear Jonathan's views on politics and the state of affairs. A great choice here Lambda. Chat… R
He talks about politics every now and then on his streams. There are a few clip channels that post videos on RU-vid. His politics are similar to George Hotz and other non-left tech people
Jon echoing Rupert Spira around 20:50 Also he's right on about emergentism, and how there's not a great way to talk about it because it's an overly spiritual/philisophical topic to bring up. And yes, imo, the Chinese room argument *does* show that consciousness is fundamental. It might seem a bit roundabout, but a computer is also a "Chinese room".
From 42:18 to 44:02: Sending GPT models back and form as the most efficient way of communicating with distant aliens is the most interesting take I heard being said in many many years
I'm super curious to hear these discussions in relation to the recent discovery for physical evidence of quantum waves in the brain due to tryptophan microtubules. We now have physical proof of some aspects of the quantum nature of consciousness, and how to disrupt both consciousness and this quantum waves through anasthesia.
Great chat, I noticed the same in Japan in regard to them never crossing without the lights even in the middle of night. The only other countries I've noticed this are Germany and Poland.
Awesome stuff, when Johnathan Blow starts to talk about what it is that makes video games addictive; I drop everything and listen very attentively! Super talk, thank you. On law: It seems pretty just to me, that you have the right to contest an established law, but not during a case in which is its concerned. The thought of 'professional jurors' is one that I find utterly terrifying.
Regarding the conversation of consciousness around 39:00, I feel like we hold consciousness as if it's something too unique or special as if it's its own property of the universe, when it's not necessarily.
Singer's idea is just a silly, flawed, self-serving argument for globalized communism arising from his cultural traditions creating an incredibly biased perspective. He argues this because it benefits the genetic animal of which he is an instantiation, not because it is defensible or rational. It obviously flies in the face of not only human nature, but the nature of life itself, the nature of physical reality. People (and all creatures) are not solely individuals, they are also expressions & instantiations of larger & more eternal systems like genetics, ecosystems, etc. Also, there's nothing inherently evil about unfairness, same as there's nothing inherently evil about categorization or making assumptions based on patterns. In fact, these are incredibly useful, essential tools & lifeforms of all complexity levels would be crippled beyond recovery without them... and they are all capable of being deeply unfair. Unfairness is in fact required. Life is unfair, death is fair. Artificially enforced fairness is actually much more evil if you imagine what would be necessary to manifest perfect fairness. Why stop at applying fairness to humans? Apply it to the bacteria, apply it to the molecule. There's no principle in the concept of fairness which naturally establishes a boundary to absurdity, therefore it is essentially absurd, yet disingenuous pseudo-intellectuals like Singer arbitrarily stop short of applying their insane theories universally... because at that point it doesn't benefit him or his cultural tradition. In reality, fairness & unfairness are luxury ethical positions which can only exist on top of towering mountain of power built by massive amounts of shortcuts, assumptions, rapid categorizations, exploitations & other deeply "unfair" activities & phenomena. That isn't to say it has no value, but its value is ethereal & only exists when minimum levels of mastery, comfort, power, & relative peace are pre-established. No sane person cares about fairness when they're starving to death or there's a hostile army marching toward them. It's also relatively easy to argue it's much more evil to care about some stranger starving on the other side of the planet over your brother starving. Easy to argue it's more evil to save a random person who is starving rather than feed yourself if you're starving, presuming you're not intending to be evil, since you know yourself & your intentions... while a random stranger's intentions are random from your perspective.
I saw a sign the other day that said "celebrate equality", and was thinking of how insanely inverted that is. We celebrate greatness, which is by its nature unique. Really quite evil to celebrate the lowest common denominator, because that aims only at destruction and levelling, and bypasses the spectacular achievements that deserve celebration (and ought to be celebrated).
@@chrisc7265 Yes. Pedestalization of mediocrity is a dire sign of civilizational ill-health & disanimation. In a way, it is even worse than celebrating apparent inferiority. Inferiority at least has some uniqueness by deviating from the mean. In another context, it may occasionally prove out as a form of greatness as yet unrecognized. Promoting "sameness" is advocation for ossification, calcification, crystallization... a stasis worse than death.
@@chrisc7265 Your argument seems a bit pedantic. The greatness being celebrated in this case is sociopolitical equality as opposed to sociopolitical inequality. Whoever stopped celebrating greatness?
@@olbluelips greatness by definition is inequality. Implicit in something being great are lesser things that are not great. A lot of people say they want "equality" without really thinking about what it means, when what they actually want is something like "fairness". But it's important to make the distinction, because if you pay attention you will notice many people in our society that _do_ want actual equality, and tearing down the great is precisely why they want it.
Two problems with "bad software = toxin". 1. Ignoring the real counterfactual. Comparing time wastage to a perfect theoretical ideal, rather than the reality of alternatives. The alternatives are usually no software, expensive software, or worse software. So even a marginal improvement over other FOSS software is, in practical terms, a victory. It is only a failure compared to a platonic ideal of software, which does not & cannot exist. Should we try to move toward the ideal to the degree that's practical? Absolutely. Have we deviated too far from it currently? Most likely. But the point is somewhat overenthusiastically argued here. 2. Implies bad software is being inflicted on you, rather you choosing among many options (including, in the case of low complexity software, the option of writing your own tool or script). In most cases, you are choosing & there is a gamut of choices each balancing speed vs power vs ease of use differently (often these tradeoffs are poorly communicated, which is a problem, since using the tool is the only way to determine which elements it focused, time potentially wasted). Some areas there is a quasi-monopoly or cartelization of a sector of software which limits or removes choice. There "bad software = toxin" is at it's strongest as an argument, like the OS space for instance, but most sectors the argument is much weaker.
