namero999

Nobody denies the existence of an objective, external world. However "particle" is but a description of what appears on your screen of perception. Making the move that reality is made of "particles" is exactly identical of me concluding that you are made of pixels because I look at a picture of you on my screen.

"Particles" don't exist in the naive sense. What a particle is, is an excitation of a field. A "particle" is a dynamic pattern.

Yes. Datapoint: the underground garage of the complex where I used to live experienced a large number of thefts (including my motorbike), and in 6 years we never managed to install security cameras because you need unanimity for this, and there's always someone who is concerned about their privacy.

Same, I built a correctly-working AND gate made only of NAND gates but the tests don't pass.

Because more is better. Seriously, the game they play is at this point ludicrous. I saw 18650 cell being advertised through the years as 2500mAh, to 3500mAh (still reasonable/credible), then suppliers started to one-up each other and you could see 5000mAh, 9000mAh, 9999mAh up to, I kid you not, 1.000.000mAh. If I had no clue, of course I would by the 1KAh single cell XD

Definitely. An implication of several strands of idealism is that we will be able to create artificial life (with consciousness)... it will just look like biology.

I might in some sense agree with you but check your wording: creationism... we recreated life... see where I'm going?

This is at the same time one of the most solid metaphysics and one of the least known or studied. At least for now.

The "complexity -> magic" argument is just religious belief. Something one accepts without proof or a shed of coherent reasoning around it.

Naturalism and materialism are not married together. Materialism can't claim naturalism just for itself. There are coherent ontologies that are naturalists and not materialists.

Cognition/intelligence is not consciousness. Information processing vs phenomenality. AI is intelligent (it's in the name) but not conscious.

The like-ness properly capture in one go the first-person and the phenomenal aspects of consciousness.

Not even close.

As a counter example, I witnessed 3 months ago a similar scene in my neighborhood, where a kid on a bike, crossing on pedestrian stripes, was hit by a taxi. It was a bad accident but luckily he didn't die. His dad was following right behind him. I'm leaning to think that "shit happens" in any case, but overprotection adds on top another layer of subtle, long term risks.

IQ tests only measure the ability to pass IQ tests, they say very little about intelligence. MMA fighters might be among the most intelligent people on the planet, playing 4D bullet chess with each part of their body at light speed, while scoring a flat 100 at IQ tests (the average).

Biome is just a fancy term that encompasses a set of moral subjects.

We don't really know that.

That's a very superficial take. "Physical" and "reality" are two terms that must be put in the same sentence with _great_ care. The physical is a description of what appears on our screen of perception. Jumping all the way to "reality" is the same as inferring that your colleague is made of luminous RGB pixels because you just had a Zoom call with them.

That's the point in contention, how to go from "electrical and chemical signals" (the quantities, mole, charge, mass, momentum, coulomb, spin) to qualities (emotions, perception, first-person perspective, private inner life, subjectivity). The jump you are making is the woo part: we have no in-principle avenue to explain this gap, so accepting it is a religious move. There is no evidence of such directed causal link, yet it is (generally) accepted on faith. If you think there is a logical and coherent way to resolve the so called "hard problem of consciousness" which doesn't result in a category error, we are all ears. The Nobel committee is too.

I agree that claiming that rocks are conscious on account of them being physical systems, like brains are, is at the very least coherent. However you would excuse if such claim is met with skepticism, as rock (and CPUs) don't look like brains at all, as long as one does not ignore countless layers of abstractions.

You can't argue for rationality and hold materialism/physicalism at the same time.

I don't know, you tell me: how do you _exactly_ go from quantities to qualities? Keep in mind that the "physical" is a model of our perception and nothing else.

I might be misunderstanding GP but I take it to mean "rock are conscious" => "silicon is conscious" => "agents are conscious", which might appeal to some uneducated audience, and create fascination around these stochastic parrots. Which is obviously ridiculous because its premises are still rooted in physicalism, which failed hard on its face to account for anything even tangentially related to subjectivity (which has nothing to do with the trivial mainstream conception of "soul").

Maybe the point of someone else you've spoken to. Personally I don't even see how free will enters into this discussion, and if you were to ask me, I don't even think we have it as it is commonly defined/understood. But any comment on free will doesn't change the fact that Libet measured metacognition latency and nothing else.

Libet has only measured the latency of metaconsciousness/cognition, nothing else. It says nothing about free will, which is ill defined anyway.

Especially with Euclyd entering the space (efficiency for AI workloads), with founders with tight ties to ASML, this is the move Europe needs.

A Maksutov 127 is an excellent lunar and planetary scope, light with great portability.

Most likely the logic is at least similar. Yes, line by line, each line is encoded in bytes where each bit is a pixel. I had to "invert" the image as the printer will print the "white" pixels (those with a value >0).

The printer has an internal buffer so you can send multiple lines at the same time, but on the bear this starts to break down after 200 lines or so (consider that the bear has a higher 300 dpi resolution, so 576 pixel per line). Also pay attention to overheating, I put 1 or 2 seconds of pause every 400 lines just in case.

Funny, just today I finished reversing a similar toy printer, the "bear" printer, not the "cat" one, and writing a driver/library for it in Rust just for the sake of finally learning a bit of it.

Looking at the code you shared, it seems like the cat has quite a different protocol than the bear. The opcodes seem different, and there seems to be some sort of crc happening that is completely absent in the bear. So I doubt my code will work without major adjustments.

In case you missed it, the first link you shared also has a "test unknown printer", so maybe yours is just a minor hardware iteration but might work nonetheless!

Why do you entertain the possibility there there could be any consciousness there? Are you also exploring the consciousness of the sewage system of NYC, given that there's nothing compressed sand can do that a complex system of water, pipes and valves couldn't? Isn't it obvious that an LLM _sounds_ conscious precisely becuase we built it to sound as such, modelling the way we as human think and speak, but that there isn't anything autonomous in there?