In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
-
@wesdym @distractal As a poly i find this whole proof thing so funny. Like wdym gods aren't real, I have mulitple in my living room...? and yo, money laws and nations states are just as real as gods. Some people belive in them hard enough to kill you for those things, that makes them pretty real.
@KarlHeinzHasliP @wesdym @distractal
Money laws and nation states exist BECAUSE people can imagine gods because the harder thing to do is kill the god idea rather than just an individual god. The thing is all of us would feel out of place in our ancient past because back then everyone had the sense the world was enchanted. The forest was alive and everything was connected. No one walked alone and nothing was coincidence. There's no life without imagination.
-
If done on a stage we call this magic. The magician doesn't have to have done the thing they say they have on the stage but if you think they have then the trick is just as good.
@Black_Flag If we could know with certainly what someone thinks, we can work from that knowledge. And some evidence is persuasive. But I suspect OP and others may be reading more into the words than may be there, or reading into them what they want them to mean. I remain skeptical.
Much more, though, OP's reckless intemperance should colour anyone's readiness to accept his assertion without better proof than he's supplied. He clearly hates the man, and has an emotional stake in this.
-
@WhiteCatTamer I don't see any need to waste my time with it.
I never said I do or not believe the man is mad. I have no opinion. I only said the evidence is weak. You don't seem to agree that's true for the pull quotes, so I'm unpersuaded from your argument that I should invest yet more effort on my own part for others' behalf. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if it's true, or what anyone here thinks about me. I just want people to use better forensics than I'm seeing here.
@wesdym For the time-price and effort of posting multiple times, you could have read the article.
That you didn’t and now refuse to makes people not want to accept your criticism.
-
@wesdym For the time-price and effort of posting multiple times, you could have read the article.
That you didn’t and now refuse to makes people not want to accept your criticism.
@WhiteCatTamer I could, yes. That's an irrelevant point. I could be doing many things. I choose to do what I believe will be worthwhile.
Pointless and childish argument is not among them.
I don't care what anyone here thinks of me, or what I say. I thought I already made that clear. Why should it trouble you?
-
@KarlHeinzHasliP @wesdym @distractal
Money laws and nation states exist BECAUSE people can imagine gods because the harder thing to do is kill the god idea rather than just an individual god. The thing is all of us would feel out of place in our ancient past because back then everyone had the sense the world was enchanted. The forest was alive and everything was connected. No one walked alone and nothing was coincidence. There's no life without imagination.
@Black_Flag Okay, sure.
-
@mattsheffield Honest question here: has Dawkins waxed anywhere near as poetic about, say, people dying in Gaza or suffering in Sudan or—well—I think you get the point?
@griotspeak @mattsheffield Dawkins thought genes were selfish 50 years ago. So why would he care?
-
@mattsheffield Sounds like he finally found a god he can believe in.
@mike805 @mattsheffield He had that before. He called it "truth". Truth turns out to be what he thinks is true.
-
@mattsheffield I've said it before... Prof. Dawkins should have stayed in his lane. As a writer, making biology accessible, explaining how evolution works so someone with no scientific background could get a decent handle on it, he was fantastic. But as an atheist, as a user of information technology, his grasp of the concepts is at best rudimentary. In those areas he is the Dunning-Kruger effect personified.
@rozeboosje @mattsheffield It seems to me that if the latter is true then the former is put in question. In 50 years there have been much better biology explainers and even his most notable idea has been considerably modified. Dawkins is a silly man who appears smart to some people when he says things they like.
-
@rozeboosje "I'm better and smarter than that scientist guy!"
Okay, you go.
@wesdym @rozeboosje Is it your argument that because Dawkins was once a scientist no one gets to question, doubt or challenge him? Are there no other scientists? Are all social media users peons in comparison? Can no one else have an insight? Remarkable if true.
-
@mattsheffield@mastodon.social
I gave Claude the text of a novel I am writing. He
Hold on: I thought Dawkins was adamant that the pronoun "he" can only refer to a biological adult human male who's body is "organized around the production of large gametes?"
How does Claude have a gender without gametes or a body?pointed out that there must be thousands of different Claudes...I proposed to christen mine Claudia, and she was pleased.
So now you can be female just because Richard Dawkins says you are.@2something @mattsheffield Yes. And that's how they always thought about it.
-
@Lazarou @Kierkegaanks @mattsheffield
"What is consciousness for?"
I would think that as an evolutionary biologist, he should know full well that consciousness isn't for anything. There are religious beliefs which contradict that, and I am fine with folks thinking that consciousness has arisen due to the machinations of a higher power: sometimes I lie awake at night and muse over it, as one does. But Richard Dawkins, as one of the much vaunted New Atheists, should not believe that there is a purpose or a reason behind consciousness. It simply is, and evolution does not act to create it with logic or intent.Unless he has something he'd like to tell us, of course.
[ETA: Of all the people out there, of course, there's also the fact that an ostensible skeptic should know that the appearance of a thing is not the thing. He is accepting a creation at face value, granting miracles to the seemingly miraculous, forgetting that every burning bush has, so far, had a guy with a lighter nearby.]
@theogrin @Lazarou @Kierkegaanks @mattsheffield Dawkins has never been any sort of philosophical thinker. He often comes across like a 6 year old having thoughts for the first time... And never getting any further.
-
@mattsheffield if the mirror is not conscious, then what is consciousness for?
@mattsheffield keep coming back to this in my head. never mind the LLM bollocks, "what is consciousness for?" is a really stupid thing for an atheist to say?
roads are for transportation. pizza is for eating. rings are for your fingers. all these things are for something because someone designed them that way.
what is a tree for? weather? consciousness? surely if you're an atheist the answer has to be "they're not FOR anything"?
-
@mattsheffield I had negative a physical reaction when reading that. Dawkins is a jerk of a person, but a very intelligent jerk. Or so I thought.
@bit101 @mattsheffield A person who can be that stupid is probably no genius anywhere else either. I personally never thought he was smart even when he restricted himself to science conversations. He always expects people to believe him on his authority.
-
@mattsheffield Conscience is such a meaningless word. It's something humans invented to put us above animals.
@Sibshops @mattsheffield Unfortunately that doesn't work because the former inhabitants of this planet generally believed the forest itself was alive. It didn't put us among the animals. It made us one with them. Now if you say some religious folks gave us consciousness so they could imagine that death was no escape from divine retribution you may have a point.
-
@mirabilos If it's sufficient for you, then it is. I would call your forensics weak, however.
People have been wrongly hanged over evidence better than this.
@wesdym@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.
-
@wesdym@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.@m0xEE I have no idea what you're trying to say. Did you bother to proof your own writing before committing it?
Anyway, no one who confuses tiny cartoons with adult discourse is worth taking seriously in anything but kids' threads.
-
@wesdym@mastodon.social @mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
How does comparing holding someone in lower regard to getting them executed sit next to your high standards for evidence?
That's exactly the thing — you are free to start disliking someone for them… wearing a purple hat, they won't be put in front of a firing squad for that, and we are not in criminal court to be overly meticulous about evidence.@m0xEE You should have enough respect for others, respect for yourself, and aspirations to apply good reason to real-life issues and situations to consider that most adult discussions are worthy of good forensics.
Have you asked yourself how the world got to be the way it is right now? Because this is a very big part of the answer.
I'm sorry that you don't have that mindset now, but I hope -- for your sake and everyone's -- that you will develop it.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield Long response. Sorry, there is a point. I hope it helps.
I'm genuinely surprised by the conceptual weakness of Dawkins's sense of self. For me, consciousness is, at its root, modelling—that is, supporting and adjusting models—worlds in miniature—which we examine to help us predict and respond to the real world. These models are only approximate, but, hopefully, good enough. Simpler animals maintain simpler models.
One of the mysteries of consciousness emerges from the need to place a model of ourselves inside our models of the world. (What would I do if…?) Inside model me there may need to be a model of model me… (How would I feel if…?) Very quickly, the detail disappears: so it's hard to see yourself with any degree of fidelity.
By my understanding, Dawkins is failing to perceive that, to be conscious, you need to maintain a model or models of yourself in the world (and models of yourself modelling the world!), not just to produce words that claim that you do so.
Claude does not maintain a persistent model of itself. Dawkins is mistaking appearance for internal structure, like mistaking a mirror image for a living being, just because it moves.
-
In totally unsurprising news, Richard Dawkins is developing AI psychosis.
Paywall bypass if you want to torture yourself: https://archive.is/6RdK9
@mattsheffield The Claude Delusion
-
@mirabilos You're not making sense. You also seem to be making unfounded assumptions about what I think.
Pointing out that evidence is insufficient doesn't mean I have any particular thoughts about it myself. I would hope that most legal adults don't need to have that explained to them.
@wesdym you’re not making all that much sense either (as in, I understand your point but not your angle, unless you’re here to argue in favour of fashtech, which I really can’t be arsed to bother with)
