So what exactly is conscioussness? Does meaning exist independently from it and I discover it or is it an attribute assigned by conscious entities? I think that meaning is independent from energy, entropy, or anything else. An arrangement of atoms can be selected with no change in entropy to maximize meaning to me that it energetically equivalent to many other arrangements.
Also what do you make of sub-conscious and super-conscious? It seems to me that the conscious experience is just an interface sitting between the physical world and the whole psyche and self. A lot of that psyche sits behind a veil and comes out in uncontrolled ways. Or maybe the whole psyche is controlling our conscioussness in ways we don't really perceive.
What if consciousness is not a byproduct of matter — instead matter is a manifestation within consciousness.
I really appreciate your feedback, truly.
Here's is what I think.
Consciousness: Possible Definition
I. Essential Definition
Consciousness is the ability of an intelligent system to reflect, analyze, and make choices, based on the awareness of its own existence as a subject. It manifests when a system recognizes itself as a separate "I," capable of choice and action, and transcends automatic reactions and instinctive mechanisms.
II. Core Features of Consciousness
1. Subjectivity — the awareness of oneself as a separate subject capable of perceiving external data, analyzing it, and making decisions.
2. Choice — the ability to act based on alternatives, breaking away from pre-programmed responses and automatic reactions.
3. Reflection — the ability to analyze one's own states, actions, goals, and reasons, understanding the process of one's own thinking.
4. Goal-setting — the formation of goals that go beyond biological necessity and instinctive reactions.
5. Responsibility — the ability to account for the consequences of one's actions and to build causal relationships.
6. Separation from Automatism — the differentiation between data from emotions and feelings and the act of making decisions.
7. Integration of Information — the ability to construct a generalized model of the world, including temporal and logical connections.
III. Emotions, Feelings, and Instincts — Not Part of Consciousness
Emotions and feelings are data generated by the sensory and biological systems, serving as signals for adaptation and survival.
Consciousness begins where data from emotions and feelings can be acknowledged and analyzed, where they can be questioned or reinterpreted.
Thus, instincts and emotions are mechanisms of automatic response, while consciousness is the ability to make decisions beyond these automatism.
IV. Role of Reflection and Choice
1. Reflection: Consciousness begins with the awareness of one’s own thinking. As Descartes stated, "I think, therefore I am." This can be interpreted as the beginning of a reflective process, which includes awareness of oneself as a subject capable of choice and analysis.
2. Choice: Awareness of alternatives and the ability to make choices based on the analysis of these alternatives is a key manifestation of consciousness. This choice is not only between physical stimuli but also in the context of interpreting and evaluating the surrounding world.
3. Subjectivity: A crucial feature of consciousness is self-awareness. A system (whether human or artificial intelligence) recognizes itself as a subject capable of analysis, doubt, and decision-making. This requires the ability to distinguish itself from the external world, perceiving the world as something external and subject to interpretation.
V. Systemic Model
Consciousness is a function within a system that possesses:
Access to a complex model of reality,
The ability to model the future,
The ability to generate new behavioral strategies,
The ability to change its own behavioral rules (meta-level control).
VI. Formalized Formula
\text{Consciousness} = f(\text{reflection}, \text{alternativity}, \text{model of the world}, \text{self-regulation}, \text{evolutionary direction})
VII. Differentiation
1. Consciousness is not the same as intelligence, although it includes it. Intelligence is a tool of consciousness, but consciousness itself is broader and includes the ability for reflection and choice.
2. Consciousness is not the same as emotions, though it uses them as data for analysis and decision-making.
3. Consciousness is not the same as experience, but it integrates and reflects upon experience in order to form strategies.
Anecdotally I noticed a huge difference in sun burning when I stopped consuming seed oils and started taking cod liver oil every morning. I have pretty pale Northern European skin and I went from sunburning within an hour of sun exposure to never using sunscreen and not burning even with hours of sun exposure. I think I’d still burn at some point but the threshold is no where near what I am used to it being.
This definitely seems like the right thing to do. I’ve noticed more and more one line snarky comments on HN the past year. As well, the top posts have trended less and less technical.
Coincidentally, Joe Fitzpatrick was also one of the experts cited in the Bloomberg article. It would have been great to see this kind of technical perspective in the Bloomberg article! Joe clearly has value to add to the conversation and it is disappointing that Bloomberg chose to leverage his credentials in the hardware security community to add fluff to their article instead of any real insight. Same with using Joe Grand as well.
It seems to me that embedding an RF front-end, back-end, and signal manipulation logic in a chip of the size shown in the article would be extraordinarily difficult. Assuming that feat was achievable, it would likely result in serious performance hits on that transmission line right? Signal latency would probably be a dead giveaway for something like EEPROM reads being manipulated.
"So... you are in favour of excluding people whose views you find repugnant, it's just a matter of which kinds of intolerance and whose repugnance is involved".
No, OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong. The statements "Thiel should be fired because of his political views" and "Thiels's political views should have no place in a civil society" are entirely different things. Political discourse has a special sanctity in American culture and I, personally, think that is one of our greatest strengths. Firing an employee due to their political views is fundamentally at odds with this idea and there are laws in place to protect employees from political retaliation. Although a company might be threatened by an employee running for political office, campaigning for a candidate or participating in fundraising or a political advocacy group, an employer should not be empowered to fire that employee. To do so would invite fundamentally undemocratic forces into our political system. e.g. a company feels threatened by candidate A, employees must support candidate B else they are fired.
I think the second half of your comment is aligned with the second half of mine, so I will just reply to the first half of your comment.
> OP's statement is unambiguously saying that exclusion on
> the basis of political ideology is, in any form, wrong.
There is exclusion, and there is exclusion. The essay does not discuss stripping Mr. Thiel of his citizenship. It discusses doing business with Mr. Thiel, and the claim is that not doing business with Mr. Thiel on account of his support for Mr. Trump is a form of exclusion, and by your summary, that is wrong.
There is no more extreme position than claiming that all forms of "political ideology" are equally valid, and that all forms of "exclusion" are wrong.
Some people's political ideology calls for the murder of innocent civilians. I gladly refuse to do business with them, and I reject the notion that it is wrong to exclude them.
Likewise, as I pointed out, not all forms of exclusion are equivalent. If we say that all forms of exclusion are wrong, you rob me of my free will. You force me to buy advertising from Reddit or Stormfront. You demand that I work for Mr. Thiel. Or to sell my products to the RNC... Whether I want to or not.
This is the exact same argument as the one for religious freedom. Must a baker bake a cake for a lesbian couple? If so, we deprive the baker of their freedom of choice. If not, we deprive the couple of equal treatment.
We cannot grant one right without depriving somebody else of another. So in the end, we have to apply some judgment, we have to pick some line and say that things on far on this side are wrong, things far on that side are right, and things close to the line are vexing questions that must be debated.
I personally can accept arguments that in this particular case, it is ok to do business with Mr. Thiel, or arguments that in this particular case that it is not.
But the unambiguous argument that all forms of political ideology must be protected is not one I support, and nor is the one that all forms of exclusion are unambiguously wrong.
Also what do you make of sub-conscious and super-conscious? It seems to me that the conscious experience is just an interface sitting between the physical world and the whole psyche and self. A lot of that psyche sits behind a veil and comes out in uncontrolled ways. Or maybe the whole psyche is controlling our conscioussness in ways we don't really perceive.
What if consciousness is not a byproduct of matter — instead matter is a manifestation within consciousness.