In the presently unfolding deepfake era, recurrent inflationary algorithmic superintelligence (ASI) achievement claims degenerated from being a mere reflection of an exaggerated but candid initial enthusiasm to becoming a convenient tool for misdirection facilitating epistemic perpetuum mobile (EPM) scams. This transdisciplinarily conceived paper compactly analyzes the underlying ASI definition avoidance problem which emerged from interactions between three major epistemic trends in the ASI debate: boomerism, doomerism and pragmatism. Via taking a fourth external perspective entertained by a fictive entity called Cyogenes (...) who volunteers as a philosopher and criticizes contemporary conventions (inspired by the ancient Cynicism lived by early Greek philosophers including Antisthenes and Diogenes of Sinope), the paper highlights key strengths but also particularly pitfalls within those three aforementioned epistemic trends all of which face the ASI definition avoidance problem – clearing the way for global EPM scams. After this philosophical analysis, a deflationary account of ASI (i.e. the epistemic perpetuum mobile) is discussed. Thereafter, practical cybersecurity-oriented threat models and defenses against EPM scams are formulated. In brief, fruitless EPM scams unnecessarily risk intensifying the near-term existential risk of epistemic self-sabotage and reinforcing totalitarian aspirations. (shrink)

The boundary problem is related to the binding problem, part of a family of puzzles and phenomenal experiences that theories of consciousness (ToC) must either explain or eliminate. By comparison with the phenomenal binding problem, the boundary problem has received very little scholarly attention since first framed in detail by Rosengard in 1998, despite discussion by Chalmers in his widely cited 2016 work on the combination problem. However, any ToC that addresses the binding problem must also address the boundary problem. (...) The binding problem asks how a unified first person perspective (1PP) can bind experiences across multiple physically distinct activities, whether billions of individual neurons firing or some other underlying phenomenon. To a first approximation, the boundary problem asks why we experience hard boundaries around those unified 1PPs and why the boundaries operate at their apparent spatiotemporal scale. We review recent discussion of the boundary problem, identifying several promising avenues but none that yet address all aspects of the problem. We set out five specific boundary problems to aid precision in future efforts. We also examine electromagnetic (EM) field theories in detail, given their previous success with the binding problem, and introduce a feature with the necessary characteristics to address the boundary problem at a conceptual level. Topological segmentation can, in principle, create exactly the hard boundaries desired, enclosing holistic, frame-invariant units capable of effecting downward causality. The conclusion outlines a programme for testing this concept, describing how it might also differentiate between competing EM ToCs. (shrink)

The expanding integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of society makes the infosphere around us increasingly complex. Humanity already faces many obstacles trying to have a better understanding of our own minds, but now we have to continue finding ways to make sense of the minds of AI. The issue of AI’s capability to have independent thinking is of special attention. When dealing with such an unfamiliar concept, people may rely on existing human properties, such as survival desire, (...) to make assessments. Employing information-processing-based Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) analytics on a dataset of 266 residents in the United States, we found that the more people believe that an AI agent seeks continued functioning, the more they believe in that AI agent’s capability of having a mind of its own. Moreover, we also found that the above association becomes stronger if a person is more familiar with personally interacting with AI. This suggests a directional pattern of value reinforcement in perceptions of AI. As the information processing of AI becomes even more sophisticated in the future, it will be much harder to set clear boundaries about what it means to have an autonomous mind. (shrink)

Implementing an algorithm on part of our causally-interconnected physical environment requires three choices that are typically considered arbitrary, i.e. no single option is innately privileged without invoking an external observer perspective. First, how to delineate one set of local causal relationships from the environment. Second, within this delineation, which inputs and outputs to designate for attention. Third, what meaning to assign to particular states of the designated inputs and outputs. Having explained these types of arbitrariness, we assess their relevance for (...) algorithms from various computational theories of mind (CTM) seeking to account for phenomenal consciousness. Some CTM accounts can survive some of these arbitrariness challenges, but eventually each one examined faces a trilemma. Each is under pressure to dilute at least one of three important CTM desiderata: its causal relevance, its substrate neutrality, or its assignment discrimination (e.g. ability to avoid near-panpsychism). However, unlike previous research, we suggest the debate cannot be fully settled at the level of principle. Certain complex CTM algorithms may be salvageable, albeit not the algorithms specified to date. The paper specifies three areas of investigative work, as well as further theoretical avenues of research, which computationalists may wish to explore to escape the trilemma. (shrink)

The suggestion of something akin to a ‘relativist solution to the Mind-Body problem’ has recently been held by some scientists and philosophers; either explicitly (Galadí, 2023; Lahav & Neemeh, 2022; Ludwig, 2015) or in more implicit terms (Solms, 2018; Velmans, 2002, 2008). In this paper I provide an argument in favor of a relativist approach to the Mind-Body problem, more specifically, an argument for ‘1st/3rd person relativism’, the claim that ‘The truth value of some sentences or propositions is relative to (...) 1st and 3rd person perspectives’. The argument for 1st/3rd person relativism is close to a forma proof. It is shown that, just by assuming the 1st/3rd person distinction itself and using first order logic and set theory, ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ follows as a theorem. Some consequences of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ to the Mind-Body Problem are evaluated. It is shown that ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ predicts the existence of an (apparent) Explanatory Gap; explains why the Explanatory Gap is just apparent (and the origins of such illusion); dissolves the Hard-Problem; provides a possible solution the problem of Mental Causation; explains why Mental Causation looks like a problem in the first place and accurately predicts the actual empirically found correlation and covariation between conscious experiences and brain states. This explanatory power of ‘1st/3rd person relativism’ is particularly impressive since it was not designed as a possible solution to the Mind-Body problem in the first place. (shrink)

La reseña se traduce de su original "A novel perspective on thinking about thinking: Review of Mindsponge Theory".

思考是我们 思考是我们 惯用 的一种工具，以至于 的一种工具，以至于 的一种工具，以至于 我们总认为思考是 我们总认为思考是 我们总认为思考是 理所当然的 理所当然的 , 却很少用这个工 很少用这个工 具来审视自己，问 具来审视自己，问 具来审视自己，问 具来审视自己，问 一些类似 一些类似 一些类似 "是什么 是什么 "、"为什么 为什么 "和“怎么样” 和“怎么样” 和“怎么样” 等有关 思考的本质和机制问 思考的本质和机制问 思考的本质和机制问 思考的本质和机制问 思考的本质和机制问 题，比如 ，比如 ，比如 "智力从何而来？ 智力从何而来？ 智力从何而来？ "，"意识究竟是什么？ 意识究竟是什么？ 意识究竟是什么？ 意识究竟是什么？ 意识究竟是什么？ "，或者 ，或者 "我为什么要问题？ 我为什么要问题？ 我为什么要问题？ 我为什么要问题？ 我为什么要问题？ " 现在 《大 脑海绵理论》 脑海绵理论》 脑海绵理论》 一书邀请读者探索这些 一书邀请读者探索这些 一书邀请读者探索这些 一书邀请读者探索这些 一书邀请读者探索这些 看似陌生的 看似陌生的 看似陌生的 问题，并进入自己 问题，并进入自己 问题，并进入自己 问题，并进入自己 问题，并进入自己 大脑 中更深的概念领域 中更深的概念领域 中更深的概念领域 中更深的概念领域 去 寻找答案。 寻找答案。 寻找答案。.