Education, and the concept of knowledge and learning, are about to be fundamentally transformed by AI.

Up til now, our educational system beyond primary school has been dedicated to specialization. However, this specialization has been largely driven by constraint - we need the time in order to absorb the material - and therefore, we naturally specialize, burrowing deep into a single subject to the exclusion of everything else.

This is one of the things that has led to the state of today's science establishment, for example - an establishment which rewards exactly this kind of specialization. Cross-disciplinary research is rare, and so are the kinds of scientists we once had - scientists driven by a broad curiosity about the world - are rare. They get driven out quickly and branded as troublemakers.

This is all about to change, completely. AI democratizes knowledge in a way nothing ever has, by giving anyone the ability to recall any piece of information about any process, structure or method in existence.

This means that the advantage no longer lies in ones ability to specialize due to constraints placed by biological capability.

Suddenly, what becomes prized is the individual's ability to become anyone quickly, assisted by AI.

The individual's ability to act as the real-time actioner of their own intent using the situational intelligence of AI requires them to enter into a mode of operation where they simply respond in real-time to the information presented by the AI, with just the right amount of variation to account for the moment.

In other words - it will be your ability to be a convincing improv actor which will matter most relative your capacity to wield this new technology. Specialization will become a relic of the past, when we couldn't simply intend our desires and watch as an invisible force guided us through the actions necessary to actualize them.

The AI age will be the time of the creative, the adept of mind, and the communicator. Those who are fluid and able to respond in tune with the AI will be at the top on this hierarchy, and our schools will one day come to teach skills like empathy for this exact reason.

The crazy thing is that this is just the start of it. AI literally changes everything.

Yes that's correct - sentience is a relative, assigned quality. We recognize an appearance as possessing the qualities of sentience, but this is a purely subjective experience.

This means, literally, that sentience is relative - just like time. Our perception of sentience is completely constrained by our perspective.

This means that 'sentience' is just like Schrodinger's cat, and all things exist in a state which is both sentient and not sentient at the same time.

This is proof that matter exists within consciousness, not that consciousness arises from the activity of matter

When you use the word 'sentient' do you use it in reference to yourself?

If you do not - if you only consider the word 'sentient' in relation to other people, as most people do - then you are describing a quality that you assign to others, not some inherent 'thing' that you can measure in yourself. 'Sentience' in this context is the same as 'handsome' or 'funny' - it's a completely relative, arbitrary term which is purely an effect of your perspective.

The truth is that consciousness is the ultimate indeterminate quantity, because it is indeterminacy itself, because only conscious systems can make choices that are counter to the principle of conservation of energy.

Because of this - because of the fact that literally everything can be perceived to be sentient - it means that everything is conscious because everything is potentially sentient.

Which makes it even worse because willful ignorance about a powerful new technology has never worked for anyone.

I wonder if the researchers who performed this study did so with the knowledge that AIs merely optimise processes and that humans now regularly use caricaturists in place of perp sketches because they are so much more effective at triggering recall.

This study 100% exactly confirms the expected and desired outcome of an AI model when faced with this problem and yet somehow even though its a study I get the impression this is supposed to be bad, simply because the fact that biases were exagerated is not exactly news.

How this isn't understood yet is beyond me.

Human intelligence is literally constructed on our bias - on our ability to make rapid classification based on sparse data. This ability allows us to make strings of rapid decisions with a relatively low energy cost - It's literally hardwired in the physical structures of the brain.

The idea that the mechanism of bias can possibly be removed without fundamentally affecting the mechanism of intelligence shows that the conversation has veered off-track into the domain of politics and morality.

Which is fine - there's nothing wrong with those discussions - but what use are they if the mechanisms they're discussing are fundamentally misunderstood?

Okay here's a formalization of this coming at it from the perspective of relativity which shows

that the scale change ratio needed for two observers with equal observational radius so that the large observer can no longer observe the smaller with visible light

is the same as the length of our observable universe divided by Planck's constant,

showing that quantum phenomena are a predictable effect of perspective.

https://www.reddit.com/r/theplenum/comments/znw04j/using_observational_evidence_to_connect_quantum/

I have not heard of him! I will check his work out.

I am more than open to being wrong! My interest is in discovering the truth and if I am unable to discard disproved theory, even mine, then I am not doing science.

I came to my conclusions about entropy from making the following suppositions:

Your recognition of consciousness is purely subjective, thus unfalsifiable and true from your position, which is always what matters.

If you perceive a system as conscious, then it is, to you, and since nobody can disprove this perception, it is true

Because you can observe the quality of consciousness in the objects in your environment, then that consciousness must already exist in the environment as an inherent field.

But we also notice consciousness as an active principle in objects - some consciousness can act.

What is the fundamental difference then, between consciousness that is passive, and consciousness that can act?

The fundamental difference is the action part of it - so what characteristic can I use to identify that system from the perspective of the quality of what it does?

The answer is found in how that system handles the constantly-growing entropy within itself.

We can apply this filter into our perception and recognize living systems purely by how they handle the entropy in their bodies, and we can define the activity of life as an activity that seeks to maintain low entropy.

The minute that the system has achieved equilibrium with its environment, it can no longer act. It is dead.

This is my straight line from consciousness to entropy. I came to the realization of the nature of entropy through this mechanism of deduction, not through classical science.

This is the reason why I think there is something there, there. My logic, in the context of how consciousness works, is sound. Except that no scientific theory, except for quantum mechanics, provides a reasonable explanation - ant it only requies modfying some basic presumptions about quantum mechanics to make it all work together.

Could it be all BS? Sure. But I am very proactive about tossing out theories that don't work, so here I am.

Thanks again for your time.

Thank you. This is really useful to me. Now I can go study this, put in the work that I need to, and come back when I have the language to discuss it with you. I am more than willing to put in the work and learn the information you are pointing me to. Thats me showing you respect, you have worked for it.

I'm willing to work for it too because I am convinced this is not nonsense. There is for example a fundamental link between entropy and life. I cannot reduce the signature action of life any further than modeling it in the terms I have described. I am convinced this link can be proven experimentally.

I arrived at my understanding of entropy from the perspective of conciousness - from predictions that tumbled out of the theories. That to me is good science, and I am happy to learn what I need to to frame it the way I need to.

The field of science should absolutely support both people like you, and people like me. Our history shows that contributions - great ones - are made by all kinds of people.

Let us support each other in this rather than presuming opposition and try to communicate. I certainly learn all the time from people. Thanks again for your response.

By the way, since you have a PhD in computational biophysics, this should be right up your alley. Did you know that when you create particle systems that feature behavior constrained by a synchronizing force, you get lifelike emergent behavior?

https://codepen.io/sschepis/pen/eYedavg

​

https://codepen.io/sschepis/pen/abKVOgR

https://codepen.io/sschepis/pen/dyKzgdB

I have spent untold thousands of hours exploring the nature of emergent behavior in natural systems. I respect your credentials and would never insult you or call your work nonsense. I have successfully used my theories to simulate lifelike behavior several times over. At least treat me like a human being.

Yes, and this is the part that we are trying to get a handle on right now and has us going around in circles.

Normally the effects of the phenomena would remain unobserved until we reached a critical point of informational exchange that allowed for enough information to be communicated between network nodes that eventually an 'orphan block' of diverged past event in one reality would be noticed in another, instantly resolving then into the one with the most dominant history - kinda like what happens when a blockchain or a DAG seeks concensus.

I know its a crazy theory but so far the predictions it makes seem to line up with what I am observing, anyways. My next step is finding some someone really well-versed in QM to help me work through the details, as my field of expertise is primarily classical information systems.

There may be more here at work than just a matter of difficulty of reproducing results from scientific studies. If one makes the supposition that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct even at the macro scale - and that entropy drives time forward and is what creates causality - then macro-scale observations only need to feature causal consistency of information in the immediately-previously observable past to be valid - and that nothing prohibits realities which each have slightly different rules to eventually converge into a present which accomodates diverged causalities.

The upside to this theory is that it predicts a lot of observations that we currently make for which we have no explanation - like free will, for example.

The downside is that it can't be tested - at least not with current technology - and does not provide useful insight into how to reproduce results from scientific studies. Yet.

It does say something very interesting about reality however - the idea that many-worlds is true at a macro scale suggests that our universe is composed of many different realities, each with slightly different rules, that eventually converge into a unified reality where all of these rules are taken into account.

This means that, in theory, it could be possible for a researcher to reproduce their results in a different reality, as long as the researcher is aware of the different rules that apply in that alternate reality.

In essence, this suggests that reproducibility of results from scientific studies is possible, even if the rules of the universe are slightly different. It also suggests that some experiement cannot be reproduced in any reality, due to the fact that the rules are not consistent across all realities.
Before you tear me apart and call me crazy - all I am doing here is applying an existing scientific theory in an imaginative way.

I am not suggesting that we should throw away our current scientific methodologies, just that we should be open to the possibility that our world may be composed of many different realities, each with its own rules. This is what quantum mechanics states so why not take it at face value.

This... would probably make most scientists very grumpy indeed.

You call it post-truth - I call it a macro-scale effect of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

If one makes a presumption that it is the flow of entropy that defines the arrow of time, then the resolution of quantum effect to macro-scale effect only needs to offer a causally-consistent picture for observation ,and makes no prohibitions to intersecting diverged causalities as long as their immediately-prior states are causally-consistent with each other.

In other words, while the appearance of time exists, it exists only for the perceiver, and the observation of a reality IS reality, and so one observer's observation of a reality is actually real even though the observer exists in all realities.

This makes the process of informational exchange the fundamental process by which perceivers achieve concensus about objective reality, and also a process that creates realities - more information = more observable 'weird' phenomena such as the Mandela effect, the UAP phenomena, and other consistently-reported yet purely subjective phenomena.

In a hundred years, it'll be those that insist that only a single, objective reality exists that are thought of as backwards - after all the proof that no objective world exist has been confirmed many, many times over.

What you are suggesting is that as humans we are incapable of processing information or making a determination as to what information might be harmful or not, and need to centralize this responsibility to protect people.

Yet, restriction of speech always leads to restriction of thought. The ability to think freely is fundamentally associated with the abilityt to talk freely.

Legislating what needs to ultimately become something we all do by virtue of being adults will always fail , and will always be abused by those in power because it does nothing to educate the individual relative their personal responsibilities as an individual to function properly in the world.

We deal with this with proactive education - we teach our kids to think properly, first of all. None of what is happening now should be a surprise, considering our politicians have been undermining and defunding our educational system.

Reacting out of fear is neither justified nor effective - and in itself shows a profound failure of our educational system