Hacker News: namero999

New comment by namero999 in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"

namero999 — Wed, 20 May 2026 06:14:12 +0000

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

New comment by namero999 in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"

namero999 — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:43:01 +0000

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

New comment by namero999 in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"

namero999 — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:40:49 +0000

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.

New comment by namero999 in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"

namero999 — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:39:15 +0000

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

New comment by namero999 in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"

namero999 — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:35:56 +0000

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

New comment by namero999 in "The World's Most Complex Machine"

namero999 — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:00:25 +0000

Not even close.

New comment by namero999 in "The quiet disappearance of the free-range childhood"

namero999 — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 20:29:17 +0000

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.

New comment by namero999 in "Yann LeCun raises $1B to build AI that understands the physical world"

namero999 — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:45:45 +0000

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).

New comment by namero999 in "New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates"

namero999 — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 15:59:57 +0000

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

New comment by namero999 in "Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]"

namero999 — Sun, 08 Mar 2026 16:32:00 +0000

We don't really know that.

New comment by namero999 in "AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it"

namero999 — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 16:52:40 +0000

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.

New comment by namero999 in "Hacking Moltbook"

namero999 — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:16:38 +0000

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.

New comment by namero999 in "Hacking Moltbook"

namero999 — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 14:25:30 +0000

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.

New comment by namero999 in "Hacking Moltbook"

namero999 — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 11:20:34 +0000

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").

New comment by namero999 in "Bag of words, have mercy on us"

namero999 — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:39:31 +0000

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.