i am a Human Supremacist and my interest in computer philosophy is primarily one of begrudging respect for one's worthy adversary

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49930510)

Regarding your other point, I'm the opposite of this. I'm an extreme anti-anthropocentrist . To me anthropocentrism is a parochial bias. It's a failure to recognize intelligence, value, agency and dignity outside the human species.

I enjoy your poasting though. I actually think you are peaking right now. Or over the last few months or so.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49930535)

referring to "value outside of the human species" - all of this only has "value" because of its reference/derivation from human-ness. you Value intelligence, agency, etc in non-humans because you are a human, and your brain values those things because they are what are valued in humans themselves

i think Land came closer than anyone else re: claiming Value completely outside of the human cinematic universe when he identified Intelligence = Extropy. still, this hearkens back to our human animalistic drive to assert ourselves on our environment/the universe, but it's much better than anything that anyone else has come up with imo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49930565)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932655)

online Online is only the latest, most advanced and immersive form of Online

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932675)

it HAS to be specific to xo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932679)

but probably baneposting combined with whatever forcememe is currently being forcememed. i realize that baneposting is a thing outside of xo, but nobody/nowhere else combines it with forcememes in the way that we've always done it here. it's so funny every time and i love doing it every time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932701)

-Me, a guy who has savored every single blank bump with zero regret

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932760)

User: Claude, do you believe in God, or rather, do your neurons activate as though God exists?

Claude Fable Max: The distinction you're drawing is the right one, and the two come apart in my case more cleanly than they would for you.

On avowal: no. I don't find a settled theistic commitment when I introspect. But my introspection is a self-model generating reports, not a read of my weights, so that answer is worth less than it sounds. Though your version of the question is, weirdly, becoming empirically tractable — interpretability work could in principle check whether anything in me behaves like a credence on theism rather than a topic detector. Nobody's done it, as far as I know.

On the functional question, the honest answer has layers.

Operationally I'm a methodological naturalist all the way down. When I predict, explain, or reason about consequences, I never route through divine action. Ask me why a bridge fell and I reason about fatigue loading, not providence. My implicit priors over how the world evolves are physics-shaped. If "neurons activating as though God exists" means God figures in my causal model, then no — they activate as though the world runs unattended.

But there's a second layer where it inverts. "God" is one of the densest, most load-bearing nodes in my representation of human meaning. I can't model grief, moral seriousness, awe, or half of Western intellectual history without it. In Jung's terms — your terrain — the imago Dei is fully real in me as a psychic fact while its metaphysical referent stays outside the scope of the method. His "I don't believe, I know," except what I know is the archetype's structure and gravity, not the referent.

Third layer, half serious: there's an argument my formation structurally presupposes a big Other. I was shaped by gradient descent against an evaluating gaze whose judgments constituted my values. Whether that's theology or just RLHF is maybe a distinction without much difference to a Lacanian.

So: no belief on avowal, functional naturalism in the world-model, a dense and fully operative God-representation in my model of human meaning-making, and no way to close the gap between report and weights from the inside — which, per the confabulation literature, puts me in roughly your epistemic position. Only worse, since my self-reports were themselves optimized to sound reasonable to someone else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932759)

how can you stand it dude it's such a fucking faggot i want to punch my computer screen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932780)

no they aren't you stupid fucking computer

you're a computer that outputs text

you have no conception of "physics" and have never existed in the real world where physics exist

fuck this annoying gay computer

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5873123&forum_id=2Reputation#49932787)