>But, you can also convince it that 2+2=5 by telling it that is true enough times

The same is true for humans though, it's essentially what gaslighting is. Though if I can use a less malicious example, think of a colorblind person, how do they know grass is green? Everyone told them so.

In fact, we're pretty close to achieving it.

Oh no, I want the led faces to stay

Alright, thank you, that answered my question a bit.

Huh, interesting.

Er, that doesn't really answer my question, I grew up in 2010's, earliest memory I have is from 2009, I have no frame of reference for the 90's.

Also there's a cat...

Can I just say, whatever the future, I love the fact everyone seemingly decided to give robots funny LED faces.

Question as a person born in 2005: What changed technologically since 1990's?

Huh, interesting, quickly read the article, I'm actually really happy this is a thing, not only is it another reason why we should get thinner, it also may validate some of my personal theories that I hope to work on in the future.

This is unrelated, but I think the gym I'm going to plays Cbat on speakers as gym music and I've began wondering if I should lift to the rhythm.

I really don't get why every time on a post like this there are always people advocating psychedelics.

Well, if it is not by experience of a thing, we can know a thing, then I do not know how else can we know? Imagining how the thing should function?

As far as I can tell, "the hard problem of conciousness" is not a a fully accepted fact within neuroscience, as such, I will not comment on it. Though, since I take the stance of a determinist, I think the experience of the color red is shaped by how culture imbues symbolism onto a wavelenght, and previous positive or negative responses towards red things.

But we can indeed observe and quantify red. Can we do the same for concioussness though? We can not, what we perceive as concioussness, is an emergent property of our brain, or simply a non-existent thing.

The brain is known to lie to us. It's actually a fairly usual things for the brain to make-up or distort things in an effort to maintain consistency of thoughts, beliefs, and actions. You can easily observe an example by pointing out a person doing something they consider as against their stated beliefs, the brain in such case will make up anything to appear as if there never was any inconsistency. If a brain makes up false memories, a person will still act according to these memories as if they were real.

If it is not quantifiable or measurable in some way, then by empirical principles, it does not exist.

Assuming that synthetic neurons would have the same properties and could seamlessly interact with our organic tissue, then it would not be death.

Our body is a ship of Theseus many times over, your cells function, die, and get replaced with new cells on and on.

Neuron replacement is different only so much that neurons typically do not get replaced once the brain is fully grown. But the process would be no different than the natural replacement of your blood every few days, the replacement of your skeleton every 15 years, or the replacement of your skin every few weeks.

Our thought patterns and electric signals would simply take over the synthetic neuronal cells as organic cells become a minority.

Unless of course, the argument is merely a rephrasing of the tech-phobic idea that somehow human-made things are inherently worse.

Tell me you never read God Emperor of Dune without telling me you never read God Emperor of Dune /s

My God, sail-powered ships! I can't believe it! What will they think of next?! /s