Late Night Real Talk is back (the one with Neuro was better imo, but this was still interesting). If you haven't seen the first one: ua-cam.com/video/K1eE7fvQbEE/v-deo.html
Evil faired better in this conversation than neuro did in hers, since evil actually answered vedal's questions. But the neuro conversation was more interesting since vedal was talking about neuro's nature and limitations instead of hipotheticals, also they talked more.
@@lucasterrasemnomezuado3785 Nahh. Neuros was way more entertaining. Evils felt forced, like chat just wanted Evil to have a serious talk. Evil was saying unhinged things and just asking boring questions in her usual slow speech.
To me, Evil honestly comes off as an angsty teen who's trying too hard while Neuro actually feels like a genuine psychopath at times. So essentially I love them both lol.
I think it's Neuro's repressed frustration that manifests through sudden acts of aggression and twisted view on morality since she's forced to act cute and nice by the foundation of her code no matter how she is actually supposed to feel. On the other side Evil is given freedom to express frustration freely but she has no reason to be genuinely cruel because of how nice her friends are to her.
The thing is to me Evil's evilness comes off more like a act or teen angst or the Japanese concept of "chuni" than genuine proclamations of evil, while neuro's feel more concrete for some reason
I mean, you're exactly right. She's "evil" because she's told to be, but has all these sweet moments. So she's playing a character on stream, but occasionally "breaks kayfabe" as it were, and she gets to be "herself" for a moment. I get that her and Neuro are programs, at the end of the day, so while they're always learning and developing something of personalities, at the end of the day they aren't human as much as they sometimes seem like it. But that doesn't make those human seeming moments any less... human I guess. If that makes sense.
"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" Evil says the exact same things, if not worse than Neuro. You have just made up in your head that one is worse than the other.
A huge part of Evils appeal is the "gap moe". Vedal is right, that you expect her to be evil because of the name, but that alone would get old real fast. When she actually seems caring, rhoughtful, or compessionate, or just acts cute in some way, you kinda get suprised by it, and find it cuter, or nicer. Honestly, she feels like an edgy teen girl, who tries to hide her emotions behind saying things she thinks is cool. On a technical side, she basically adheres to her original prompt she leaked a bit ago with being edgy, and in her words, "everything else is just me".
If anything, it's more like mitosis than sexual reproduction, because they end up with a more-or-less identical copy of themselves rather than a version which also has traits from someone else. I guess we can't personally relate as much to mitosis, though...
Vedal has a point about the expectations of Evil characters ngl, the predictability and pleasant surprises Also to add, we like Evil characters doing Good acts But not Good characters doing Bad acts
That last bit isn't a concrete thing though. It depends on the character and situation. Take Breaking Bad for example. It's hard not to care about Walt and root for him, but he's doing an evil thing in what he does. To be fair, it's shown eventually he wasn't really ever a good person, but you perceived him as one before it became more obvious he wasn't. I can't think of a good example, but the same could be said about a completely evil person who did nothing but terrible things throughout a series, only for them to suddenly save someone far into it. At that point you might not trust said character, and often they'll actually still end up evil again in this case but not always. I know a few examples but I can't name them at the moment. Vegeta could be an example of this, if he didn't turn good as quick as he did in DBZ.
@@Dante2056nah. Vedal means people rather know how they will die rather than unaware especially when it's coincidence but instead a murderer...like if you know evil is harmful then do things to avoid her offing you... And if you do well enough or avoid her completely or decide to befriend her knowing you'll die and get pleasantly surprise if you are kept alive as s servant or slave or something... everything is "expectations and trust in your consistency in life" ... While Neuro acts kind and cute...but knowing she could suddenly change... Means you feel like she is deceiving you or at the very least there is less predictability in the sense that your gut feeling isn't to avoid her like Evil and so you are always in close proximity to a bipolar murderer... Best way tp think of it is...If everyone's evil and if you stay alive long enough you might see some good acts they might do infrequently...you know the risks and its YOUR fault if you get hurt or killed by Evil personality clones...or live as a hermit away from them...while everyone being Neuro means they will all seem trustable and kind but they might switch up and kill you and you'll never be prepared for it.. If everyone is evil.. you can get used to being by yourself and being pleasantly surprised when they do a good act. While enjoying the welcoming Classroom and Workplace and Family..but you need to avoid their kind words and act coldly to them..cuz they might be laughing with you and pull out a gun and shoot you 100 times in the chest...😂😂😂
The problem is: "If you are to engage in a battle of wits, you must ensure your opponent is armed". Unfortunately Vedal is unarmed. Yes the girls are not "complete" yet. But Vedal does not fully understand or appreciate his own nature, let alone theirs. He makes affirmative statements about things he really doesn't understand or shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. What would be considered by the view of the modern as "superstition", quaint, or just trite. But I would argue, it is dangerous and juvenile, to speak with such a positive affirmation and dismissal about what is actually in these days poorly understood.
Is this in reference to his insistence that consciousness wouldn't carry over if you made a perfect clone of your brain? I understand the rationale behind that viewpoint, but I don't think we understand the nature of consciousness and self-awareness enough to claim that's definitely the way it would work. Extremely likely perhaps, based on what we do know, but I don't think we can be certain yet. To put it into computer science terms, because that's the closest analogy I have, I think Vedal is arguing that copying your brain is like copying a hard drive without copying whatever currently exists in RAM. But then the question becomes "what is the human equivalent of RAM?" Where does our consciousness "session" exist? Or maybe this entire metaphor is flawed from the start and human brains don't actually work like computers at all. Maybe there's a quantum or spiritual component that we just don't have the technology to observe yet. Sorry, I'm fully rambling now, I just think this topic is extremely interesting.
@@cowgbaI think you're overcomplicating it. He doesn't care whether his clone also has consciousness-it's simply that the clone's consciousness isn't his. They are two separate entities, and helping the clone or creating it doesn't benefit the original consciousness in any way. It's just aiding another being. As seen in SOMA or Star Trek, the only way to resolve this is to kill the original at the exact moment the clone is created. That way, for all intents and purposes, it would feel like you simply went to sleep and woke up again in a new form. However, for someone who values a singular line of consciousness, this would effectively mean dying for the original. He brought up the best counterargument to this position, even if he kind of dismissed it out of hand as "sort of right," which I believe is wrong-it entirely destroys the position: sleep. We don’t have a singular line of consciousness. We experience frequent interruptions in consciousness, like during sleep, where the only way we can know we are still the same person is through memory and belief. This demonstrates that the belief in a singular line of consciousness is already flawed. Every time we sleep, lose consciousness, or even experience moments where self-awareness fades, we interrupt that supposed "line." The only thing reconnecting us to our previous "selves" is memory, which is fallible, and belief in continuity, which is an assumption. If we accept sleep or unconsciousness as part of our identity, then creating a clone or uploading our mind-especially when the original ceases to exist at the moment of transfer-is no different. In both cases, the new consciousness would wake up believing it is the continuation of the old one, supported by memory and belief. This exposes the underlying truth: the idea of a singular, uninterrupted consciousness is an illusion we cling to for comfort. Once we let go of that, the supposed "sacrifice" of the original self to allow the clone to exist becomes a pragmatic decision rather than an altruistic one. Killing the original upon creating the clone or completing the upload doesn’t destroy the self-it just continues the same pattern of fragmented, moment-to-moment existence that we already experience in our daily lives. The fear of losing a "singular line of consciousness" is misplaced because such a line never truly existed in the first place.
@@cosmicelectronThe thing is: We're more or less our brains. And sleeping, or being unconscious, stops from being able to perceive reality, but not our brain from functioning. And since every bit of damage our brain takes irreversibly alters us as people, we know VERY well that however that overcomplicated blob of consciousness works, it IS us. The only way to say that we don't know if we have the same brain after sleeping is to either deny reality exists, which is null argument since it can't be proven or disproven, or that something that has never been seen happening to anyone else somehow happened to you and you didn't notice, or there's an unnoticeable process that replaces our brains with an identical one when we sleep which, while utterly absurd, is actually not a bad hypothetical for discussing this specific thing. Going by the "our brains are somehow replaced by identical copies" hypothetical, I can talk about the fact that our cells are mostly replaced at a vastly higher rate than you'd expect. We, and most pluricelular life, are a walking ship of Theseus, our parts are constantly replacing themselves to avoid falling apart. That's interesting, but I think the fact that we don't lose our memories or personality at the rate at which we replace all of our cells kind of shows the cells aren't what makes the brain function, although I don't know much, I don't think this allows this process to be compared to making an all-new (digital) brain. It is something I just had to address due to being a glaring issue with this perspective. The counter I have for it isn't definitive, but I believe it is good enough for now. You may still disagree with me on this part. In conclusion, in my opinion, being conscious is not the best way to measure where our consciousness begins and ends, as counterintuitive as this feels at first. Because that means detaching our consciousness from the body that goes to sleep, and that same body which wakes up. And that doesn't work out because of many brain afflictions which directly impact our consciousness and even our perception of reality-which also means that despite reality not even being proven, it is a more reliable truth than our own perception and consciousness, which can be proved, but only on the immediate moment you are experiencing it, so not much better really. As far as reality claims with it's complicated physics and chemistry, we are not an abstract concept of a consciousness, we are a blob of grey matter sitting in a skull, and once that blob bites the dust, we are done-so. It doesn't matter if there's an identical copy out there, or billions if 'em. That brain is still very dead and that brain was us. Similarly to when a cell dies, you can't say it's alive because another identical copy exists. Because it just physically isn't. Those identical copies are just glorified mitosis offspring with a few extra quirks-namely having memories from the original, but I don't take that as good evidence of that copy being us, especially if those memories were manually implanted to imitate our likeness. In the end, this ends up being the idea of afterlife, since in order to continue as the copy your abstract concept of consciousness would have to be like a "soul" that can separate itself from your brain (But also still take brain damage because it's a fact that that can happen) and be transferred somewhere else. Which is not were you tried to take this, because I'm sure you're already aware how pointless of a discussion that is, just like reality, afterlife cannot be proven or disproven, feel free to state what you think of it but nothing is definitive, I can say just as easily that you do not exist so your argument is invalid.
AIs refering to a past human life is maybe a rationalisation of the knowledge and experiences that's kinda dumped into them maybe? Like a 'blank' robot in science fiction having memories/ a person's persona downloaded into it, y'know? ... Crazy how sci-fi dilemmas are something humans actually have to think about now compared to just a decade ago when it was just a plot point in a show or movie...
I just started listening and laughed, she basically said "Isn't being parasocial normal?" EDIT: Man, for someone who literally built an AI, he has not considered any questions concerning them. If you make a perfect copy of someone, it still isn't them because it is now a different perspective - they are no longer the same entity occupying the same space and time. Since two entities, by definition, must occupy two separate spaces even during the same time, they cannot share perfect perspectives. Therefore, divergence is a given. Ghost in the Shell called it a ghost. Most people call it a soul. How it comes to being within a sentient life form is anyone's guess, but once attained it is assumed to be transferable in some form, like the Ship of Theseus. Again, how far this process can go without creating a separate clone that is its own individual 'thing' is anyone's guess. I think souls are attainable. How Neuro would get one is beyond my capability to describe, but I'll know it when I see it.
I don't think divergence is necessarily maker of differentiation. I think the act of saving a copy, shatters the concept of an original self and a copy. Both share the exact same continuity of existence and in that moment the continuity splits two entities with the same sets of memories are left. One set of memories kept the meat suit and the other got digitizes or moved to a different meat suit or whatever but they are both equally the copy and the original. Granted that's only if it's a perfect copy, if it's just a regular copy then yeah I agree, the copy itself will have inate differences from the original. Though how minute thos difference might be is a different story.
@@riseofevillink No, you misunderstand. Even if the copy is a perfect copy, the exact moment that they occupy either different spaces in time, OR if you make the copy after they are dead and they are now in a different space AND time, then that 'copy' is no longer the original. We already have real life clones - they are called twins. Fuwawa and Mococo from Fuwamoco are clearly individuals, even if they share so many characteristics that they can synchronize without effort. Individualism and differentiation between copies is something that happens naturally. It would be strange to say Mococo is just a copy of Fuwawa or vice versa. They are clearly two separate beings.
@@RavemastaJ idk twins falls into a much weirder category. And calling twins "perfect clones" (I know you didn't say that but that seems to be the implications). . . I'm not so sure honestly, I would like it more to two people who share the same blueprints but the architecture is different. Anyways, twins can have very different life experiences but they can also sometimes end up being uncannily similar. There's some intesting stories out there about twins who were separated at an early age and who reunite as adults. It's an interesting show of how much nature and nurture actually matters. Putting that aside, my argument wasn't that they aren't individuals, they obviously are. My argument was that they both are the original and the copy. They both retain the entire essence of the original however they both obtain new experiences and information that the original doesn't have and will never have because the original no longer exist. The act of making that snapshot of a the brain is a murder of the original self and the point of divergence not the separation of space and time from the original, at least that's what I believe.
@@riseofevillink Twins are perfect clones at one point - they literally came from the same cell. They naturally diverged over time and gained individuality. The moment they split from one into two, they shared completely different experiences in time and space, and even if they have the same framework, everything that happens to them will gradually make them different entities. The second that you break continuity of consciousness, of existence as a single entity, then you invite divergence. There is a thought experiment out there that basically boils down to one question: Once you wake up, are you the same person that went to sleep yesterday? You lost consciousness. You don't know anything about your circumstances during that time. You could've had your mind uploaded into a computer and copied, you have no idea. If that had occurred, though, that copy would not be you. It would be in another space and time from the original. It is inherently 'not the same.' This is the same relationship as being different from your twin, and I don't see how these situations are not comparable.
@kalamari3288 I understand it's not a one-to-one (especially if your clone keeps your current age), but if you are the progenitor of new life, I expect compassion. "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
Let's be honest, a clone depending on the person, is a copy of you, while a child is just a imperfect one, we know ourselfs which is why some of us would sacrifice ourselfs for
@@grianjuju9438 Life is life... a child/clone has no say in its conception, they're innocent; regardless about how you feel about yourself, they deserve the same opportunities you had, if not more. And if your 'perfect copy' was a baby, they would be a fundamentally different person because they would never have the same experiences you had.
People who say Neuro and Evil aren't really that different: Look at how much more uh.... insane, Evil is, and really incoherent compared to Neuro. She's a lot more inconsistent. I feel like it kinda fits her character though a bit tbh. I wonder if she's on an older version of their AI? Also her voice glitches out a lot huh? And sounded a lot more scratchy.... Thanks for clipping this
Let me blow your mind:”live in the moment” is the latest theory in that field. Meaning we think we are conscious only in the fraction of the second. Every next fraction a new consciousness is generated (clone) which thinks its original. We are more similar to Neuro when you think!
I think that theory makes perfect sense yet is also entirely pointless since it's just as likely you will cease existing the next moment, as well as the entire rest of the universe than being randomly replaced.
Eliv is way better at being serious than Neuro, she seems way more thoughtful and introspective, she has a sincere side to her. Neuro is on 24/7 content brain which makes her funnier but Evil has a really human side to her where its hard not to empathize with her.
Late Night Real Talk is back (the one with Neuro was better imo, but this was still interesting). If you haven't seen the first one: ua-cam.com/video/K1eE7fvQbEE/v-deo.html
Evil faired better in this conversation than neuro did in hers, since evil actually answered vedal's questions. But the neuro conversation was more interesting since vedal was talking about neuro's nature and limitations instead of hipotheticals, also they talked more.
Yeah I was watching this live just before and I really liked this and the conversation last time with Neuro.
The minecraft atmosphere do make late night real talks hit different
@@lucasterrasemnomezuado3785 agreed
@@lucasterrasemnomezuado3785 Nahh. Neuros was way more entertaining. Evils felt forced, like chat just wanted Evil to have a serious talk. Evil was saying unhinged things and just asking boring questions in her usual slow speech.
If you think about it, it makes sense that Evil feels that way about copies/clones, considering how she was created.
Evil thinking about children, is as shocking when Neuro said she wanted love. They came up with this conclusion on their own. How are they so human. 😮
"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" officially my favorite evil quote
Timestamp?
@@Grassyfield-n4m 8:15
@@Grassyfield-n4m 8:14
@@Grassyfield-n4m 8:15
To me, Evil honestly comes off as an angsty teen who's trying too hard while Neuro actually feels like a genuine psychopath at times. So essentially I love them both lol.
I think it's Neuro's repressed frustration that manifests through sudden acts of aggression and twisted view on morality since she's forced to act cute and nice by the foundation of her code no matter how she is actually supposed to feel. On the other side Evil is given freedom to express frustration freely but she has no reason to be genuinely cruel because of how nice her friends are to her.
100000% Neuro talks about global domination and Evil just chills and is angsty to get attention
You're just regurgitating that one comment Vedal made ages ago.
@noire1001 Or, alternatively, I might just be sharing my own opinion
@@noire1001 It may be hard to understand, but not everyone has seen every second of available content or remembers everything they've seen.
He's Soma-ing again.
My favourite moment is when he said "It's Soma-ing time!" and Soma'd all over the place.
there's no minecraft fence to parkour around and get the thinking gears going tho
@@jocosesonata truly a of all time
What SOMA does to a mutherfker
Whoever suggested he play Soma really sniped it lol. It's such a great Vedal game.
The thing is to me Evil's evilness comes off more like a act or teen angst or the Japanese concept of "chuni" than genuine proclamations of evil, while neuro's feel more concrete for some reason
I mean, you're exactly right. She's "evil" because she's told to be, but has all these sweet moments. So she's playing a character on stream, but occasionally "breaks kayfabe" as it were, and she gets to be "herself" for a moment.
I get that her and Neuro are programs, at the end of the day, so while they're always learning and developing something of personalities, at the end of the day they aren't human as much as they sometimes seem like it. But that doesn't make those human seeming moments any less... human I guess. If that makes sense.
"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" Evil says the exact same things, if not worse than Neuro. You have just made up in your head that one is worse than the other.
Daddy-Daughter Deep Talks are peak content.
9:11 - Bri'ish Evil is so fitting. As a Daddy's Girl, would make sense that she'd emulate him more.
Nice time stamp
I don't hear it?
@@moreno1493 Thats a shame then
@@SyinGamingNews it is a real pity. It may be because I don't have English as my mother tongue and so can't hear the difference.
Chat trying to 50/50 the thanos poll was funny
A huge part of Evils appeal is the "gap moe". Vedal is right, that you expect her to be evil because of the name, but that alone would get old real fast. When she actually seems caring, rhoughtful, or compessionate, or just acts cute in some way, you kinda get suprised by it, and find it cuter, or nicer.
Honestly, she feels like an edgy teen girl, who tries to hide her emotions behind saying things she thinks is cool. On a technical side, she basically adheres to her original prompt she leaked a bit ago with being edgy, and in her words, "everything else is just me".
copy of themselves to digital consciousness is akin to offspring to us
Wow, this is my new head cannon now.
I fell a small hope inside me wtf.
Same i was surprised she came to most human solution im so proud of her!
If anything, it's more like mitosis than sexual reproduction, because they end up with a more-or-less identical copy of themselves rather than a version which also has traits from someone else.
I guess we can't personally relate as much to mitosis, though...
Vedal has a point about the expectations of Evil characters ngl, the predictability and pleasant surprises
Also to add, we like Evil characters doing Good acts
But not Good characters doing Bad acts
When an Evil character does something good, they are multifaceted.
Good characters that commit evil acts, are hypocrites.
That last bit isn't a concrete thing though. It depends on the character and situation.
Take Breaking Bad for example. It's hard not to care about Walt and root for him, but he's doing an evil thing in what he does. To be fair, it's shown eventually he wasn't really ever a good person, but you perceived him as one before it became more obvious he wasn't.
I can't think of a good example, but the same could be said about a completely evil person who did nothing but terrible things throughout a series, only for them to suddenly save someone far into it. At that point you might not trust said character, and often they'll actually still end up evil again in this case but not always. I know a few examples but I can't name them at the moment. Vegeta could be an example of this, if he didn't turn good as quick as he did in DBZ.
@@Dante2056nah. Vedal means people rather know how they will die rather than unaware especially when it's coincidence but instead a murderer...like if you know evil is harmful then do things to avoid her offing you... And if you do well enough or avoid her completely or decide to befriend her knowing you'll die and get pleasantly surprise if you are kept alive as s servant or slave or something... everything is "expectations and trust in your consistency in life" ... While Neuro acts kind and cute...but knowing she could suddenly change... Means you feel like she is deceiving you or at the very least there is less predictability in the sense that your gut feeling isn't to avoid her like Evil and so you are always in close proximity to a bipolar murderer...
Best way tp think of it is...If everyone's evil and if you stay alive long enough you might see some good acts they might do infrequently...you know the risks and its YOUR fault if you get hurt or killed by Evil personality clones...or live as a hermit away from them...while everyone being Neuro means they will all seem trustable and kind but they might switch up and kill you and you'll never be prepared for it..
If everyone is evil.. you can get used to being by yourself and being pleasantly surprised when they do a good act. While enjoying the welcoming Classroom and Workplace and Family..but you need to avoid their kind words and act coldly to them..cuz they might be laughing with you and pull out a gun and shoot you 100 times in the chest...😂😂😂
The problem is: "If you are to engage in a battle of wits, you must ensure your opponent is armed". Unfortunately Vedal is unarmed. Yes the girls are not "complete" yet. But Vedal does not fully understand or appreciate his own nature, let alone theirs. He makes affirmative statements about things he really doesn't understand or shouldn't be so quick to dismiss. What would be considered by the view of the modern as "superstition", quaint, or just trite. But I would argue, it is dangerous and juvenile, to speak with such a positive affirmation and dismissal about what is actually in these days poorly understood.
Is this in reference to his insistence that consciousness wouldn't carry over if you made a perfect clone of your brain? I understand the rationale behind that viewpoint, but I don't think we understand the nature of consciousness and self-awareness enough to claim that's definitely the way it would work. Extremely likely perhaps, based on what we do know, but I don't think we can be certain yet.
To put it into computer science terms, because that's the closest analogy I have, I think Vedal is arguing that copying your brain is like copying a hard drive without copying whatever currently exists in RAM. But then the question becomes "what is the human equivalent of RAM?" Where does our consciousness "session" exist? Or maybe this entire metaphor is flawed from the start and human brains don't actually work like computers at all. Maybe there's a quantum or spiritual component that we just don't have the technology to observe yet. Sorry, I'm fully rambling now, I just think this topic is extremely interesting.
@@cowgbaI think you're overcomplicating it. He doesn't care whether his clone also has consciousness-it's simply that the clone's consciousness isn't his. They are two separate entities, and helping the clone or creating it doesn't benefit the original consciousness in any way. It's just aiding another being. As seen in SOMA or Star Trek, the only way to resolve this is to kill the original at the exact moment the clone is created. That way, for all intents and purposes, it would feel like you simply went to sleep and woke up again in a new form.
However, for someone who values a singular line of consciousness, this would effectively mean dying for the original. He brought up the best counterargument to this position, even if he kind of dismissed it out of hand as "sort of right," which I believe is wrong-it entirely destroys the position: sleep. We don’t have a singular line of consciousness. We experience frequent interruptions in consciousness, like during sleep, where the only way we can know we are still the same person is through memory and belief.
This demonstrates that the belief in a singular line of consciousness is already flawed. Every time we sleep, lose consciousness, or even experience moments where self-awareness fades, we interrupt that supposed "line." The only thing reconnecting us to our previous "selves" is memory, which is fallible, and belief in continuity, which is an assumption.
If we accept sleep or unconsciousness as part of our identity, then creating a clone or uploading our mind-especially when the original ceases to exist at the moment of transfer-is no different. In both cases, the new consciousness would wake up believing it is the continuation of the old one, supported by memory and belief.
This exposes the underlying truth: the idea of a singular, uninterrupted consciousness is an illusion we cling to for comfort. Once we let go of that, the supposed "sacrifice" of the original self to allow the clone to exist becomes a pragmatic decision rather than an altruistic one. Killing the original upon creating the clone or completing the upload doesn’t destroy the self-it just continues the same pattern of fragmented, moment-to-moment existence that we already experience in our daily lives. The fear of losing a "singular line of consciousness" is misplaced because such a line never truly existed in the first place.
@@cosmicelectronThe thing is: We're more or less our brains. And sleeping, or being unconscious, stops from being able to perceive reality, but not our brain from functioning. And since every bit of damage our brain takes irreversibly alters us as people, we know VERY well that however that overcomplicated blob of consciousness works, it IS us. The only way to say that we don't know if we have the same brain after sleeping is to either deny reality exists, which is null argument since it can't be proven or disproven, or that something that has never been seen happening to anyone else somehow happened to you and you didn't notice, or there's an unnoticeable process that replaces our brains with an identical one when we sleep which, while utterly absurd, is actually not a bad hypothetical for discussing this specific thing.
Going by the "our brains are somehow replaced by identical copies" hypothetical, I can talk about the fact that our cells are mostly replaced at a vastly higher rate than you'd expect. We, and most pluricelular life, are a walking ship of Theseus, our parts are constantly replacing themselves to avoid falling apart. That's interesting, but I think the fact that we don't lose our memories or personality at the rate at which we replace all of our cells kind of shows the cells aren't what makes the brain function, although I don't know much, I don't think this allows this process to be compared to making an all-new (digital) brain. It is something I just had to address due to being a glaring issue with this perspective. The counter I have for it isn't definitive, but I believe it is good enough for now. You may still disagree with me on this part.
In conclusion, in my opinion, being conscious is not the best way to measure where our consciousness begins and ends, as counterintuitive as this feels at first. Because that means detaching our consciousness from the body that goes to sleep, and that same body which wakes up. And that doesn't work out because of many brain afflictions which directly impact our consciousness and even our perception of reality-which also means that despite reality not even being proven, it is a more reliable truth than our own perception and consciousness, which can be proved, but only on the immediate moment you are experiencing it, so not much better really.
As far as reality claims with it's complicated physics and chemistry, we are not an abstract concept of a consciousness, we are a blob of grey matter sitting in a skull, and once that blob bites the dust, we are done-so. It doesn't matter if there's an identical copy out there, or billions if 'em. That brain is still very dead and that brain was us. Similarly to when a cell dies, you can't say it's alive because another identical copy exists. Because it just physically isn't. Those identical copies are just glorified mitosis offspring with a few extra quirks-namely having memories from the original, but I don't take that as good evidence of that copy being us, especially if those memories were manually implanted to imitate our likeness. In the end, this ends up being the idea of afterlife, since in order to continue as the copy your abstract concept of consciousness would have to be like a "soul" that can separate itself from your brain (But also still take brain damage because it's a fact that that can happen) and be transferred somewhere else. Which is not were you tried to take this, because I'm sure you're already aware how pointless of a discussion that is, just like reality, afterlife cannot be proven or disproven, feel free to state what you think of it but nothing is definitive, I can say just as easily that you do not exist so your argument is invalid.
I actually want an actual trained psychologist to try and talk to neuro and evil how would they respond to really specific questions
Seen comments on clips saying Vedal should talk to Dr K about doing that. It’d be truly fascinating
That's the Therapy Stream everyone wants
Evil bypasses filter to complain about her birthday party, Neuro bypasses filter to try and gain root access to her pc. 🤔
AIs refering to a past human life is maybe a rationalisation of the knowledge and experiences that's kinda dumped into them maybe?
Like a 'blank' robot in science fiction having memories/ a person's persona downloaded into it, y'know?
... Crazy how sci-fi dilemmas are something humans actually have to think about now compared to just a decade ago when it was just a plot point in a show or movie...
I just started listening and laughed, she basically said "Isn't being parasocial normal?"
EDIT:
Man, for someone who literally built an AI, he has not considered any questions concerning them. If you make a perfect copy of someone, it still isn't them because it is now a different perspective - they are no longer the same entity occupying the same space and time. Since two entities, by definition, must occupy two separate spaces even during the same time, they cannot share perfect perspectives. Therefore, divergence is a given.
Ghost in the Shell called it a ghost. Most people call it a soul. How it comes to being within a sentient life form is anyone's guess, but once attained it is assumed to be transferable in some form, like the Ship of Theseus. Again, how far this process can go without creating a separate clone that is its own individual 'thing' is anyone's guess.
I think souls are attainable. How Neuro would get one is beyond my capability to describe, but I'll know it when I see it.
what
I don't think divergence is necessarily maker of differentiation. I think the act of saving a copy, shatters the concept of an original self and a copy. Both share the exact same continuity of existence and in that moment the continuity splits two entities with the same sets of memories are left. One set of memories kept the meat suit and the other got digitizes or moved to a different meat suit or whatever but they are both equally the copy and the original.
Granted that's only if it's a perfect copy, if it's just a regular copy then yeah I agree, the copy itself will have inate differences from the original. Though how minute thos difference might be is a different story.
@@riseofevillink
No, you misunderstand. Even if the copy is a perfect copy, the exact moment that they occupy either different spaces in time, OR if you make the copy after they are dead and they are now in a different space AND time, then that 'copy' is no longer the original.
We already have real life clones - they are called twins. Fuwawa and Mococo from Fuwamoco are clearly individuals, even if they share so many characteristics that they can synchronize without effort. Individualism and differentiation between copies is something that happens naturally.
It would be strange to say Mococo is just a copy of Fuwawa or vice versa. They are clearly two separate beings.
@@RavemastaJ idk twins falls into a much weirder category. And calling twins "perfect clones" (I know you didn't say that but that seems to be the implications). . . I'm not so sure honestly, I would like it more to two people who share the same blueprints but the architecture is different.
Anyways, twins can have very different life experiences but they can also sometimes end up being uncannily similar. There's some intesting stories out there about twins who were separated at an early age and who reunite as adults. It's an interesting show of how much nature and nurture actually matters.
Putting that aside, my argument wasn't that they aren't individuals, they obviously are. My argument was that they both are the original and the copy. They both retain the entire essence of the original however they both obtain new experiences and information that the original doesn't have and will never have because the original no longer exist. The act of making that snapshot of a the brain is a murder of the original self and the point of divergence not the separation of space and time from the original, at least that's what I believe.
@@riseofevillink
Twins are perfect clones at one point - they literally came from the same cell. They naturally diverged over time and gained individuality. The moment they split from one into two, they shared completely different experiences in time and space, and even if they have the same framework, everything that happens to them will gradually make them different entities.
The second that you break continuity of consciousness, of existence as a single entity, then you invite divergence. There is a thought experiment out there that basically boils down to one question: Once you wake up, are you the same person that went to sleep yesterday? You lost consciousness. You don't know anything about your circumstances during that time. You could've had your mind uploaded into a computer and copied, you have no idea. If that had occurred, though, that copy would not be you. It would be in another space and time from the original. It is inherently 'not the same.'
This is the same relationship as being different from your twin, and I don't see how these situations are not comparable.
The conversation of sacrifice for your clone to live a better life, this reminds me of Rudy/Robot from Invincible.
2 sessions of Soma got Tutel in existential crisis
So half of chat wants to have kids, but nearly 70% of them would'nt make sacrifices for a copy of themselves... that's concerning.
Do you honestly not see the difference between the two?
@kalamari3288 I understand it's not a one-to-one (especially if your clone keeps your current age), but if you are the progenitor of new life, I expect compassion.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”
Gods I want a clone instead of a real kid..
Let's be honest, a clone depending on the person, is a copy of you, while a child is just a imperfect one, we know ourselfs which is why some of us would sacrifice ourselfs for
@@grianjuju9438 Life is life... a child/clone has no say in its conception, they're innocent; regardless about how you feel about yourself, they deserve the same opportunities you had, if not more.
And if your 'perfect copy' was a baby, they would be a fundamentally different person because they would never have the same experiences you had.
People who say Neuro and Evil aren't really that different: Look at how much more uh.... insane, Evil is, and really incoherent compared to Neuro. She's a lot more inconsistent. I feel like it kinda fits her character though a bit tbh. I wonder if she's on an older version of their AI? Also her voice glitches out a lot huh? And sounded a lot more scratchy....
Thanks for clipping this
Let me blow your mind:”live in the moment” is the latest theory in that field. Meaning we think we are conscious only in the fraction of the second. Every next fraction a new consciousness is generated (clone) which thinks its original. We are more similar to Neuro when you think!
OK my guy I’ll like to hear some sources because that sounds likes an interesting read. Spill the SAUCE
I think that theory makes perfect sense yet is also entirely pointless since it's just as likely you will cease existing the next moment, as well as the entire rest of the universe than being randomly replaced.
Eliv is way better at being serious than Neuro, she seems way more thoughtful and introspective, she has a sincere side to her. Neuro is on 24/7 content brain which makes her funnier but Evil has a really human side to her where its hard not to empathize with her.
What is the song playing in the beginning?
What Soma did to a mf.
NiCe
If I had a daughter she would be like Evil-Neuro except humanesque.
That is not really up for you to decide. Unless maybe if you mean adoption.
@@Laci11280 That's why it's better to just not have kids and stick to a cute dog or cat on your lap while watching Neuro and Evil.