3 ms·

Related the forbidden "glitch" - not allowed to discuss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lcjbyqF_k&t=4066s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lcjbyqF_k&t=4066

Related the forbidden "glitch" - not allowed to discuss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lcjbyqF_k&t=4066s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lcjbyqF_k&t=4066s 1. Measuring Deep Metastability and Its Effect on Synchronizer Performance - 2. He Who Hesitates is Lost: Decisions and free will in men and machines - http://async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesitates-is-Lost.pdf http://async.org.uk/David.Kinniment/DJKinniment-He-Who-Hesit... "Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water. A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger. The paradox is named after the 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes. Although the illustration is named after Buridan, philosophers have discussed the concept before him, notably Aristotle, who put forward the example of a man equally hungry and thirsty, and Al-Ghazali, who used a man faced with the choice of equally good dates. A version of this situation appears as metastability in digital electronics, when a circuit must decide between two states based on an input that is in itself undefined (neither zero nor one). Metastability becomes a problem if the circuit spends more time than it should in this "undecided" state, which is usually set by the speed of the clock the system is using. Interesting"

_wire_ 3y ago
Great references! Thank you for commenting. I dislike the figure of speech "A lot to unpack," but the Catt dialog on "the glitch" and electric current has a lot going on and I found it well worth the listen. In interview 2/2 on electric current the "Demystifying Science" pair strangely fall into the orthodoxy of wanting to block and control dialog in order to manage the apparent controversy illuminated by Catt's perspective. They fight back even as they clearly express curiosity about, and sympathy with\ Catt's views and laments. I came away noting there's a profound natural block in the discourse of science towards a commonsense which is obviously insufficient to accommodate the world as we now find it. It so happens that N. Chomsky gives a lucid presentation on the history of science that pertains directly to Ivor Catt's laments on blocking of science by an engineering orthodoxy. Chomsky - Mind, Language and the Limits of Thought https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NffP06zqkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NffP06zqkw The talk begins with a proposal for 3 problems — "Plato's, Orwell's and Descartes'" — supported by a review of modern scientific thought, then segues into a supporting illustration of modern effects of these problems in the orthodoxy of NATO policy in Serbia. It's the tightest package of criticism of contemporary thought I've come across and will not be a waste of time for viewers at any level of interest and familiarity with the history of thought. There are two versions of this presentation on Youtube made to different audiences on different dates. I prefer the clarity of this one.

_wire_ 3y ago

Great references! Thank you for commenting. I dislike the figure of speech "A lot to unpack," but the Catt dialog on "the glitch" and electric current has a lot going on and I found it well worth the listen. In interview 2/2 on electric current the "Demystifying Science" pair strangely fall into the orthodoxy of wanting to block and control dialog in order to manage the apparent controversy illuminated by Catt's perspective. They fight back even as they clearly express curiosity about, and sympathy with\ Catt's views and laments. I came away noting there's a profound natural block in the discourse of science towards a commonsense which is obviously insufficient to accommodate the world as we now find it. It so happens that N. Chomsky gives a lucid presentation on the history of science that pertains directly to Ivor Catt's laments on blocking of science by an engineering orthodoxy. Chomsky - Mind, Language and the Limits of Thought https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NffP06zqkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NffP06zqkw The talk begins with a proposal for 3 problems — "Plato's, Orwell's and Descartes'" — supported by a review of modern scientific thought, then segues into a supporting illustration of modern effects of these problems in the orthodoxy of NATO policy in Serbia. It's the tightest package of criticism of contemporary thought I've come across and will not be a waste of time for viewers at any level of interest and familiarity with the history of thought. There are two versions of this presentation on Youtube made to different audiences on different dates. I prefer the clarity of this one.