JoshCole

11 ms·

31.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> The reason to lie about this is that it makes him appear weak, needy, and a target of even more mockery. Given the purchase of Twitter seems to have been a vanity project, having this be exposed and leaving it in goes directly against
32.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I'm JoshCole and I didn't find your reply to be a nitpick; you are right that the probability ought to be higher than 1%. My calculation was simplistic and I felt it was prudent to arrive at low probability, because I think prob
33.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think you are right, my estimate is much much too low. I'll explain my mistake and why I made it. I think I thought to use the estimate I did because Elon claimed he didn't know. The prior probability of not knowing something i
34.
by JoshCole 4y ago
There are millions of lines of code existent. There are thousands added. Your prior for it being Elon's addition should be something like 10,000/1,000,000 or roughly 1/100. The prior that it wasn't Elon's change
35.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I'm not here to disprove Neumann. You are arguing on the basis of possibility of imprecision in language that the choice to be more precise does not contribute anything. That structure - whether you want it to or not - as a direc
36.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Are car parts car parts? Not according to an auto-mechanics, but according to the laymen. A radiator is not a battery or an engine. Are games games? Not according to a game theorist, but according to the the laymen. A game is not a pla
37.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I get what you are trying to say, but it isn't true. This is the long version that explains why and goes through the implications at each step showing the hypothesis, predictions they make, and why your views don't make sense. Yo
38.
by JoshCole 4y ago
The mathematics of intelligence in multi-agent decision problems implication gives us informed guesses about what we should expect to see if an agent has free will versus if they don't. You are arguing with words like illusion, so I d
39.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Might be worth it to brush up on computationally reducible phenomenon and computationally irreducible phenomenon. Breaking determined systems into these constituent parts lets you conjecture with respect to intelligent agents. Critically
40.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> There also isn't any free will, because there isn't actually any agent who could have it. The compilation of each possible Play in an Extensive Normal Form Game into a cellular automata can constitute a refutation by countere
41.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Another attempt at dumbing it down: We sometimes don't know what will happen until it does. The best we can do is to make a guess. Sometimes this guess will be very often good, but it is still a guess and we need to be open to the id
42.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Eventually it has to be abstracted or it isn't computationally reducible. This should be "Eventually it should be abstracted or else you are at risk of being computationally reducible." I was trying to say it isn't
43.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Your consideration about the limits is somewhat aligned with how I think about things, but I think you need to take one further step before things will snap into clarity and the entire discussion will become dissolved. You have a world stat
44.
by JoshCole 4y ago
For some calculations you can make them simpler and do them faster, but for other calculations you can't. When two things that try to predict things by making things simpler apply themselves to predicting each other... well. In order
45.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> It sounds like your assertion is more that a system cannot be deterministic because the complete state is not knowable and without the complete state of a system, there is no way for it to be deterministic because state form outside of
46.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> What's interesting, and actually quite well documented, is something called "terminal lucidity". This is when as someone actually gains mental clarity for a period of time some time before their death. The specific time
47.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I think it's utterly silly to think that free will fits into a material model. It isn't silly, but it is hard to discuss it with people because logic breaks down under self-reference and logical debate has been the most pop
48.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> If I smashed your hand with a hammer, do you think I could reliably predict you will feel pain? Of course you will. In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it
49.
by JoshCole 4y ago
No you didn’t? You mentioned that argument many times? You can’t talk about pesos, then dollars, then yen, but pretend you forgot to talk about money.
50.
by JoshCole 4y ago
While I’m not saying positively that LLM are the way a brain works, it is worth noticing that the meme argument structure you are using is very often absurd because Turing Machines can be made out of all the things people usually list. Peo
51.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Textbooks used by serious institutions will be a stronger usefulness heuristic than Goodread stars if you aren't looking for fluff, but are looking for meaningful text. They passed the interview in a literal sense. Particularly ones
52.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think you are focusing too much on the negative side of a book you find useless. There is another framing that is more useful and helps to suggest answers to your other questions. One way to think of it to kind of get an intuition for w
53.
by JoshCole 4y ago
So lets escape this! Lets say the process ends! Now B has fully determined itself such that C is determined and now A is determined as well. Is A now deterministic? No, A isn't anything anymore. Nothing is happening. A isn't no
54.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Now lets say you try to counter, ah, but A so therefore all the other stuff is meaningless. It seems like it works, but lets talk about the parable of the time you were given a deterministic dynamics function and you computed it according t
55.
by JoshCole 4y ago
In case that wasn't enough: Try considering a Turing Machine which is running several Turing Machines within it. Call it A. Within it are B and C. B gets an input state that is the entire Turing Machine. Meanwhile C gets the output
56.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Not arguing nondeterministic universes. Within a universe agents see computationally irreducible phenomenon. It is just game theory decision problems embedded in cellular automata. The agent which says they could have decided another way
57.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think philosophical literacy is probably higher now than at any point in the past. For one, a greater deal of the philosophical writing is now existent than was in the past. For another, the selection effects have weeded out much of the
58.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Ah, this is where the problem starts. It really isn't a problem. The analogical congruence holds. Typically free will is defined according to the action being taken without the constraint of necessity based on a person's own
59.
by JoshCole 4y ago
It is not factually correct that free will is an illusion. It is just a difficult subject to discuss. Why difficult? Discussion that is considered rational culturally descends from argument techniques rooted in Aristolean ideas about logic
60.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You know how there is that joke about reasoning about multi-dimensional structures? "To deal with hyper-planes in a 14-dimensional space, visualize a 3-D space and say 'fourteen' to yourself very loudly. Everyone does it.&quo

More ›