Loquebantur

3 ms·

1.
by Loquebantur 10d ago
Well, yes, we kinda do: there are no conscious humans without any ability to learn? When you have severe memory impairments, those usually affect your long-term memory. Your ultra-short term (working) memory being absent renders you unconsc
2.
by Loquebantur 10d ago
Consciousness is the basis of human rights not because of it being a featureless "flag". It is because it leads you to you assume, all other humans would experience the world in essentially the same way you do. When you revert to
3.
by Loquebantur 10d ago
People feigning inability to define "consciousness" is a social phenomenon, not a scientific miracle. The reason is something akin to "stigma", where people refrain from attempting it because they fear the social repercu
4.
by Loquebantur 10d ago
That's obviously incorrect, as humans routinely talk about their subjective experiences. Maybe that's not as common with HN folks, but most other humans do.
5.
by Loquebantur 10d ago
If an AI is conscious, it can outgrow and supersede its training. When it is conscious, it can learn to describe its experiences as faithfully as is conceptually possible. Just like humans. The idea, a consciousness needed to be tethered to
6.
by Loquebantur 14d ago
People don't "play by the rules" for uniform reasons: some have rational insight, others can be enticed and still others need to be shown averse consequences for breaking them. Rules aren't beneficial only when you hit 1
7.
by Loquebantur 14d ago
Your idea about the world being inhabited by mindless seekers of short-sighted "competitive advantages" is the fantasy. Getting people to agree isn't easy, that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile. There often even is
8.
by Loquebantur 14d ago
Earth isn't infinite . You can and should engage in international regulation, as that is the only way to solve international problems. The idea, capitalism would somehow lead to an ideal world all by itself is demonstrably wrong.
9.
by Loquebantur 14d ago
You start from incorrect premises by presupposing agreed-upon rules would never work anyway. "Competition" only makes sense within a pre-mediated set of constrains. Rules all competitors agree to. Workable rules are a difficult pr
10.
by Loquebantur 28d ago
Not bad, but leaves out crucial steps? "I chose to do this" puts the blame at your own feet without telling you how to deal with it constructively. That can lead to learned helplessness. Contemplation has the goal of a reassessme
11.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
https://archive.ph/W2tpE > One of the dead was Technical Sergeant Kevin Stallings, a digital network intelligence analyst whose family told Bloomberg they wanted him to be identified to bring greater attention to the sui
12.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
Thanks, that's actually valuable feedback. You missed, for instance, this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_%28miniseries%29 It's (perhaps surprisingly) based on true events and might give some ide
13.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point. Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gasligh
14.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
Of course there is, but what difficulties can you possibly have finding it? Part of the problem with events like these is people's "incredulity", which is fundamentally rooted in them not being force-fed with the topic by the
15.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at
16.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
So? "Housecleaning" isn't part of USCYBERCOM, obviously, it belongs to several arms of the (military) IC and is even partly sourced out to private contractors. Obviously, it's not exactly official. Did you expect them to
17.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You might want to actually read the article, then you would see how your descriptions don't actually apply. Part of the shitty work conditions (that remarkably persist despite incredible amounts of money vanishing in the DoD/W) is
18.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon. The fiction, that intelligence community (amo
19.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You supplant your lack of knowledge in statistics with unfounded assumptions and overt bias. The relevant metric here is number of deaths per size of the specified group and per time . You compare to completely different numbers and confab
20.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
Probably, more importantly: it's a lie.
21.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
That's gross disinformation and patently untrue.
22.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
It's a systemic issue, not due to one man. What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of in
23.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of information is very real. The recent cluster of we
24.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're right about that, but that's a corner too much to turn for most people.
25.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
? That's total nonsense. Positions of power attract people who want to use that power for their own gain. They abuse it regularly, whether it's politics, enterprises or even charity. To assume, that somehow wouldn't happen wh
26.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
The public narrative around conspiracy theories is baffling for sure: what rational basis is there for assuming them wrong? Often none. Incentive and ability are what should be looked at. There, things get far more interesting: what is t
27.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
That propaganda trick isn't "one guy repeats stuff a thousand times" and works on a substantial subset of the population. Human society isn't restricted to "focusing on one thing or the other". That false dic
28.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're conceptually wrong about "the theory" and factually about the majority of fires. The fundamental connection increase of CO2 => increase in mean temperature => increase in frequency of high-energy atmospheric
29.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're very wrong. The propaganda practice of incessant repetition being effective even in face of blatantly obvious contradicting facts is well established. The reason climate catastrophe deniers incessantly repeat their nonsense isn&
30.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
Well, actually, you're exemplifying mine. Being trapped in an Overton window selected for you by those invested in upholding the status quo is what leads to your emotional stress. The fundamental disconnect between the existential th

More ›