card_zero

5 ms·

31.
by card_zero 17d ago
Yes, really. "Positive proof" opposes the concept of falsification. You can only have it within a system formal logic, and science can contain those, but isn't one.
32.
by card_zero 17d ago
Basing science on proof (or anyway believing that you can) is Logical Positivism, a mindset that opposes the method of falsifiability. But of course mathematics is all about proof, and for that reason I was wary of it for a very long time.
33.
by card_zero 18d ago
I wish to defend the hammers analogy. I don't know, our whole world is analogies, isn't it? Plus it's funny, that's worth something right?
34.
by card_zero 18d ago
Ha. Well, OK. What do you mean by conscious, though? I think the vast majority of humans understand who they are and what's going on around them, if that's the definition. (The rest are in comas and etc.)
35.
by card_zero 18d ago
I don't think it's OK to skin pet rabbits alive. As soon as a human is in a relationship with a rabbit, or a pigeon (pigeons are lovely), the animal acquires rights, in my worldview, and I want to emphasize that point lest peopl
36.
by card_zero 18d ago
So, not dogs? The mirror test is balls, and "mourning", give me a break, it's anthropomorphism don't you think?
37.
by card_zero 18d ago
I am not at all impressed by the concept of suffering, which I ascribe to Jeremy Bentham, who I have down as a silly person and responsible for a lot of confusion.
38.
by card_zero 18d ago
It's a fucking berry. No, I quite agree, I don't know what the point of saying that is either. Oh, let's link to "lumpers and splitters"! This comes up over and over again in a million contexts. https://e
39.
by card_zero 18d ago
That's very Popperian, I approve. And Hofstadter had anthills conceived as a unified consciousness, named "Aunt Hill" if I remember rightly. What, a downvote, did I get that wrong? I wish downvoters would speak up and explain
40.
by card_zero 18d ago
That's fine, but I'm a materialist and I don't think rabbits are conscious, so the whole thing falls apart. I'm down with Descartes, I think they're just a kind of proteinaceous Roombas, be they never so sweet. I do
41.
by card_zero 18d ago
Mostly personality I think. Individuality, opinions, purpose, things like that. Morality, except they have a kind of ankle-deep phony morality beaten into them but it's not like they're idealists with visions they strive toward. (
42.
by card_zero 18d ago
I don't believe in souls. But I believe in metaphorical souls, and an LLM ain't got one.
43.
by card_zero 18d ago
Well it's worth reading the linked wiki article section, which includes a link to another article "Copyright law of the Soviet Union", flatly contradicting you unless you maintain that the USSR wasn't truly communist.
44.
by card_zero 18d ago
Yes? I own a lot of books that were public domain when published (as reprints). I could read them on Gutenberg, but I'm paying for the nice paper formatting.
45.
by card_zero 18d ago
However, there is irony in a subscription to pirated material.
46.
by card_zero 19d ago
Do you really not like hammers? They seem quite nice. Hefty, tactile, purposeful.
47.
by card_zero 20d ago
I might object that being right-wing, or having fear of the effects of immigrants even, does not necessarily entail racism. But it would be more interesting to say that they are related, and that valuable ideas about nice traditional arch
48.
by card_zero 21d ago
France does some version or style of derailing Russian trains, you say?
49.
by card_zero 22d ago
So you raise the water, lowering the counterweight, and the balance makes it easy. Then you need to get the counterweight up again, so you ... haul it up with great effort? Or lower the water back down the well? I think I've seen pictu
50.
by card_zero 22d ago
There's the matter of linking to copyrighted works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlink... If your link is set up to make the image display immediately (that is, you wrap it in image tags,
51.
by card_zero 22d ago
It is there in that first link (search for "The Cyphral Distich"). It's missing, however, from this 1653 print: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-170... (It should appear on that p
52.
by card_zero 22d ago
Pepper grinders have always impressed me, very effective devices, great at grinding out results, I mean pepper. I can't do it by hand at all!
53.
by card_zero 22d ago
They deny what: that they're very impressed, that they think it's cool, that their minds are blown, that they really really like it? Denying these things is allowed, you know. Edit: if you're going to try to stage an intellec
54.
by card_zero 22d ago
Stone age when? 40,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago? Göbekli Tepe is from a mere 11,000 years ago. I mean cranes for ziggurats, sure. Cranes for megaliths I dunno about. Maybe you just got a lot of beefy men to push the giant rock into an u
55.
by card_zero 22d ago
"Prove"? Like, a formal proof, about intelligence?
56.
by card_zero 23d ago
"Insert, now gone"? I press the INS key, I overwrite text, it's very useful. Though thinking about it I suppose that really turns insert mode off. "Key beep" sounds horrific. :D
57.
by card_zero 23d ago
Dwarf Fortress (the ASCII version) was exhibited in MoMA. I think software sits in an interesting place between shovels and Fabergé eggs.
58.
by card_zero 23d ago
But what are you saying? YC are to blame for the unsavory future directions of the companies they fund. Counterargument, no they're not, what are you banging on about.
59.
by card_zero 23d ago
I just don't like moral distortions. Is YC in control of Flock or responsible for their choices? Who are "them", what are we ignorant about and why is it Marxism?
60.
by card_zero 23d ago
How about the "it’s them" part?

More ›