deltaonefour

13 ms·

91.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
See. This is another problem with philosophers. Did I say opposed to anything? You just pulled that notion out of your ass and assumed I don't understand science. You guys use big words but in actuality you make a lot of random irratio
92.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
The basis is logic. Certain attributes of philosophy make it ludicrous. Additionally the way philosophers formulate arguments brings the whole field into question. Philosophy is just a vocabulary word. It is a arbitrary word with a definiti
93.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
There's a thing called philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. Every single thing on the face of the earth falls into the purview of philosophy. It's harder to see but the field is just as ludicrous as religion itself. N
94.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>So the assertion is, that you can achieve identical computational power to a neuron with a much simpler model. I use the word "Must" as in "highly likely" if my words didn't convey the probability then my bad, b
95.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
1. Biology can produce things which are incredibly smart and efficient. It can also produce things which are dumb and inefficient. By your second sentence it follows that such structures aren't a leap of faith. It is very possible. 2.
96.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
My take is it has absolutely nothing to do with why I think philosophy is complete garbage. Think of it this way. If let's say a cultist religious sect believes in science and contributes to science then at the same time this cultist r
97.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Not talking about agi. I am doing proof by contradiction. Yes current models of ML are primitive but the reasoning attributes you brought up have been reproduced in ML.. albeit in a primitive way. It is still proof by contradiction, what yo
98.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise! YOu need to explain how it's a leap of faith. That means low probability. So you need to explain the sample space and the numerator. For me
99.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
It's not a massive leap of faith at all. Two reasons: 1. We know how natural selection works, and it clearly often produces unnecessary parts for many things. 2. There is physical evidence of evolution creating unnecessary and
100.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
I hate philosophers and I think the entire field is illegitimate. Not to be insulting to you personally. It's just my opinion of the field in general. I have nothing against you. I look at your entire field with very high disdain. To m
101.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
That's a large deviation. But I can see that as a realistic possibility.
102.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Likely because people are unfamiliar with what you're talking about. I never heard of this.
103.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable but even if these flaws existed I would argue that such contradict
104.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>We can't perfectly model a physical system (a quantum system, at some level) with classical computing. We'd need a quantum computer, No we don't. The probability wave can be simulated. Decoherence cannot be simulated unle
105.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Anterograde amnesia is a condition where a human has lost his/her ability form new memories, aka learn. They can't remember anything past 3 minutes*. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeiMhUlipTk These people are cl
106.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Not true. It's called unsupervised learning.
107.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>Whether we are more than computers is almost a religious question (I believe yes, but I can't prove it). This is actually not true and can logically be shown. We can model atoms with computation. Thus if all matter including the br
108.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
It's a logical conclusion. The answer is yes it's possible. We have a math function that defines atoms. Atoms can be simulated. If all things are made of atoms then all things can be simulated. If all things can be simulated then
109.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
I'm not converting him. I'm just talking about the classification of the word religion and the dichotomy between science and religion. Whether a religion is True or real is not a topic I touched upon.
110.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
No. I'm not. I'm saying there must be simple model primitives that don't involve electromagnetic fields and other strange communication channels that arise out of evolution that can be used to model intelligence. We aren&#x27
111.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
I think he's saying something along the lines that intelligence is mutually exclusive to learning. If we create a neural net that has the equivalent knowledge and intelligence of a human 5 year old but that neural net learns slower and
112.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
There must be something "turing complete-ish" about neural nets. As in although the primitive element of a human neuron is complex, you can achieve identical computational power with a much simpler model.
113.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>But this isn't fully accurate - the premise of religion is to believe in /certain/ things without evidence, specifically unknowable things. No. This is CATEGORICALLY WRONG. There are tons of instances of religion making c
114.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
You are going off topic. I am simply addressing your claim that the universe is made up of simple rules and saying it's NOT TRUE. I am ignoring the rest of your claims. I am saying THAT specific claim is incorrect. Whether it's po
115.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
It's harder to see but you're the one being irrational here. First off I'm not claiming this evidence is definitive, it is only convincing and compelling. Anyway, lets examine your claim: >It's a system designed to mi
116.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
I'm going by your definition and example of simulation. The answer to your question is that it takes a super computer to simulate 5 atoms interacting with each other. And the simulation won't be real time either. So reality is not
117.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
It is. Religion is faith based. Science is evidence based. They are opposites. But people can be contradictory. They can believe both are the same without realizing it. You are such a person. The premise of religion is to believe in things
118.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Other way around. Consciousness is a loaded word. It tricks you into thinking that there's some profound concept here. There isn't. When you contemplate consciousness you're not contemplating about anything profound. You&#x27
119.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
>the universe itself operates on mostly simple rules It does not. The rules are very complex. Schrodinger's equation is incredibly hard to solve. And we don't even know all the rules or if our current model of the rules is corr
120.
by deltaonefour 4y ago
Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the dis

More ›