lutusp

23 ms·

271.
by lutusp 2y ago
[flagged]
272.
by lutusp 2y ago
> Now, I finally understand where you are coming from, but I believe it is misconceived. While the mind is indeed a complex construct, cognitive psychology does not treat it as separate from empirical reality. It doesn't matter what
273.
by lutusp 2y ago
The central issue for new typesetting methods, unlike most software projects, is that to represent a solution, not a new problem, they must seamlessly communicate with other similar environments. So I have to ask: * Can Typist seamles
274.
by lutusp 2y ago
> The mind is not part of nature? Nope. It's a theoretical construct with no empirically measurable properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem : "The mind–body problem is a philoso
275.
by lutusp 2y ago
> And enough with the strict Popperism Enough with relying on science's universally accepted definition.
276.
by lutusp 2y ago
> That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criteri
277.
by lutusp 2y ago
> ... for the same reasons physics doesn't replace chemistry. It's true that physics didn't replace chemistry -- instead it explained it. Physics gave chemistry a theoretical foundation. In the same way, neuroscience will
278.
by lutusp 2y ago
> Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Those are descriptions, not explanations. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations -- theories, not anecdotes
279.
by lutusp 2y ago
> ... all the stuff that is not flashy for tabloids, but is real psychological science. Real psychological science would produce falsifiable theories -- theories that in principle would be discarded after a conclusive failure in impartia
280.
by lutusp 2y ago
A great article, particularly for its candor. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others have said, in the same way that chemistry replaced alchemy, neuroscience will replace psychology. But this isn't likely to happen soon -- the human brain i
281.
by lutusp 2y ago
Nice effort, but after one successful NYT session, it fails and treats the access as though it were an end user. But don't take my word for it : try it. One access, succeeds. Two or more ... fails. The reason is the staff at the NYT
282.
by lutusp 2y ago
Another "wonderful coincidence" is that the conversion between miles and kilometers involves this constant of conversion : kilometers = miles * 1.609344. Let's call 1.609344 the "km" constant. As it happens, km is v
283.
by lutusp 2y ago
Here's a better copy of this classic Richard Feynman address, rendered in text instead of graphics (meaning it can be copied in whole or in part), without any advertising: https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2
284.
by lutusp 3y ago
> What do y'all make of Netflix's 3 Body problem? I find it a brave project, given well-established U.S. tastes in video and movies. It can be said to courageously appeal to an audience not proven to exist. > I never thought
285.
by lutusp 3y ago
> However, we are still at a stage of divergent opinions without any definitive conclusion. Okay, I know picking people's sentences apart has fallen out of fashion, but: "Divergent opinions" are ... opinions. A "defin
286.
by lutusp 3y ago
> That's not an answer, that's an argument. Fair enough, and I agree. But there may be no answer in a scientific sense -- testable, falsifiable and so forth. > Occam's Razor isn't like the second law of thermodynam
287.
by lutusp 3y ago
> * We experience matter, but we aren't sure if matter exists outside of our experience of it A nice point. One might call it the the solipsistic argument. Not easy to argue against, and not unlike the debate about consciousness --
288.
by lutusp 3y ago
>> We don't know how consciousness comes into being > Consciousness and life are completely different things. Yes, but they have a dependent relationship. We argue that life doesn't require consciousness, but we also argu
289.
by lutusp 3y ago
"Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe? (arxiv.org)" Easily answered: * We don't know how consciousness comes into being, indeed we can't rigorously define it or unambiguous
290.
by lutusp 5y ago
There are better solutions to this problem. Here's mine: "YouTube Ad Killer:" https://arachnoid.com/VLC_utility/ This free, open-source (Windows/Linux) shell script captures a clipboard URL and runs
291.
by lutusp 6y ago
> I'll preface this by saying this field has never been my passion, just a profession I like. You need to realize you're competing with people for whom programming really is a passion. Also, perhaps more important, ask yourself
292.
by lutusp 6y ago
> If most kinds of success or talent are usually perceived, can we ever truly say someone is "good" at something? Only if there are established and accepted criteria, standards on which everyone agrees. The driving range of an
293.
by lutusp 6y ago
Of popular intellectual topics, nothing is simpler to explain: * If you want to gamble, go to Las Vegas. * If you want to make money, invest in index funds. Further reading: https://arachnoid.com/equities_myths/ Yes ..
294.
by lutusp 9y ago
> I'm holding my breath waiting to see what the Trump administration and their supporters do. As am I. The politically aware could simply point out how expensive the war on drugs is. In fact I have no idea why this isn't raised
295.
by lutusp 9y ago
> Profit potential has by far the most influence on what flies politically. Very true in nearly all cases. Marijuana yielded to political pressure without Big Pharma having any easy way to make money from it. That may be the exception pr
296.
by lutusp 9y ago
> IIRC you were programming in a bungalow out of nowhere at that time.. right? Yep, that be me: http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/cottage_computer_programmi...
297.
by lutusp 9y ago
I'm 71, I wrote a best-seller in the early 1980s (Apple Writer for the Apple ][), I still code regularly but not for income, so my circumstances might not be what the article focuses on. I write a lot of Python, JavaScript, some Java,
298.
by lutusp 9y ago
All true, a high-quality comment. It's true about marijuana, and it may eventually be true about some other drugs that turn out to have beneficial uses -- in a process driven mostly by politics and public relations, very little science
299.
by lutusp 9y ago
All I'm saying is, without reliable double-blind studies, changing LSD's status from an illegal substance to a "medicine" won't fly politically.
300.
by lutusp 9y ago
Many readers of the linked article won't understand the meaning of "ground effect" and what role it plays in the video. It's possible to create a demonstration flying craft that can't ascend above the ground effect

More ›