ozy

11 ms·

61.
by ozy 9y ago
What bold claim are you referring to? Where the IARC places it on its list is a verifiable fact, and let's assume the IARC is doing a reasonable job. It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with re
62.
by ozy 9y ago
Learning creates subjectivity.
63.
by ozy 9y ago
I am in favor of UBI, a few remarks: - mostly because people on the bottom can be powerless and get stuck in low paying jobs, no means to move, to re-educate, etc. - today most countries already redistribute money, in form of minimum wage,
64.
Guy Steele on Computer Science Meta Notation [video](youtube.com)
8 points by ozy 9y ago|0 comments
65.
by ozy 9y ago
I have a theory. Any theory about consciousness that does not include learning is at best incomplete, but more likely just wrong. --- Our brains create models of the world. They are constantly predicting, making choices. And on surprise, lo
66.
by ozy 9y ago
How can people have theories of consciousness and not include learning. The brain is constantly predicting futures, thinking multiple steps ahead, and on surprise, check what past prediction was off, hoping to correct it and learn. In a way
67.
by ozy 9y ago
Note that while particles can be entangled, the special/useful thing is the postponement of further entanglement (with the rest of the world).
68.
by ozy 9y ago
But that is the rub, isn't it. How some mind (or system) experiences something is the very definition of subjective. How to measure that objectively? Imagine somebody makes a mind out of machine learning. Passes the turing test and mor
69.
by ozy 9y ago
I don't get how very intelligent people can hold such views. Where does the dance go, when the dancers go off stage? The dancers are not the dance, but create the dance. There is some kind of duality there. Similar for the brain. What
70.
by ozy 9y ago
Well, metaphors are like perspectives. The steam engine perspective has many useful aspects to it, even today. But it has more limits than the computer metaphor. But if you want to use the metaphors to capture the core of what the brain doe
71.
by ozy 9y ago
"whole thing is a self referential nightmare if you don't conserve" Indeed and that is probably best to focus on. Conservation, should serve that goal first. And I think you will see that as you implement things you can let g
72.
by ozy 9y ago
There is quite some room between that and strict conservation of "energy".
73.
by ozy 9y ago
We are talking past each other because we are focused on slightly different things. "Fully independent? Nothing is fully independent of the universe it resides in." Indeed. But there are levels of independence. That is, do the law
74.
by ozy 9y ago
Every simulator of any kind can be described as "compute". The question is, can the simulated environment itself support a new level of compute? And if so, how independent is that compute? Redstone in minecraft supports compute, b
75.
by ozy 9y ago
"computers will pop up that copy themselves" That is interesting idea. But do they pop up because the simulator provides the compute? Or because the simulator allows for the construction of structures that can compute? I don'
76.
by ozy 9y ago
"Turing completeness is necessary for intelligent life." Sure, but it would be extremely difficult to write a simulator with "interesting feedback" that is not turing complete ... "In our universe, the speed of ligh
77.
by ozy 9y ago
I have tried a few approaches at not having the simulator provide the copying function. But so far no luck. Do you have any concrete ideas? I would suggest it needs to be a simulation in which self-organisation is possible. But also catalyz
78.
by ozy 9y ago
I like your project. I've done a life simulator myself: http://leverlabs.io/blog20160714/ Would really want to see a simulator that allows for self copying, but does not provide that copying mechanism directly.
79.
by ozy 9y ago
So ... when do we shoot some rockets high up and spray something reflecting sunlight, changing earths albedo? Plan B?
80.
by ozy 9y ago
Anybody here will to confess they have pushed flat earth, while believing/knowing the earth is round? I am willing to confess I have pushed sharks are smooth: https://twitter.com/bransonreese/status/8487469401
81.
by ozy 10y ago
The sword of not knowing cuts two ways. The so called hard problem of consciousness[1], where does "qualia" come from. We don't actually know if it is hard at all. Maybe qualia arises trivially. [1] https://en.wiki
82.
by ozy 10y ago
I also teach programming, and see many of the beginner mistakes made. Part of what I tried is that the smallest subsections of the language would be complete and useful by themselves. Without ever having to say: "this part you do not n
83.
by ozy 10y ago
I created https://github.com/onnlucky/hotel for a few different reasons. 1) I wanted to see how far you can go by making every language concept first class, because only first class things can be an abstractions. 2) Bu
84.
by ozy 10y ago
Perhaps because 30k (your number) is a bit much, as the GDP/C of USA is only 53k. As I said, wealth redistribution is knob, currently set to around 5% (my guess) in the USA. I think 20% should be the aim over time, which translates to
85.
by ozy 10y ago
"Radical wealth redistribution from the needy to the rich is a far right idea, and that's what the negative income tax will boil down to in practice." The term wealth redistribution is generally understood as wealth going fro
86.
by ozy 10y ago
"Subsidies take that into account, the negative income tax does not." In my country there are both subsidies, and tax breaks for such situations. Is anything I said implying we abolish that? I would suggest it translates to more n
87.
by ozy 10y ago
A NIT or UBI are basically equivalent. But is easier to see why we give to those who are lesser off. E.g. why give UBI to a millionaire? One of the points is to give power back to those who on the labor market are almost powerless. Both for
88.
by ozy 10y ago
My vote goes to redistribution of wealth, by means of a progressive tax that starts negative. It is the human thing to do. But it also aligns with economics and politics. Redistribution: because more money at the bottom, means a larger over
89.
by ozy 10y ago
Thank you for your answer. "You're severely oversimplifying here." You can look at it from different sides. I personally think christians oversimplify more. They only take the most positive look of god, and justify all the ba
90.
by ozy 10y ago
My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 in

More ›