smokel

42 ms·

751.
by smokel 3y ago
I don't think this test is adequate. By that standard I would have aphantasia as well. This seems to use the same misguided approach as dream researchers who thought that dreams were in black and white, even though it is trivial to fi
752.
by smokel 3y ago
The alternative is to simply not use it. Read books, hang out with friends, do some tinkering. Free thinking is perfectly well possible without Reddit, in our very society. Unless you have some really weird thoughts? Rubbing these though
753.
by smokel 3y ago
> Let's just QUIT using Reddit. This suggests that you need others to join you in quitting. Why not simply quit yourself?
754.
by smokel 3y ago
> if our data is worth money then companies using our data without consent are stealing from us By that reasoning Pepsi is stealing unsatisfied customers from Coca-Cola and should be put in jail. In other words, I don't think thi
755.
by smokel 3y ago
Aha, I think I'm starting to understand your position, which is obviously more nuanced than I initially thought. But is knowledge such a big one? I suppose that the vast majority of the world population is not really helping to push t
756.
by smokel 3y ago
How will a system know all this initially? It seems this requires quite a competent judge and a lot of data. The idea of knowledge being something to protect is interesting, but I don't see a practical way of accomplishing it.
757.
by smokel 3y ago
> When you see one of his pieces in person, you will gain an immediate appreciation for what he was trying to do. No, sorry. It just doesn't work for me. Tastes differ, I guess. I found most of his works to be typical of "p
758.
by smokel 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying that. However, what makes some concepts mundane and others profound? Is that up to an individual to decide, based on, for example, taste? Or is there some objective notion?
759.
by smokel 3y ago
Not at all. If you had rejected the pretty much random processes in the primordial soup that eventually led to life (and then knowledge) from the start, then where would we be? I think that it is almost impossible to determine randomness i
760.
by smokel 3y ago
This might be an explanation of the development of consciousness, but it does little to explain what consciousness actually is. > In order to compete, they need to adapt, hence they develop consciousness. The "hence" here is
761.
by smokel 3y ago
This assumes that language is fundamental to all understanding. May well be true, and it probably is according to Wittgenstein, but it is just one of many perspectives, and I'm not convinced.
762.
by smokel 3y ago
Knowledge is too broad a concept to protect all of it. Taking it to the extreme would probably mean that all output of /dev/random should be treasured in multiple backups, to avoid any bits to die.
763.
by smokel 3y ago
People have discussed various deities for centuries, and most of those don't seem to mind whether they exist or not. Also, many concepts have wildly varying ways of "existing". As a random example, a Mandelbrot fractal exists
764.
by smokel 3y ago
Men don't need nipples either.
765.
by smokel 3y ago
Evolution does not explain consciousness, but it does explain that the article we are discussing is rubbish.
766.
by smokel 3y ago
Magnets! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle
767.
by smokel 3y ago
Experiencing something does not necessarily imply that it exists, at least from a scientific standpoint. Experiencing God, or qualia such as colors are just some examples of things that some people reject the existence of. Perhaps I shoul
768.
by smokel 3y ago
We've been doing fine with not proving that God exists. Edit: scratch that, I'm not sure if we're doing fine :)
769.
by smokel 3y ago
From a scientific standpoint it seems easier to reject "knowing with certainty" than to accept that there must be consciousness. Not to say that the scientific standpoint is the best here, but there are many areas to investigate s
770.
by smokel 3y ago
I doubt it. Luckily the article is very low on details, so it's probably fine for me to refute this by asking: why are we not conscious while asleep? And what happens if a rock is split in two? Will it automatically split into two co
771.
by smokel 3y ago
This may be good advice, but for some, finding positive purpose can be stressful in itself. An alternative approach is to modify the scale or direction of the reward system. Lowering expectations may diminish both the positive and negative
772.
by smokel 3y ago
Spreadsheets were not so great back then. I'd be surprised if Lotus 1-2-3 was able to render cells in multiple colors, and I think it could render only about 8 columns at a time.
773.
by smokel 3y ago
The grandparent I'm responding to sure uses a very sloppy presentation of things. Not everyone here is a trained mathematician though, so you may want to give people some slack. Obviously, if h² = 0, then h = 0, so this statement made
774.
by smokel 3y ago
The book referred to in this post has some information about this. The method with "dual numbers" is called "forward-mode automatic differentiation". PyTorch seems to use "reverse-mode automatic differentiation&qu
775.
by smokel 3y ago
It is, however, also incredibly realistic. People are not using open source for the hippie philosophy. They are using it because it is free (as in beer), but even more importantly: they are using it because non-free licenses are a terrible
776.
by smokel 3y ago
> Later, aerodynamics fed back into ornithology. You mean to imply that birds have learned from jet fighter designs? I fail to understand the point you're making.
777.
by smokel 3y ago
Hm, no. To start, cells are able to replicate themselves, whereas most silicon used today is not even close to doing so. The story you suggest seems to be built on a limited understanding of the processes involved. It's pretty hard t
778.
by smokel 3y ago
By the same nihilistic reasoning, why not aim for the path of least resistance? (I would not even be surprised if some of the survivors did precisely that -- copy behavior of their successful parents, or try to prove their worth in terms of
779.
by smokel 3y ago
You seem to attack scientism for being narrow, which I find valid. However, if I understand it correctly, you then proceed to offer solutions by referring to other philosophical interpretations. I would say that those are also limited in
780.
by smokel 3y ago
The amount of survivorship bias ignored in the article is appalling. Why?

More ›