westoncb

93 ms·

841.
by westoncb 9y ago
That's how I think things most likely are too.
842.
by westoncb 9y ago
> Emergent phenomena are real, common, and not, in general, particularly mysterious I have no issue with emergent phenomena. It's just that whether the phenomenon is emergent or not is irrelevant to the question at hand. For instanc
843.
by westoncb 9y ago
Something that helped me understand why this problem is significant: the things you mention as giving an account of color perception are only accounting for a brain system which evolves through states having structure which is isomorphic t
844.
by westoncb 9y ago
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. I missed this in your original phrasing, "We can SET UP operators L(W) so that they..."—but I think I see now: equating L(W) with the zero function is algebraically convenient, since we w
845.
by westoncb 9y ago
Thanks for the great explanation! If you don't mind, I had a question about '3.' I get how it's used in making your larger argument, but as a thing in itself I'm kinda lost. Part of what I'm wondering is how it
846.
by westoncb 9y ago
I wonder how to reconcile the apparently exciting stuff going on in quantum computing with a conversation I had with a Harvard quantum computing PhD last year (I know very little about the field myself, so I unfortunately can't comment
847.
by westoncb 9y ago
Anyone know how this might impact constraint satisfaction algorithms? Is it possible we'd see something like Prolog being orders of magnitude faster? (Assuming it were re-written for a quantum computer, maybe using something like Q#.)
848.
by westoncb 9y ago
Anyone want to take a crack at expanding this?: > The tech industry is fundamentally unserious about how it recruits, hires, and retains candidates.
849.
by westoncb 9y ago
Cool idea! There were a couple points in the explanation which were kind of unclear to me, though: What makes it okay to identify the naming of a large number with producing that large number of things (e.g. 1's)? This felt like a di
850.
by westoncb 9y ago
You are adding too much of your own uses and interpretations to the quote. The compartmentalization of an individual's moral actions is an interesting thing to just know about human nature, and it's not as well known as you might
851.
by westoncb 9y ago
And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both c
852.
by westoncb 9y ago
> It’s like saying that banning telemarketing calls is “removing agency” from people who really do want to be solicited. This is pretty disingenuous. You are assuming famous people with lots of money and power don't have anyone they
853.
by westoncb 9y ago
You have assumed that the parents' motivation is to 'make it more right'—there's nothing they've written which expresses that. The comment seems to me to be a much more interesting statement on how we understand t
854.
by westoncb 9y ago
Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case. That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was
855.
by westoncb 9y ago
> Think about it logically rather than emotionally. If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it. It seems from your response that you think I&#x27
856.
by westoncb 9y ago
You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple&#x
857.
by westoncb 9y ago
Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
858.
by westoncb 9y ago
Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the
859.
by westoncb 9y ago
Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initi
860.
by westoncb 9y ago
I like this idea, but I have found it to not work very well in practice. I would constantly get lost in lectures because the interesting new bits would kick off questions in my mind that needed to be resolved before it made sense for me to
861.
by westoncb 9y ago
There is a solution without requiring the universe be made of math: math just describes it instead. You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an
862.
by westoncb 9y ago
I'm not talking about an ontology--that concept presupposes too much already. What I'm talking about is more basic: if someone blows in your ear, do you experience anything? Whatever it is that you experience is what I mean by sub
863.
by westoncb 9y ago
> What matters for existence is the relationships between mathematical structures. Well, that's what Structuralism is ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_s... —but it would be running in
864.
by westoncb 9y ago
> The premise that subjectivity exists is not consistent with everything else we know without introducing additional structure to the universe that has no purpose but to stroke our egos. We must be using different definitions of subjecti
865.
by westoncb 9y ago
Hey eternalban, I am familiar with that article. I posted something else here which I think explains why I find it insufficient for the author's uses (Tegmark, not Wigner): > imagine some complex 3d object changing in time. Now ima
866.
by westoncb 9y ago
> Predictive coding in the interoceptive and control networks of the brain, actually. Sure, it doesn't explain everything, but it pretty well dispels the intuition that makes p-zombies conceivable and explains the vast majority of t
867.
by westoncb 9y ago
> But you keep insisting you're a ghost I think there has been some miscommunication if what you got from my comment is an insistence that I (and others) are less than what's suggested in the article. What I'm speaking o
868.
by westoncb 9y ago
> The author is trying to pave the way for the actual argument and a context-free quote of the buildup does not help the discourse. The reason I quoted it is to show that he makes assertions meant to sound as if they include interior asp
869.
by westoncb 9y ago
Heh, yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I think of it :) I didn't mean to state my previous comment as a disagreement, just an elaboration.
870.
by westoncb 9y ago
> Do we? Were? I don't see that in the essay. Actually, I think you are correct—I misread part of it the first time. He is pretty meticulous about saying this only applies to 'external physical reality,' and the only refer

More ›