All Activity

I have never met a person, no matter how unlikely it seems they'll ever find a mate, who couldn't find someone to be with. Plus, alternatives involving an exchange of money for services also exist for anyone willing to make an effort. While I accept there is a group of celibates who are unhappy with their lives, I don't for a second believe it is strictly involuntary. Maybe no longer being celibate would be difficult or less than ideal, but not involuntary.

Maybe incels could be offered subsidized transgender ops as women never seem to have this problem?

It makes no difference to the calculated predictions, or to the observed results. If 'interpretation' is not the right word, I don't know what else to call it. ( you and Joigus are fairly picky about terminology 🙂 )

Absolutely. We've had discussion of educational solutions and political solutions ( even linking to the housing shortage ) when the problem is actually 'incel mentality', or ideology. When someone says "I can't get laid, and its everyone else's fault", that is a mental problem. Maybe that's part of the problem with the evolution of Western society. When you are encouraged to believe you're not responsible for your own life situation, it is only a small step to believing that all bad situations are someone else's fault.

Yes, the fever can occur due to multiple reasons but since you are asking particularly about fever that occurs in an infection due to fight between pathogen(releases toxins) and WBC(releases interleukin-1). These toxins and interleukin are also called pyrogen. These pyrogens act on hypothalamus and increase temperature. This increase in temperature is actually very important and we shouldn't use meds to supress this(low-grade fever) because as you know that pathogens are made of proteins and enzymes which are heat labile and do not function well(gets denatures) in high temperature. Fever in such case is an immune response produced by body to fight pathogens. But if the temperature is very high then one should take meds as the metabolic costs(our body is also made of proteins and enzymes which also get denatured because of rise in temperature, this is why we don't feel hunger in fever.) is much higher than the potential physiological benefit. One also take anti pyretics to avoid the symptoms of fever like headache, muscle ache etc. You should also remember that these anti pyretics only help with the symptoms of fever and not the actual cause of disease. I hope this helped. Thank you!

1- but most often, science pays little attention to philosophy 2- my foolish mindset seems to still be of interest to some

It’s part of a much larger and broader assault planned against democracy called Project 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 It’s a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory which “asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.”

Today I learned about Schedule F appointment, which is an insidious method of US government control and a subversive tool for those who aspire to dictatorship. Schedule F appointments essentially allow the reclassification of potentially thousands of US government workers as political appointees who can be hired and fired at the whim of the Executive branch of US government regardless of qualifications. Potentially, under Schedule F appointment if restored, a president can fire any so designated federal employee who conscientiously refuse his directives and replace them with a sycophant willing to do and say whatever he commands regardless of consequence. I shiver at the thought of such power in the hands of a man as sociopathic and unscrupulous as Donald J. Trump--even more unnerving is that there could be a majority of America's voting population that wants him to have that power come this November elections.

Wouldn't better access to reproductive care and contraception be a simpler solution? We could do that now, if the owners of aging pale penises would step out of the way.

Acc. @geordief's link, an idiot called Washington Irving, in 1828.

I mostly align with your central point, but there is a lot work happening which allows you to use other AIs to evaluate the accuracy of the prompted tool and they seem rather effective. The basic idea is you have AIs with expertise in certain spaces and use those to evaluate what is returned prior to showing it to the user. It depends on the LLM and the relationships they've established with other companies. You may have seen big news somewhat recently about OpenAI forming an agreement with newspapers and publishers like Washington Post (or getting sued by the NYTimes), and others inking deals with Reddit to train on their vast troves of data, for example. The training corpus for these models varies, and obviously companies like Google for Gemini and Meta for Llama 3 (or even X/Twitter model Grok) have a much larger pool from which to work than some of the smaller players.

The sun meandering back and forth across the celestial equator seems like a good refutation for those without cellphones, spyglasses, lasers, ocean views, etc. All you need is a couple weeks and a long stick for shadow generating.

1 to 3- the author’s point is that it was a “secular” not unsuccessful 4- he introduces mind as promoting a need to move towards subjectivity as I now do (see charonY post above); I reiterate, mind will not change the fundamental aspect of natural sciences, but the purpose of it all. Success would be in understanding mind, and possibly our role in the universe if such is the case 5- it does illuminate as it is more precise and detailed than what I had provided before; it helps’ explain my position.

There's nothing wrong with using a tool, if it's used correctly...

https://www.history.com/news/christopher-columbus-never-set-out-to-prove-the-earth-was-round This?

Where did the idea come from that people in the time of Christopher Columbus thought the earth was flat?

Where are they getting their sources? Is it just a mish-mash of stuff they hold locally and collated from that?

This is not at all clear to me (and I’m thinking you meant latitude, since we don’t have time zones based on altitude) If the sun is overhead at one location over a flat surface, it would not be overhead at some other location some distance away. This is the reason we have time zones. Why wouldn’t the sun would rise and set on a flat earth?

But the underlying issue is the datasets. The algorithm can’t discern veracity of information; it relies on what it’s fed, and those choices are made by humans. The “AI” isn’t intelligent. It’s not thinking. It’s just a fancy search engine.

I'm sure that's what confused Hitler, when he read Nietzche... A biased mindset, as you've admitted. Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin, philosophy identifies the bias and science drives around the chicane. Now!!! will you please, start a new topic on firmer ground, bc this race has run its course...

Do you sleep with your rope?

1- your observation is correct. While stating that I wanted to reduce bias, especially materialist bias, I indicated that removing all forms of subjectivity was the way forward in dealing with the bias issue. This was an incorrect statement on my part. I should have said “controlling” this form of subjective thinking instead of “eliminating” all forms of subjective thinking. I also incorrectly stated that philosophy should play a limited role In science, but I am also backing away from this statement as this may very well be the discipline that helps us navigate through subjective thinking with rigour and rationality 2-agree also that it is mostly generalities, but nonetheless, it actually reflects my mindset on the subject matter. 3- If we find it important to study the subjective nature of reality, then science through philosophy will have to find a way of doing, and an improved way of doing so than the tools in use in other sciences

I think perhaps the best use for this tool is in understanding the languages of other species, and perhaps our best chance of meaningful dialogue if the alien's do get in touch. People trying to look smarter than they are, always trip themselves up, bc it's only a tool if they know how to use it. Both will evolve... 😉

Most of the current LLMs are not researching anything they write.

So there could never be a random event and this would apply to all thought processes too? Is it possible to apply logic to that hypothesis? Could logic also be defined by randomness? Don't they say you can prove nothing by logic but that you can (according to its rules) disprove a hypothesis?