iNow

Go home bot. You’re borken

The better story I should’ve referenced instead was how in 1994 they caned a 19 year old boy from Ohio USA with a hard ratan cane (I believe 6 lashes) for something like spray painting the door of someone’s parked car. Has it helped litter go down at least? Or are such effects lost in the noise of that broader social engineering experiment they’ve been conducting?

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree. Do you know that one? Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten? Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once? Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip? Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads? Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real? Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream? All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater.

And via mycelium colonies underground, I imagine

He may have locked up the primary before then depending on how things go in the next 3-4 weeks in pre-Super Tuesday voting

They’re not mutually exclusive, though. Religion makes claims about how things function in the natural world ALL the time, falsifiable claims.

What would happen is the wealthier citizens would continue littering and carrying on with their day since they wouldn’t “feel” such a minor slap on the wrist, while the poverty stricken and struggling would go without yet another meal that day when they get fined for a gum wrapper being snatched out of their hand by the wind and blown across the street into an awaiting officers view. Same issue is ruining much of our politics and governance: Lack of shame more broadly Singapore and bubblegum comes to mind

Or several serially linked with that same massive increase in parallelism realized within each.

You drew a picture of an epicurious symphony for me just there. +1

With the Iowa GOP caucus only 10 days away, Governor Hailey appeared on a local PBS weekly Iowa politics program this evening. Sadly, I kept getting distracted trying to determine whether her uniform made her an Ensign on Star Trek TNG or part of Tuvoks Security team on the lesser appreciated Voyager series

I feel bad sometimes for all the smart religious believers out there being represented online by those so clearly unmolested by enlightenment like here with mostly annoying morons who clearly ate way too much paste during childhood… Sometimes

It’s only possible to prove math and spam. All other assertions are provisional.

Any. Any whatsoever. Whatyda got? With honesty and integrity

yes

How about you start with ANY and we'll go from there.

Thus creating a paradox where they were never there to make the change in the first place. A chronology protection conjecture, as it were.

They used to be called frozen stars, because light passing the event horizon around them appeared to freeze when viewed from another perspective. They also yes, do evaporate as per Hawkings calculations. As for the rest of your OP, the syntax is rather borked and hard to parse. These ideas are not considered as valid just because they're written down. They're accepted as valid because they accurate model the universe we encounter.

This thread is already way too personal, and I'd prefer we focus less on the individual. I'll try to be better at this myself, but we all need to remain focused on the positions and merit of the information being shared. Let's be clear: Many of Alkon's points are entirely valid. Much of what he shares contains very good and useful information. Likewise, some of what I've shared has been somewhat weak. This is all true, and so is the fact that he clearly has a strong interest in this topic and obviously allocates much of his time learning about it. That's exactly what we ALL should be doing... learning, growing, understanding and I applaud him for it. I just cannot personally join him in that final leap where he keeps making absolute comments about what will and will not be possible in the future, or where he dismisses things based solely on a rigid framing of terms or the quite limited technologies which are most familiar and most hyped today (or those being discussed on LinkedIn, for example). Nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody should IMO argue in the manner he has by starting with formalized rigid unbending structures and preconceived conclusions. We can make any logic work if we put all data into rigid potentially inaccurate semantic boxes and I see a lot of that here. If that works for him, then great! But it doesn't work for me, nor I propose does it work for most people who are scientifically minded (I believe he may be more philosopher than empiricist, but that's not intended as either a judgement or sleight, just a general observation). The technology in this space is changing at an incredible pace. It is equally being amplified by parallel technologies in processing power and capabilities. There are literally tens of thousands of seriously brilliant engineers working on this every single minute of every single day, and my core position here is that we must be EXTREMELY cautious and avoid making broad sweeping proclamations and predictions with any illusions of certainty. We must temper our confidence. What's potentially worse here is that we barely have workable definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness, the actual topic of the central claims made in the OP... so any assertions about what does and does not fit into those ill-defined ever-evolving categories strike me as specious, at best. Anyway... enough personal bullshit, yeah? This is an interesting topic that's fun to explore if we can please be civil with one another (and yes... the same reminder applies equally to me).

Mostly I dislike when people pretend that they can tell what will or will not be possible in the future, or who declare things to be impossible when those things are still very much only in their infancy. ✌🏼

You must be fun at parties

LinkedIn is largely a cesspool of self promoters and blustery overhyped marketing so this isn’t surprising.

Lack of agreement isn’t lack of comprehension. Thanks for sharing. Formalism is an excessive adherence to prescribed forms. Have fun with that. Such is not my style at all.

And perhaps somewhat interestingly, they tend to say the same thing about “the left.”

When did I claim none used transformers?? Definitely, though at least I’m not claiming things to be impossible like an evangelist based on what are considered now stone age versions of the tech. Thanks. I read that a few months ago and heard them present an updated poster about it at NeurIPS 2023