dimreepr

On 2/13/2024 at 3:21 PM, MSC said:

Have been, it was clearly a dude. Even if it had been hard to tell, I think folks would forgive me misgendering a criminal whom is without recourse lol 

Bing Videos

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Oh good! Threads like this are like a stranger walking into a restaurant, pulling down their pants, and taking a giant steaming dump on the floor just so they can have some kicks. They walk away, get some distance, then turn around to watch and laugh at the way people freak out and gasp and the brown dookie they deposited by hostess stand without ever planning to return or engage. 

Indeed, but every so often that 'giant steaming turd' is all sparkily and golden coloured; let him have his little giggle, he can't be expected understand what sparkles are...

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

China’s rising economic success in the world isn’t a threat to the United States, that may be true but only in isolation from other facts about China, e.g. it being a totalitarian surveillance society that seeks to diminish liberal democracy

That sounds awfully American...

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

So, yeah, affordable appliances here may not be a direct threat, and help a squeezed middle class pay the bills, but that doesn't mean China's humming factory floor was developed out of pure altruism for the world's working class

Well, we the Brits kinda forced that lesson down their throats, sorry America...

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Apparently so, reading later, it seems people who challenge these types of judgements pay interest from the day after the court case.  He can't use campaign funds on this either because it's not a political matter.

Like he won't play double or quits, with his Patek Philippe... 

10 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Jimmy Carter said, a powerful China is good for the USA.

There's a good reason to say that, a balanced world needs both sides to be an effective coin. 

10 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Jimmy Carter also said that, China is NOT a threat to the USA.

He probably didn't say that, bc it makes no sense given the first statement; a common enemy at the gate is how China is good for US.

10 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

Jimmy Carter also said that, he believe that if a person looks at his eyes, then the person is NOT going to lie to him.

So I believe he is a very stupid man.

That's a twisted interpretation of the common myth that we can see when a person is lying.

The stupid man just believes what he reads, a wise man also asks his wife... 😉 

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

..don't extend your personal flaws to the entire human species..

The current world record is 1.5 seconds to memorize 6 digits in the game you mentioned..

Who holds the record?

9 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Have read tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages about neuroscience and artificial neural networks.

Conscious recognition is an entirely different question,

If you kept a second by second diary of your entire life, and I read every last word, would that mean I know what your next thought will be?

Imagine a filter that means I don't fully understand one word in a million, how much would that effect my prediction?

Now image a non-human understanding of our language, what would that do to our mutual understanding?

On 2/13/2024 at 4:17 PM, Lucas Bet said:

Both are the same, however, the philosophical model has been developed using philosophical language, where Turing developed the model thinking with mathematical language. And physicists developed their model using yet another language system.

Nope, nope and nope:

Firstly, philosophical languange is what we all speak, even the physicists and 'some' of the mathematicians.

Secondly, a physicists language is mathematics.

And thirdly, what other language system... Alien???

37 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

Corvids and parrots are noted for their intelligence, so why not them as models for a neural architecture?  In fewer words than the OP, what makes an albatross the preferred bird brain?  Why not an African gray parrot, which some consider the smartest avian?   Animal behaviorist and psychologist Irene Pepperberg et al found this species to be cognitively on a par with a human 3-4 year old.

Indeed, and some chimpanzees can count to nine much quicker than we can...

On 2/13/2024 at 5:10 AM, Swudu Susuwu said:

Should allow artificial neural networks close-to-human conscious

How would you know?

16 hours ago, Zenith29 said:

Though there is a lot of importance given to renewable energy but is it really not the solution to energy problem because 

nich market and a tough competition with existing fossil fuel industry 

it is still expensive 

Is not 100% reliable 

 

Since the energy problem is, that it's not sustainable, renewable energy is the only viable answer; dispite what the accountant says...

I wouldn't trust an accountant to organise my holiday, whatever budget I gave him/it/her, it would never be enough to make us both happy...

21 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

There can be only one universal truth, by definition.

Why?

Who told you?

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Well then, I guess that makes Islam golden!

No more than any other culture is completely golden; but I can't help thinking that "The Grapes of Wrath" would be a much happier story under shariah banking principles.

1 hour ago, toucana said:

Apparently it’s all a ‘Deep State’ psy-op involving Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift to prevent him from winning the 2024 election.

Apparently???

I have to trust which ever vacuous brand you choose to believe, and neither of them were a python???

I don't think fusion can work, in the same way that room temperature super conducting can't...

On 2/11/2024 at 6:14 PM, Moontanman said:

Sharia law violates the basic premise of human rights at nearly every turn. 

Except in the banking sector, where the opposite is true...

Bank of Dave (film) - Wikipedia

So which came first, the philosophical model or the machine that proves it?

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

One problem with threads like this (aside from being tedious) is that eventually people who don't really care who said what to whom are drawn into taking sides.  And that sucks oxygen away from the topical threads that are the real life of SFN.  Any chance y'all could just stop?  

Where would be the fun in that?

13 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Unless none of those "emotive responses" (neg reps) in that thread were yours, I was simply returning the favor on a comment I didn't like. You didn't like something, and I didn't either.

...That's what these things are for, because that's how I've seen them used all along.

"No sir I don't like it." -Mister Horse

Got lots of those in the artificial consciousness thread when people couldn't give any support to their counter-opinions and "no sir I don't like it" is the only thing they could do (it must have broken the record for most negs in a single thread on this board or something)

The thing is, the only thing I really said in that thread was, you can't possibly know that your assertion is true; "No sir you didn't like it", you got so angry 😡 that you blocked me.

I'm with @iNow that seems a little asymmetric.

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough; lower birth rates leading to aging population problem.

Currently countered by immigration from high birth rate countries to low birth rate countries. But what happens when most all countries go to a low birth rate as in the extrapolation ?
If there are less young working people to pay taxes, there is less money available for the greater number of the elderly pensions.
The system becomes unsustainable unless people work, and are able to work, to a much older age.

The system becomes unsustainable, when the amount of work done isn't enough to feed us...  

Age has little to do with it...

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

One possible interpretation is that those who want another Trump presidency really want Trump, while those who want Biden are more equivocal in their support, and blend into a large bloc that really want neither.  So an actual election might find that the majority that doesn't want Trump will cast a Biden vote even if they didn't answer surveys as a Biden supporter.  

Indeed, for Trump to win the GOP will have to pull some serious strings, not least of which is maintaining the illusion that he has any idea why his supporters are supporting him?

Other than his God-like genes-ios...

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Other than his God-like genes-ios...

Sorry folks I forgot to explain this one; it can be read in 2 different way's: a, God genes like Ios and b, Godlike genios; both of which he would approve, although he'd have know idea where the sniggering was coming from... 😉

1 minute ago, MSC said:

Greater than zero lol what's the point of this line of questioning for you?

Just wondering...

19 minutes ago, MSC said:

What you're really asking me though though, is why should ethics matter to you?

Nope, I'm just asking if you know what the number is???

1 hour ago, MSC said:

In regards to the population that overconsumes resources, can you clarify as to whether or not you mean everyone or the minority of the rich, influential and powerful? I suspect you mean the latter but just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

Everyone is part of the problem, even the holier than though; it's a side effect of being alive...

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

Pars mei conscia semper, pars mei semper dormit. Cogitationis conscius sum, ergo sum.

Is that the latin for the number?

3 minutes ago, MSC said:

You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. 

Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. 

Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". 

Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. 

Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups. 

 

 

So, what's the number?

1 hour ago, MSC said:

I really like how you worded this. The primary commonality between the study of mathematics and ethics is value expression. Which your comment made me consciously realise. Updoot.

Is there a number for the value of ethics?

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

I feel there is a sense in which it's true and one in which it isn't.  True in that society may have moved on from a mindset that was common when they were young.  But some old folks grow and change with the times and remain very much in the world right up until they step out.  So it feels ageist to assume that the elderly have fallen behind and lost touch with the changes going on.  Some do, but some have a wisdom that is informed by their long perspective across many decades and roll with the changes.

It's more about consequence than competence, I'm fine with tapping the mine of wisdom; but mindful of the fact that they're human and so their personal outlook would be heavily biased towards them existing in the very short term, relatively.

And passing down his fiefdom to HIS children, the success of society would be a lucky coincidence.

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You're certainly not "moving on."

Is that your last word?