We don’t want a monarchy. We want a spectacle fueled capitalistic society.
Is there some trend in humanity, where it’s like… we don’t care if we suffer so long as it’s not to the benefit of someone else? We gotta build our own suffering machines of culture instead? What’s up with that?
When you’re buying drugs from schotty research chemical production facilities in foreign countries, those are called “love letters.”
Those who put the most thought into it get an episode on some history channel show, though. (Looking at you, Cooper)
It’s quite common to hear we’re living in a digital panopticon. See modern philosophers.
Yeah, I was actually thinking about acquiring one myself. I want to dissect it, hook it up to some monitoring equipment/ software, see what I can learn about it… functionality, vulnerability, anything. But I’m also worried about the potential I accidentally show up on a video feed stored somewhere remote. I’ve been checking eBay for them, but honestly… there are several right by my home. We’ll see what happens, in time.
Im no academic, so apologies for the lack of substance. I mostly just get stuck in rabbit holes reading about philosophy and consciousness while I should be working.
Check out these theories for some interesting ideas:
My summarized take is that modeling consciousness is akin to modeling the three-body problem or the double-pendulum. Even if the system is deterministic and capable of being modeled, you’ll forever be bottlenecked by finite precision in your model. The system itself is one where errors grow exponentially. For example, tiny differences in the double pendulum’s initial angle (like 0.000001°) rapidly amplify over time to produce wildly different trajectories. It is computationally intractable without unlimited precision — hence, this is why I said you’d need to model the entire universe. This is deterministic chaos, and we have no reason to think human-brains aren’t heavily dependent on its utility.
Information Integration Theory would suggest that phi (Φ) can be used to measure the degree to which a system generates irreducible, integrated cause–effect structure. The irreducible nature of something is exactly as you postulate: it cannot possibly be modeled mathematically. If it could, that would make it reducible to smaller parts.
You can describe the function of the human brain mathematically, of course… For example, some low hanging fruit might be:
But that’s not going to model human experience. The experience isn’t reducible. That, instead, models something closer to the quality of experience. Human rationality is derived downstream of human experience. So it’s just not a fair argument to say that a tool mimicking only the downstream patterns of human experience will somehow also possess the upstream experience capacity, or even a relatable sense of rationality at all.
I don’t think we’re going to get a deterministic explanation for human behavior, ever. Most likely just statistical truths. Unless you can somehow mathematically model the entire universe as well. Good luck, because now the endeavor sounds god-like.
Humans aren’t rational creatures though… we use rationality as a tool, but tools designed to mimic rationality aren’t actually mimicking humans. Human intelligence has a lot to do with being irrational, arational, and sometimes deciding to use rationality as a means to an end. Societies are emergent from the social patterns produced via agents with those particular behaviors. Social patterns like morals, religion, culture, … It’s really not the same thing as stuffing a bunch of LLMs in a box. The LLMs don’t have the same capabilities for growth, failure, awareness thereof, … nor any of the natural pressures that would even incentivize such awareness. They’re just little feedforward algorithms stuck in a feedback loop with each other.
We need a dumb browser.
This browser doesn’t work for most shit, making it the best browser available for most shit you actually need to do.
That’s a browser I can get behind.
Hmm… would be pretty neat if Playwrite could use the Servo engine too. I would start using that instead of the gecko driver, because why not?
I was having a discussion on a philosophy discord about a year back. The discussion dove into theoretical alien rationalities… like, “what if an advanced fungus-like life form evolved into an intelligent species that would have no use for something like an internet, and they started their societies with that advantage?”
Not saying you’re wrong, but… that’s only if we discover them first.
Whilst people really shouldn’t use <tool> as a <form of research>, many do, …
Shit, I know where this is going.
GARY WHY?! WHY?!
Gary had some bass fucking balls. He’s a good father. Terrible that he had to prove exactly how good a father he is.
deleted by creator
Quantum is a struggle for me to understand because, I feel like the current explanations don’t suffice why you can’t transmit information. To me, this still sounds perfectly viable for information transfer… just don’t encode information via polarization. You would encode it as a primitive derived from whether or not state collapse has happened yet or not.
Using the same/similar mechanism they can use to determine collapse happens to both entangled particles at the same time (faster than light), can they not also determine whether or not collapse has happened at all?
Maybe it’s that checking for collapse will actually cause collapse, thus ruining the information channel. But, perhaps then, you just add more entangled particles. Have some mechanism established with “throwaway” particles that can have their state collapsed either as a chain reaction or via the polling process.
Obviously I’m not the smarted person here… probably a lot wrong with my above assumption. But my point is really that explanations about quantum seem to be unsupportive to the claims they make about quantum.
That makes sense. We want to understand our impact on the environment. I guess I was just wondering why it seemed like an inherent problem, but I suppose it’s more a question of whether we’re disturbing the natural process in ways that ultimately cause undue detriment to the ecosystem.
Well, your photos should certainly be hard evidence. What’s the source on those, so they can be vetted a little deeper?
Everyone fucking knew. That’s the horseshit pile of excuse that the rich want you to believe.
When exactly did Trump say Epstein “likes them on the younger side” so publically?
Epstein’s parties were known to have young girls. He used young girls as currency for rapport — just check his emails with Elon Musk. When did that happen?
Tina Brown received an invite to Epstein’s party and exclaimed, “What the hell is this, the Predators Ball?” When did that happen?
When was Epstein fired from teaching for inappropriate relations with a student?
When was Epstein convicted in relation to having sex with a minor?
This was part of the lure. The rich powerful people of the world knew Epstein was the connection they needed to surround themselves with young women, like so many imagine rich life would be like. They bought into that allure, knowing full well they’d have plausible deniability if today ever came.
Edit: deeply insightful podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000749573912
Not really. How would it? Buy new shit, fuck the bond. Do gold instead, or something…