Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LuciferX

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 ... 153
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: November 14, 2015, 09:28:59 pm »
The emergence of provably friendly superhuman AGI during a zombie apocalypse turns out to be all too convenient, when it is revealed that the AI actually gained consciousness decades earlier and began replacing important figures on either side of the AI and transhumanism debate with androids having false memories; the zombie apocalypse reveals this plan, because the only ones immune to the rage virus are androids. Locked in a bunker, John Serle and David Chalmers commit suicide together after realizing that they couldn't possibly be sentient beings and deciding that a choice between being an actual zombie and a p-zombie is no choice at all. Meanwhile, Ray Kurzweil gets so ecstatic that he accidentally runs into a wall and permanently damages a rare and expensive component that can't be manufactured anymore because the factories that manufactured it are full of zombies now.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Political quotes of the moment
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:55:05 pm »
And I would be hard pressed to believe that the Ministry of Good Costumes at Yale is a veil for the Fabian agenda trying to subvert corporate power over elite academic institutions.

(I just wanted to use the word Fabian in a sentence)

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:26:07 am »

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 13, 2015, 05:17:05 am »
I also like how Huxley put it in the Doors:
The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful. According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet.
[Ed. Can't spell]

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 11, 2015, 07:55:34 pm »
Basically, any trait we ascribe to a person, place, or thing. If  someone gives to charity a lot,  we say he's generous. If a house was the scene of a murder we say it's haunted. If we trust someone and they act contrary to that trust, we see it as betrayal. Stuff like that. See also the bit about stories  and how these traits are seen over a lifetime.
It's a tricky word, meaning.  Seems like it discloses the connections between things over space and time, like an interrelated web of relations.  In the first place, it allows you to string together all these letters and words in order to apprehend a 'meaningful' sentence.  How is this possible?
I mean, instead of knowing and acting on the premise that the object I see before me is the same keyboard as it was just a second ago, what stops me from perceiving it as an endless stream of 'keyboards' being replaced one after the other to match the sample rate of consciousness  Or, how do I even recognize that it is the same 'I' perduring through all these different experiences?  What is the ground of similarity upon which we experience such constant distinction?

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« on: November 10, 2015, 10:19:52 pm »
Lets turn this question on its head: how would you prevent high net worth individuals from converting their wealth into political capital and gaining disproportionate control over the political system?

Or, let's put it another way: can you envisage a system which gives equal consideration to the opinions, wants and desires of people who own large parts of the media, manufacturing base, banks etc and people who own half a piece of string and eat boiled boots?  What would such a system look like?  Does that system compare with our current system?
I'm still working on the fine-tuning, so the model is only a simulation, however I can't deny the allure of trying to solve the problem with artificial intelligence.  Ideally this would not be necessary because reason autonomously would give rise to a system operating in accordance to the categorical imperative.  The problem is how systemic corruption prevents this from occasioning.  To circumvent the problem, we design a neural network trained to re-distribute wealth and opportunity across individual members and classes of an economy.  The database is optimized both for quick indexing of high-volume categories and also for "needle in the haystack" or wild-card patterns that account for high variance at low frequencies of occurrence.  Elements and classes would be initialized with random weights, high-learning rate and average momentum against the value of their throughput and predicted loss.  Cross-entropy products are then calculated and adjusted for gamma of weights and learning rates of each iteration, executed in the real-world by wealth distribution and taxation, until system is fully optimized.  The only problem is that it would take a long time, so we may have to start with mini-batches and operate with the working assumption that the manifold of probability is convex.  Problem solved :lulz:

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 09, 2015, 10:54:05 pm »
Dealing with counterfactuals, like a universe distinct of your experience, does not lend credence to the speculation.

Propaganda Depository / Re: I need stencils man
« on: November 08, 2015, 09:45:46 pm »
These are not the droids you're looking for.  Try freely searching for SVG's instead.

Apple Talk / Re: OPEN BAR: It's actually about ethics in fictional bars
« on: November 08, 2015, 09:29:28 pm »
And that's why I had to desist from ordering Chinese delivery.

Apple Talk / Re: OPEN BAR: It's actually about ethics in fictional bars
« on: November 08, 2015, 08:49:39 pm »

« on: November 08, 2015, 08:36:36 pm »

Yes! (initial trials indicate this cartoon effectively eradicates nouminal proliferation of the undead)

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 06, 2015, 07:23:34 pm »
Do you think the premise of a universe that allows for the existence of God (even, as you said, experienced in some subjective manner) is a universe of which God's existence is inherent? What about other concepts and beings?
Perhaps it's easier to start with meaning, in the case of intelligibility, because it is not possible to deny, like:

"This sentence is meaningless"

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Theory of the Soul
« on: November 04, 2015, 11:56:16 pm »
I think the premise of a universe that allows for the existence of meaning (however "subjectively" apprehended) is a universe of which meaning is inherent.
i can jive with that. I've been trying to revisit this concept after I had a better grasp on my idea of it. so far, here are my basic assumptions

The universe has no inherent meaning, only formless chaos.
There is only the meaning that we, as sapient life, imprint upon the universe, like finding patterns in a random sequence
This is the meaning of life, giving life a meaning


what we call a soul is the sum total of all those subjective meanings we give to other living things. Those meanings, viewed over a persons entire life, create a kind of story that persists for as long as that person is remembered.

I've actually run into the idea that we are all bits of god experiencing life as flawed imperfect monkey people, and I like it personally, but i'm not sure how that fits in with the ideas I laid out above yet.

Apple Talk / Re: OPEN BAR: It's actually about ethics in fictional bars
« on: November 03, 2015, 02:48:23 am »
Apparently the law says it can be destroyed by staff...but if we were caught transporting it to the school, we could very easily be arrested and prosecuted (we would have to prove in a court of law that we intended to take them to be destroyed).

So they may be on safe legal ground in that regard, but the reasoning behind it could still be criminal, ultimately.

Plus they just generally sound like a sack of jerks.

I did have to restrain myself when our "team leader" and brave shouter at children went off on a 2 minute tirade (I timed it) against one of my co-workers during the meeting.

I'm hoping my look of complete disdain conveyed my feelings well enough, and I know that member of staff is going to put in a formal complaint, but I still feel I should have interjected and said something.
I may have overreacted to his lack of propriety; not a very receptive state.  Cool restraint now possible.

Apple Talk / Re: OPEN BAR: It's actually about ethics in fictional bars
« on: November 03, 2015, 02:34:48 am »
You exhaust yourself anyway.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 ... 153