The Random Thoughts Thread

[daddychaos]

Because you'll be resource dependant on said geopolitical powers. That means they can use the economy to control you.

From a game theoretical perspective, once you have several nations deal with you for resources and sevices, you gain leverage whereby its within their interests to leave you be. Singapore is an example, and more recently, Djibouti.

Similar strategies are being used by Liberland and slowly but surely, its gaining traction.

Which is why they will never allow it.

That's shown to backfire in history. The Soviet Union had something similar with US dollars, yet the cops and politicians still took bribes in dollars.

More recently, Venezuela. Despite the military coming after their own people, crypto has proven to be a godsend.

The irony is that, the moment they ban crypto, they lose control very quickly as everything would go underground. Not even shutting down the internet would save them.

Thats why even China is being very cautious about crypto and trying to bring out their own crypto in a very strategic way.

Non-homogenous proposition nations are crime-ridden cesspools of individualism and division. The average family man would leave, the nation would crack at the first sight of a major conflict with an external power. You need much more than just laws and an economic system.

I agree to a certain extent. A major boon to that effect would be technology. Theres a whole bunch of issues that are being eradicated to the point people don't even notice it as it gets implemented. modern plumbing is one of them.

Much of these issues garner around certain aspects such as the Dunbar number for eg, which would cause strife. But that limitation gets uncapped with decentralized autonomous systems.

Governance, not government.

 

[Kormak]

I agree to a certain extent. A major boon to that effect would be technology. Theres a whole bunch of issues that are being eradicated to the point people don't even notice it as it gets implemented. modern plumbing is one of them.

Much of these issues garner around certain aspects such as the Dunbar number for eg, which would cause strife. But that limitation gets uncapped with decentralized autonomous systems.

Governance, not government.

I mean something else. On a large scale like that, you need a founding myth, identity, a metaphysical core, culture, and sub-racial homogeneity to avoid racial division and conflict. It takes quite a lot to keep a population of humans together, striving for the same goal. You'd need to carefully manage immigration if you want to avoid the nation cracking from the inside out.

What libertarian thought always lacked and I noticed this late in the game is a nonmaterial metaphysical dimension as well as the proper understanding of humanity's tribal nature & history.

The issue with liberal thought (anarchism included) is exactly this, it never considers these dimensions. The focus is on pragmatic materialism, the economy, logistics, infrastructure. People are not interchangeable units, you and I are not mere individuals. Ppl usually discover this only once they try to immerse themselves in a drastically different environment.

A hodgepodge of ppl loosely based on contractual agreement carrying the same ideology is a very fragile structure. Its a band of mercenaries, not a nation.

 

[daddychaos]

Even neural mapping isn't representative of the biology in most cases, You have to make a distinction between Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Biological Neural Networks (BNN). BNN operates using dendrites, synapses, neurons and axons. Neurons are the singular nodes, Dendrites and axons are bridges with dendrites being neural receptors and axons neural transmitters. Synapses are the location where a chemical is transmitted from one neuron to another, otherwise known as a synpatic junction.

I agree with ya. It also goes a whole level deeper when you consider that the electric signals that gets passed through act more like sound waves than electric signals. Also potentiation thresholds for each neuron and whole groups of neural nets etc..

But by the principles of emergence and plectics, one shouldn't just assume complex systems are necessarily complicated.

Then you have ANN, which operates for the most part in layers: You have the input layer, 2 hidden layers and usually a discrete (0,1) to determine the computation: So layer 1 would be inputs, layer 2 would take the inputs of layer 1 and give them a corresponding weight, unlike BNN where where synapses are strengthened/weakened, in an ANN we use the hidden layer and weights to simulate this process of reinforcement/deselection. The nodes in layer two can be be connected to 9 nodes (Ratio of 1:9), given a weight, then layer 3 has the same nodes as layer 2, the values are put through again with an associated weight and then finally you reach layer 4, where the output is predicted. (That's enough to explain an analogy),

Theres more to ANN than just CNN and RNN, GAN etc... And the same can be said about BNN

Youre also discounting forms of networks and computational modeling/simulation that goes beyond mere neural nets such as vector independent Hilbert spaces, amplituhedrons etc...

just a concept -- do you think it is possible to reduce the brain to an algorithm?

the only way i can think of this happening is if you were to map out the brain and then simulate the whole thing. this would be very innefficient. any better ways, or speculation of weather this is possible?

Thats a very vague way of framing it. What exactly do you mean by an algorithm? Most people who use that word usually mean heuristics. It's like saying if you can improve your vision with machine learning.

Yes you can potentially map it out and simulate it, and has been done with single neurons and neural nets of simple organisms such as an earthworm.

What's more trippier is that scientists have copied the entirety of the neural nets of a mouse brain chemically.

This becomes more tricky as your brain is just part of your overall neural net. 90% of neurons reside outside the brain, distributed all over the body.

You could simulate the brain in a very powerful computer, but that's a huge assumption. There's a lot more that we (or at least, I) dont know about the brain than the very little we do.

Even if it were possible to simulate the brain, it wouldn't make much sense to reconstruct it in the same manner that it existed in the body, for the same reason you dont see planes with feathers and flapping wings.

Also, your base reality is destroyed once you restart consciousness in a different form (unless you transfer into a synth brain, slowly teetering off of the main brain),

your consciousness is the most real thing in your existence, even the universe is up for skepticism next to it.

Even neural mapping isn't representative of the biology in most cases, You have to make a distinction between Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Biological Neural Networks (BNN). BNN operates using dendrites, synapses, neurons and axons. Neurons are the singular nodes, Dendrites and axons are bridges with dendrites being neural receptors and axons neural transmitters. Synapses are the location where a chemical is transmitted from one neuron to another, otherwise known as a synpatic junction.

Then you have ANN, which operates for the most part in layers: You have the input layer, 2 hidden layers and usually a discrete (0,1) to determine the computation: So layer 1 would be inputs, layer 2 would take the inputs of layer 1 and give them a corresponding weight, unlike BNN where where synapses are strengthened/weakened, in an ANN we use the hidden layer and weights to simulate this process of reinforcement/deselection. The nodes in layer two can be be connected to 9 nodes (Ratio of 1:9), given a weight, then layer 3 has the same nodes as layer 2, the values are put through again with an associated weight and then finally you reach layer 4, where the output is predicted. (That's enough to explain an analogy),

So as you can see, representing Biological neural networks is quite difficult, we haven't had true representation as much as we've created models that simulate the brain. Creating a computer as daddychaos said sensitive to the billions of biochemical processes in the brain, nevermind the body, is just insane to even map and ruins the purpose of a computer, which is it's a logical binary simplification of 1s and 0s, compared to the transmutation, atomic necessity for x molecule and so on. On this precedent I don't think we'll get an AGI, which is really what you're describing given an accurate Neural network, for a long, long time. AGI will be a long-field away, mainly because our brain has been designed over millions of years, most of our cognitive faculties like vision, pattern recognition, depth perception, being able to pinpoint the origin of a sound, are all very complex cognitive behaviours for a machine to even emulate. AI does good with pattern recognition now, but let's say you had an image of a cow but put a red circle on its stomach from microsoft paint, and a green circle on it's hooves, it cannot disambiguate the layers of the image with accuracy, while any of us will be able to eliminate the red/green circle from our representation and understand it is indeed, a cow.

This is where you need to step back and look at the bigger picture and start looking at emergent networks, patterns and architectures.

Its quite a feat, but its not impossible.

As with the plane/bird analogy, its quite probable that we will reach AGI sooner than later.

Also your cow analogy is a bit dated as those issues have been dealt with at least a year or two ago hehe.

 

[daddychaos]

I mean something else. On a large scale like that, you need a founding myth, identity, a metaphysical core, culture, and sub-racial homogeneity to avoid racial division and conflict. It takes quite a lot to keep a population of humans together, striving for the same goal. You'd need to carefully manage immigration if you want to avoid the nation cracking from the inside out.

What libertarian thought always lacked and I noticed this late in the game is a nonmaterial metaphysical dimension as well as the proper understanding of humanity's tribal nature.

The issue with liberal thought (anarchism included) is exactly this, it never considers these dimensions. The focus is on pragmatic materialism, the economy, logistics, infrastructure. People are not interchangeable units, you and I are not mere individuals. Ppl usually discover this only once they try to immerse themselves in a drastically different environment.

I'm completely with you on this. I understand the need for these dimensions.

My perspective is that, instead of fighting against it, build on top of it.

Just like how you literally have the library of Alexandria in your pocket with the ability to transmit information anf communicate with anyone on the planet, I believe we can build on top of all these rich dimensions.

You'd need to look past the old systems of borders, massive countries, immigration.

A good example of some of these dimensions cracking past its local limitations would be that of internet culture.

Also realise that humans have been hunter gatherers for over 90% of their existence. Countries are a fairly new phenomenon.

As we were hunter gatherers, we had the limitations of the Dunbar number with regards to tribalism and identity etc..

This was initially overcome through hierarchical systems, to a certain degree, until after the 1900s the population was on a whole other magnitude.

Culture accelerated human social evolution. The Gutenberg press took it to another level. And now with the internet and the decentralization of trust using cryptographic and game theoretical consensus methods, its evolving into something more.

The same dimensions you mentioned are also evolving.

I agree theres a lot of libertarians and ancaps that espouse some nonsense but I have come across a whole corpus of information related to it that has a more nuanced and sophisticated look into how theyd work past just 'taxation is theft' or 'absolute property rights' etc...

 

[Kormak]

I agree theres a lot of libertarians and ancaps that espouse some nonsense but I have come across a whole corpus of information related to it that has a more nuanced and sophisticated look into how theyd work past just 'taxation is theft' or 'absolute property rights' etc...

I have heard H. H. Hoppe talk about some of this. It is possible imo once you manage the metaphysical and biological dimensions, its even better if they are already there and you just go with it. I never argue against the infrastructure & logistics part, because it is clearly there and workable. Plus I'm a big fan of freedom so :P, I liked the internet as it used to be... the wild west of ideas.

This might interest you: https://propertarianism.com/ :/ altho its tailored for Europeans, so it might not.

We might not need to escape to the ocean after all. e_e this stuff is never simple tho.

Propertarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rebis]

Even neural mapping isn't representative of the biology in most cases, You have to make a distinction between Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Biological Neural Networks (BNN). BNN operates using dendrites, synapses, neurons and axons. Neurons are the singular nodes, Dendrites and axons are bridges with dendrites being neural receptors and axons neural transmitters. Synapses are the location where a chemical is transmitted from one neuron to another, otherwise known as a synpatic junction.

I agree with ya. It also goes a whole level deeper when you consider that the electric signals that gets passed through act more like sound waves than electric signals. Also potentiation thresholds for each neuron and whole groups of neural nets etc..

But by the principles of emergence and plectics, one shouldn't just assume complex systems are necessarily complicated.

Then you have ANN, which operates for the most part in layers: You have the input layer, 2 hidden layers and usually a discrete (0,1) to determine the computation: So layer 1 would be inputs, layer 2 would take the inputs of layer 1 and give them a corresponding weight, unlike BNN where where synapses are strengthened/weakened, in an ANN we use the hidden layer and weights to simulate this process of reinforcement/deselection. The nodes in layer two can be be connected to 9 nodes (Ratio of 1:9), given a weight, then layer 3 has the same nodes as layer 2, the values are put through again with an associated weight and then finally you reach layer 4, where the output is predicted. (That's enough to explain an analogy),

Theres more to ANN than just CNN and RNN, GAN etc... And the same can be said about BNN

Youre also discounting forms of networks and computational modeling/simulation that goes beyond mere neural nets such as vector independent Hilbert spaces, amplituhedrons etc...

I don't assume complexity isn't the base interaction between smaller atomized interactions that can be solved by heuristics, it's just consciousness is a layer that will be hard to categorize and it's hard to find the principle of reasoning between billions of particle, cellular and neural processes. How would this calcium molecule in a particular synapse effect consciousness? How would a serotonergic axonal surge effect brain functionality?

I did say it was for analogical purposes, it's just how BNN are represented in the structure of a ANN, their similarities and form of processing based on their biological counterpart. weights are akin to synaptic strength but obviously there is much more to thought and behaviour than synaptic flow, this is just a model after all. I'll have to look into amplituhedrons.

This is where you need to step back and look at the bigger picture and start looking at emergent networks, patterns and architectures.

Its quite a feat, but its not impossible.

As with the plane/bird analogy, its quite probable that we will reach AGI sooner than later.

Also your cow analogy is a bit dated as those issues have been dealt with at least a year or two ago hehe.

Yeah I know the cow analogy is outdated, I used it for an analogy with a recent issue of light refraction in the camera of self-driving cars which have caused it to not to see an object infront of it and subsequently crashed, I thought it'd be easier for people to understand. I can't imagine a tracker that would be able to distinguish light concentrations to determine the concentration of light onto its lens.

 

[daddychaos]

I have heard H. H. Hoppe talk about some of this. It is possible imo once you manage the metaphysical and biological dimensions. I never argue against the infrastructure & logistics part, because it is clearly there and workable. Plus I'm a big fan of freedom so :P

This might interest you: https://propertarianism.com/

I am quite certain, by consequence that the metaphysical and biological dimensions will change.

It still blows my mind that 5 scientists were responsible for the survival of 5 BILLION people due to their hardwork and sacrifice put forth towards the green revolution.

Theres over 7 billion of us. The implications of having all of us free to think, speak and share ideas would create things I can't even begin to imagine.

So am I my good man! Freedom is something that I resonate with quite strongly.

As for propertarianism, it seems a bit too preachy. I have read about heterarchies before. Theres definitely things to adapy from it.

Also what they're trying to describe has been implemented in a way through cybernetics and the best example of its outcome has been computation and information technology for eg... I highly suggest you explore it.

blew my mind!

 

[daddychaos]

I don't assume complexity isn't the base interaction between smaller atomized interactions that can be solved by heuristics, it's just consciousness is a layer that will be hard to categorize and it's hard to find the principle of reasoning between billions of particle, cellular and neural processes. How would this calcium molecule in a particular synapse effect consciousness? How would a serotonergic axonal surge effect brain functionality?

I did say it was for analogical purposes, it's just how BNN are represented in the structure of a ANN, their similarities and form of processing based on their biological counterpart. weights are akin to synaptic strength but obviously there is much more to thought and behaviour than synaptic flow, this is just a model after all. I'll have to look into amplituhedrons.

I don't assume complexity isn't the base interaction between smaller atomized interactions that can be solved by heuristics, it's just consciousness is a layer that will be hard to categorize and it's hard to find the principle of reasoning between billions of particle, cellular and neural processes. How would this calcium molecule in a particular synapse effect consciousness? How would a serotonergic axonal surge effect brain functionality?

Complexity emerges from simple rules and a lot of that has been established.

As for the chaotic nature of how these billions of particle and electrochemical interactions can be reasoned, there's a chunk of systems science, chaos theory principles, cybernetics etc.. (tight feedback loops for eg).

No easy feat, but theres definitely avenues open for exploration.

The other issue with consciousness is that we still know very little about what it is. Theres no real scientific consensus on a definition of consciousness.

Yeah I know the cow analogy is outdated, I used it for an analogy with a recent issue of light refraction in the camera of self-driving cars which have caused it to not to see an object infront of it and subsequently crashed, I thought it'd be easier for people to understand. I can't imagine a tracker that would be able to distinguish light concentrations to determine the concentration of light onto its lens.

Light refraction and caustics have been surprisingly well modelled and understood within the past few years. To the degree that you can 3d print caustic blocks with peoples faces on it. I am quite certain that you could plug that into existing systems to identify light concentrations on its lens.

Here's some links if you're interested:

Yuliy Schwartzburg

chateaunoir.net

[PDF] Stylized Caustics: Progressive Rendering of Animated Caustics | Semantic Scholar

The aim of this work is the animation of caustics by blending towards a given target irradiance distribution, which enables an artist to coherently change appearance and style of caUSTics, e.g., for marketing applications and visual effects. In recent years, much work was devoted to the design...

www.semanticscholar.org

Might be a bit dated though

 

[Rebis]

Complexity emerges from simple rules and a lot of that has been established.

As for the chaotic nature of how these billions of particle and electrochemical interactions can be reasoned, there's a chunk of systems science, chaos theory principles, cybernetics etc.. (tight feedback loops for eg).

No easy feat, but theres definitely avenues open for exploration.

The other issue with consciousness is that we still know very little about what it is. Theres no real scientific consensus on a definition of consciousness.

After a few layers of complexity the simple fundamental rules don't necessarily apply to the upper conceptual echelons. Or rather they do, but they don't affect cellular structure, it's like the fact van der waal forces are omitted when we calculate the interaction between celestial bodies, Quantum mechanics vs general relativity in other words, both explain phenomena relative to the context but they don't have a understandable linearity from one to the other. It's hard to apply predicate logic which is fundamental principles to complex phenomena, I agree reductionist processes is the only way, but constructing complex processes from axioms is difficult and I'd say neural networks is the top of that complexity hierarchy, it's the one I can think of off the top of my head.

It's just understanding the transposition of rule sets from one exchange to another which is the confusing part. Yeah the definition of consciousness is eery, as is intelligence in AI programs (Do we assume infinite resources, Real-time system, Open-system.)

Yeah I know the cow analogy is outdated, I used it for an analogy with a recent issue of light refraction in the camera of self-driving cars which have caused it to not to see an object infront of it and subsequently crashed, I thought it'd be easier for people to understand. I can't imagine a tracker that would be able to distinguish light concentrations to determine the concentration of light onto its lens.

Light refraction and caustics have been surprisingly well modelled and understood within the past few years. To the degree that you can 3d print caustic blocks with peoples faces on it. I am quite certain that you could plug that into existing systems to identify light concentrations on its lens.

Here's some links if you're interested:

Yuliy Schwartzburg

chateaunoir.net

[PDF] Stylized Caustics: Progressive Rendering of Animated Caustics | Semantic Scholar

The aim of this work is the animation of caustics by blending towards a given target irradiance distribution, which enables an artist to coherently change appearance and style of caUSTics, e.g., for marketing applications and visual effects. In recent years, much work was devoted to the design...

www.semanticscholar.org

Might be a bit dated though
[/QUOTE]

I'll check it out, based on a presumption I don't see how a camera could make the complex distinction between light from one source to another, other than wavelength. In which case is light from the sun distinct from other wavelengths of light (Are car lights fluorescent?) and what concentration of light would put the camer into a cautionary measure? I'll read it when I get back, cheers.

 

[Kormak]

I am quite certain, by consequence that the metaphysical and biological dimensions will change.

Civilizations are born, grow, peak, decline and die all the time. Its normal. Without death there is no renewal. Constant flux is the norm.

It still blows my mind that 5 scientists were responsible for the survival of 5 BILLION people due to their hardwork and sacrifice put forth towards the green revolution.

Technology enables more humans to survive, that's all. Resource abundance doesn't mean the civilization will survive tho. See the mouse utopia experiment.

Theres over 7 billion of us. The implications of having all of us free to think, speak and share ideas would create things I can't even begin to imagine.

Yup. This is quite revolutionary tbh. However, we are not free to think and say what we want. The internet has changed sadly. 2015 was the year.

As for propertarianism, it seems a bit too preachy. I have read about heterarchies before. Theres definitely things to adapy from it.

Also what they're trying to describe has been implemented in a way through cybernetics and the best example of its outcome has been computation and information technology for eg... I highly suggest you explore it.

I highly doubt it, you must be misunderstanding what it is.

Libertarian thinkers speak in normative or moral terms. That is, they say, “Humans ought to act like this.” The NAP, for instance, is a normative statement. It is how we wish everyone would organize their governments.

Propertarians view this as insufficient. Specifically, without arguments about the benefits of the NAP, we can not expect humanity to adopt its policies. Propertarianism, in turn, seeks to make empirical arguments for the existence of property (as opposed to normative ones) and to create a system by which humanity can know the boundaries of behavior that will produce a peaceful, high trust, low transaction cost polity.

This is why you see it as preachy, it is more than preachy.

What is Propertarianism?
A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law.

^^; need to get ridd of those pesky left libertarians and crony capitalists.... goddamn language manipulating parasites.

 

[daddychaos]

After a few layers of complexity the simple fundamental rules don't necessarily apply to the upper conceptual echelons. Or rather they do, but they don't affect cellular structure, it's like the fact van der waal forces are omitted when we calculate the interaction between celestial bodies, Quantum mechanics vs general relativity in other words, both explain phenomena relative to the context but they don't have a understandable linearity from one to the other. It's hard to apply predicate logic which is fundamental principles to complex phenomena, I agree reductionist processes is the only way, but constructing complex processes from axioms is difficult and I'd say neural networks is the top of that complexity hierarchy, it's the one I can think of off the top of my head.

It's just understanding the transposition of rule sets from one exchange to another which is the confusing part. Yeah the definition of consciousness is eery, as is intelligence in AI programs (Do we assume infinite resources, Real-time system, Open-system.)

My only contention would be using reductionist logic. Youd have to look further up in terms of cybernetics and systems science. Plus theres a whole field dedicated to complexity theory.

I'll check it out, based on a presumption I don't see how a camera could make the complex distinction between light from one source to another, other than wavelength. In which case is light from the sun distinct from other wavelengths of light (Are car lights fluorescent?) and what concentration of light would put the camer into a cautionary measure? I'll read it when I get back, cheers.

Off the top of my head, I could think of some spectrography libraries that you could use to that effect. Florescent lights and the sun have similar light spectrums within a certain threshold, but youd have to use some sort of comb filter to assess the light being captured as the ratio of wavelengths would be different for sunlight and that of flourescent light. Also, you could construct tge transfer function for the lens of the camera using lasers.

I believe that this is quite possible to model and implement.

Let me know what you think mate.

 

[daddychaos]

After a few layers of complexity the simple fundamental rules don't necessarily apply to the upper conceptual echelons. Or rather they do, but they don't affect cellular structure, it's like the fact van der waal forces are omitted when we calculate the interaction between celestial bodies, Quantum mechanics vs general relativity in other words, both explain phenomena relative to the context but they don't have a understandable linearity from one to the other. It's hard to apply predicate logic which is fundamental principles to complex phenomena, I agree reductionist processes is the only way, but constructing complex processes from axioms is difficult and I'd say neural networks is the top of that complexity hierarchy, it's the one I can think of off the top of my head.

It's just understanding the transposition of rule sets from one exchange to another which is the confusing part. Yeah the definition of consciousness is eery, as is intelligence in AI programs (Do we assume infinite resources, Real-time system, Open-system.)

My only contention would be using reductionist logic. Youd have to look further up in terms of cybernetics and systems science. Plus theres a whole field dedicated to complexity theory.

I'll check it out, based on a presumption I don't see how a camera could make the complex distinction between light from one source to another, other than wavelength. In which case is light from the sun distinct from other wavelengths of light (Are car lights fluorescent?) and what concentration of light would put the camer into a cautionary measure? I'll read it when I get back, cheers.

Off the top of my head, I could think of some spectrography libraries that you could use to that effect. Florescent lights and the sun have similar light spectrums within a certain threshold, but youd have to use some sort of comb filter to assess the light being captured as the ratio of wavelengths would be different for sunlight and that of flourescent light. Also, you could construct tge transfer function for the lens of the camera using lasers.

I believe that this is quite possible to model and implement.

Let me know what you think mate.

 

[peoplesuck]

Upon further research the eye color changing drops seem to be a scam, reviews that dont seem human along with very few videos/realistic exposure. A company selling a product to change eye color for less than $1k that no one knows about? I dont think so.
However there are 2 surgical options, neither approved by the fda and people have gone blind from them. somehow eye tattoos are actually the safest option.

 

[daddychaos]

Civilizations are born, grow, peak, decline and die all the time. Its normal. Without death there is no renewal. Constant flux is the norm.

Yeah I can agree with that but I would explore more into how the definitions and dynamics of birth, growth, decline etc would change within this context. And how that woild affect the overall cycle. Maybe I'm stretching the scope of these aspects lol.

Yup. This is quite revolutionary tbh. However, we are not free to think and say what we want. The internet has changed sadly. 2015 was the year.

Oh I have big hopes for that. Cats out of the bag. I want to say more about this but im too lazy to type haha.

I highly doubt it, you must be misunderstanding what it is.

Libertarian thinkers speak in normative or moral terms. That is, they say, “Humans ought to act like this.” The NAP, for instance, is a normative statement. It is how we wish everyone would organize their governments.

Propertarians view this as insufficient. Specifically, without arguments about the benefits of the NAP, we can not expect humanity to adopt its policies. Propertarianism, in turn, seeks to make empirical arguments for the existence of property (as opposed to normative ones) and to create a system by which humanity can know the boundaries of behavior that will produce a peaceful, high trust, low transaction cost polity.

This is why you see it as preachy, it is more than preachy.

What is Propertarianism?
A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law.

^^; need to get ridd of those pesky left libertarians and crony capitalists.... goddamn language manipulating parasites.

The issue I see here is with reductionist logic.

I completely agree with you about the normative status of NAP and other statements made by the mainstream ancap/libertarian But it can also be analysed by way of consequentialist contexts, which brings out the nuances, complexities and paradoxes of its implementation.

Objectivity also breaks down at the level of information and data whereby its not treated as a part of reality. The general notion I perceive from people about reality is that it is fundamentally matter and energy. Information, for some reason isnt treated as a fundamental axiom of reality, which I'm convinced of.

The other thing is that through pareto analysis youd be able to have a pretty robust set of protocols/rules that would cover 80% of circumstances and contexts. The rest of the 20% gets diminishing returns, which necessitates a case by case analysis of such scenarios.

I sensed a certain absolutism about the whole idea, but that might be just my prejudiced point of view.

I'd go one step further and have a framework, or rather, a marketplace of governance structures, law etc... And people can pick and choose what theyd want to follow through with.

Just like learning, I don't think theres a one size fits all approach with people would be ideal.

I cant stand people who fuck with language to Poison the well, preventing people from communicating. I hope they fizzle out soon.

 

[Kormak]

The issue I see here is with reductionist logic.

Its a bit difficult to condense what Doolitte's (damn rambling ENTP old man) has achieved into a few sentences. Its a value-neutral language of ethics, morality and politics, that is commensorable across the political spectrum, so that ppl can speak of their group strategies in rational and scientific terms and suppress pseudo-rational arguments. He calls it "the completion of the scientific method". Its stuff that a machine can work with, Ai for example. Its the formal logic of the social sciences.

Atm, I'm trying to wrap my mind around it. There would be a lot to unpack.

EDITED FOR CLARITY: Libertarians (the capiralist variant) basically got it right on economics and wrong on everything else... which is something I was intuitively aware of as a libertarian, I think most of us were / are. So a lot of ppl have moved over when we bacame aware of these things through Hans Hermann Hoppe. So propertarianism basically adds all the mising elements and explains it all in scientific terms. It makes it whole and points out the problems. There are a lot of other issues, not just libertarians reducing everything to the economy. The left for example manipulates language, so you end up with muddeled thinking & involuntary sophism at best. That needs to be fought against.

 

[Rebis]

My only contention would be using reductionist logic. Youd have to look further up in terms of cybernetics and systems science. Plus theres a whole field dedicated to complexity theory.

My bad. I'm not familiar with the terminology of system science, I thought your proposition was reductionist logic as you mentioned chaos theory so measuring initial conditions of matter would be the precedent and then complexities as a result of the butterfly effect would be an afterthought. In terms of AGI I think reductionist logic is necessary in the sense that General Intelligence, the g factor isn't supposed to be situational and predicate logic isn't value-dependent. Predicate logic is the product of reductionist thinking, we reduce complex problems to axiomatic positions. AGI like CYC (I know it's from the 80s but it still has an interesting back-catalogue for principles of common sense), could be a useful addition to AGI in the future to counteract the fallbacks of making generalised learning objectives "Save the world, robotman."

The systems science you mentioned looks interesting, like a unified theory of information. It looks similar in function to the standard model of particle physics.

I'll check it out, based on a presumption I don't see how a camera could make the complex distinction between light from one source to another, other than wavelength. In which case is light from the sun distinct from other wavelengths of light (Are car lights fluorescent?) and what concentration of light would put the camer into a cautionary measure? I'll read it when I get back, cheers.

Off the top of my head, I could think of some spectrography libraries that you could use to that effect. Florescent lights and the sun have similar light spectrums within a certain threshold, but youd have to use some sort of comb filter to assess the light being captured as the ratio of wavelengths would be different for sunlight and that of flourescent light. Also, you could construct tge transfer function for the lens of the camera using lasers.

I believe that this is quite possible to model and implement.

Let me know what you think mate.

Yeah spectometry will solve the issue, it just depends on the operative potential since light is pretty ubiquitious and there will likely be nanosecond incidents of concentrated light refracted against the computer which will be given an activation value which I find would be quite hard to configure, would the AI have toconsider the velocity of the car, the distance between objects and so on which determines the activation function, which then proceed to an output of whether to be cautionary or not. My analysis is probably predicated on the taxing complexity it has on me, an AI would have an easier time.

I'm sure we'll find an answer but it does seem like a complex variable to account for relation to computer vision which tries to detect and classify objects.

 

[peoplesuck]

I just tried sticking a pizzahut fridge magnet into the bathroom ventilation fan and I dropped it into the toilet.

 

[Rebis]

@Tenacity Is your profile picture you?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Serac
You think “sex” is a formal term? Really?
Then what about fornicate?
Coitus?
Mating?
Dalliance?
Copulation?
Carnality?
Intercourse?
Procreation?
Making love?
Being intimate?
Coupling?
Or, if you’re in a dinsey mood, Twitterpated?

Would you prefer hanky’s-panky?
“Getting it on”?
Shagging?
To bang?
Bonking?
The nasty?
Screwing?
The dance without pants?

Get some stank on the hang down
Playing hide the sausage
Etc

 

[Rebis]

Trans youth (19-24) are some of the scariest people I meet, their emotional manipulation is off the charts. At least a psychopath can play nice, I can't see the same for these hateful beings.

 

[Kormak]

Also what they're trying to describe has been implemented in a way through cybernetics and the best example of its outcome has been computation and information technology for eg... I highly suggest you explore it.

Ok, I had to look this up as I basically encountered the term through you. Well Doolittle is using the scientific method to acomplish all this, which is cybernetics from what I gather. I want to get more into cybernetics, any recomendation where to start?

When he is saying propertarianism is the formal logic of the social sciences, I asume he is talking about the same thing. Would I be wrong about that? (no book out yet, can't veryfy atm).

Anyway, I found the most reductive form of what he is trying to say:

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I looked into it today, and it looks like one of the main principles is communication/conversation theory. That seems like the first logical step to understanding the bulk of cybernetics. It would give you a vocab to see how things behave in general.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Also there are authors like Gordon Pask, Heinz von Foester, and Norbert Weiner who have published books on the subject. I don't know if they would be good for a beginner however.

 

[Rebis]

the bois out on a lash
(low quality img)

 

[Forensic1999]

Does it bother anyone that so many people have the same name?
I mean heck, I cannot for the life of me fathom why we would not each be called something completely unique in relation to our nature/personality, is it lack of originality? We are building fri%%#$ AI's and yet there's a pretty good chance you're going to meet someone with your name at least several times in your life, if not more.
I don't mean to be all "holier than thou" I'm just honestly curious. I did get lucky enough to receive a very unusual name but even so. Someone else in the world has it.

 

[peoplesuck]

In the future axolotl nerves will be a universal female connector, all other types of nerves being male. allowing for connection of two "male" nerves, bridging the species.

Does it bother anyone that so many people have the same name?/QUOTE]
Before it actually had a purpose, it no longer makes sense.

 

[Rebis]

Does it bother anyone that so many people have the same name?
I mean heck, I cannot for the life of me fathom why we would not each be called something completely unique in relation to our nature/personality, is it lack of originality? We are building fri%%#$ AI's and yet there's a pretty good chance you're going to meet someone with your name at least several times in your life, if not more.
I don't mean to be all "holier than thou" I'm just honestly curious. I did get lucky enough to receive a very unusual name but even so. Someone else in the world has it.

It's just based on the number of humans one can socialise with, if you have a unique name within your geography domain you should be happy, it was never expected to be used internationally. My name is very unique, even given the irish mythos. My name is a common second name but not a first. A unique name is hard to construct based on rhythmic annunciation, would you consider a digit perhaps? 3134596020389-3?

Names are defined for functionality purposes, not categorical excellence. I'm sure your name is functional within your community, and to the broader populus if its rare. Don't sweat it, it's only the johns, ahmeds and Kumar, Yi and Xhang that have it bad.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Some Native American tribes would name children later in life so that they could see their personality and name them after that. Direct translations would be like "Sits on log" or "eats own shit." I wish society would adopt that.

 

[Forensic1999]

Names are defined for functionality purposes, not categorical excellence. I'm sure your name is functional within your community, and to the broader populus if its rare. Don't sweat it, it's only the johns, ahmeds and Kumar, Yi and Xhang that have it bad.
[/QUOTE]

I feel eternally bad for the "john's"/

 

[Forensic1999]

Does it bother anyone that so many people have the same name?
I mean heck, I cannot for the life of me fathom why we would not each be called something completely unique in relation to our nature/personality, is it lack of originality? We are building fri%%#$ AI's and yet there's a pretty good chance you're going to meet someone with your name at least several times in your life, if not more.
I don't mean to be all "holier than thou" I'm just honestly curious. I did get lucky enough to receive a very unusual name but even so. Someone else in the world has it.

It's just based on the number of humans one can socialise with, if you have a unique name within your geography domain you should be happy, it was never expected to be used internationally. My name is very unique, even given the irish mythos. My name is a common second name but not a first. A unique name is hard to construct based on rhythmic annunciation, would you consider a digit perhaps? 3134596020389-3?

Names are defined for functionality purposes, not categorical excellence. I'm sure your name is functional within your community, and to the broader populus if its rare. Don't sweat it, it's only the johns, ahmeds and Kumar, Yi and Xhang that have it bad.

I feel eternally bad for the "john's"/

 

[Rebis]

Or the joe, being forever used as an analogy for the "average joe". I'm sure a few joes far excel the qualifier of average!

 

[Forensic1999]

Well at least you can change your name if you're desperate enough.

 

[Rebis]

@Tenacity Where is the strong independent female voice, come back O lord!!!

 

[peoplesuck]

Well at least you can change your name if you're desperate enough.

I always saw this as foreshadowing a mental problem.
an attempt to escape your past.
I would change my name if I moved to a foreign country, its hard enough as it is being an outsider.

 

[Rebis]

Well at least you can change your name if you're desperate enough.

I always saw this as foreshadowing a mental problem.
an attempt to escape your past

Spits on ground in disgust

Im not joe I'm hagrid

 

[peoplesuck]

If I could choose a name I would choose auri, because its beautiful. Not a fitting name for a man maybe, but its my favorite name.
anyone read wise man's fear?

 

[Forensic1999]

I always had a strange obsession with the name Archer and Ash.

 

[Rebis]

I always had an interest in the name pandora, I woud've named my daughter that if it wasn't for a jewellery retailers taking the name. For males it has been wolfgang or Atreus.

 

[Forensic1999]

I always had an interest in the name pandora, I woud've named my daughter that if it wasn't for a jewellery retailers taking the name. For males it has been wolfgang or Atreus.

I'd take Wolfgang as a last name any day.

 

[Rebis]

So very drunk.

 

[Forensic1999]

So very drunk.

Can relate.

 

[Tenacity]

@Rebis If it helps qualm your fears, I am biologically a woman and identify as such (and this is the last time I will say this).

Please don't drink too much... Know your limits. I'm straight edge for a reason. You don't want a shitty hangover, it isn't worth it at all. Alcohol is just numbing emotions of stress. It's a Monday. You gotta be alpha for your classes, right?

(Working out is a really good alternative to drinking IMO.)

I wish there were more topics/threads lifting up people rather than poking at potential insecurities and fears for fun.

Every single one of us has strengths, no matter what our background is or has been. We don't need to over-analyze our weaknesses or other people's weaknesses to the point where it is de-motivational or where everyone just gets into balls of paranoia and self-defeatism.

We should encourage each other to be better. This all sounds insanely odd but that's because I'm one of the few women here LOL my thoughts aren't that bizarre.

I'm not sure if my words matter given majority rule of men here, but I do know for sure that @moody and I would both appreciate that.

 

[Forensic1999]

Paranoia in my case is a result of experience. If they don't know it can't hurt them.
Otherwise known as "my mind is a maze and no one can get in, but I also can't get out because I threw away the key.

 

[Forensic1999]

So very drunk.

Also didn't mean to sound judgmental. I'm awkward AF.

 

[peoplesuck]

@Rebis If it helps qualm your fears, I am biologically a woman and identify as such (and this is the last time I will say this).

Please don't drink too much... Know your limits. I'm straight edge for a reason. You don't want a shitty hangover, it isn't worth it at all. Alcohol is just numbing emotions of stress. It's a Monday. You gotta be alpha for your classes, right?

(Working out is a really good alternative to drinking IMO.)

I wish there were more topics/threads lifting up people rather than poking at potential insecurities and fears for fun.

Every single one of us has strengths, no matter what our background is or has been. We don't need to over-analyze our weaknesses or other people's weaknesses to the point where it is de-motivational or where everyone just gets into balls of paranoia and self-defeatism.

We should encourage each other to be better. This all sounds insanely odd but that's because I'm one of the few women here LOL my thoughts aren't that bizarre.

I'm not sure if my words matter given majority rule of men here, but I do know for sure that @moody and I would both appreciate that.

@Rebis If it helps qualm your fears, I am biologically a woman and identify as such (and this is the last time I will say this).

Please don't drink too much... Know your limits. I'm straight edge for a reason. You don't want a shitty hangover, it isn't worth it at all. Alcohol is just numbing emotions of stress. It's a Monday. You gotta be alpha for your classes, right?

(Working out is a really good alternative to drinking IMO.)

I wish there were more topics/threads lifting up people rather than poking at potential insecurities and fears for fun.

Every single one of us has strengths, no matter what our background is or has been. We don't need to over-analyze our weaknesses or other people's weaknesses to the point where it is de-motivational or where everyone just gets into balls of paranoia and self-defeatism.

We should encourage each other to be better. This all sounds insanely odd but that's because I'm one of the few women here LOL my thoughts aren't that bizarre.

I'm not sure if my words matter given majority rule of men here, but I do know for sure that @moody and I would both appreciate that.

The whole world would benefit if everyone stopped being assholes and decided to be healthy and helpful.

Spoiler: professional internet-er you can trust me

tenacity's avatar is her, clearly.

 

[Tenacity]

Paranoia in my case is a result of experience. If they don't know it can't hurt them.
Otherwise known as "my mind is a maze and no one can get in, but I also can't get out because I threw away the key.

I'm sure your paranoia is valid, and I also find myself overly paranoid at some of the things said here. But the thing is that paranoia can turn into paralysis or more fear. We have to either acknowledge the fear, or look beyond it, or both.

Time is limited. At some point it can be helpful to either at least try and choose how we want to feel, or confront our fears to overcome them. Sometimes we don't even realize that the choice to distance ourselves from the things, people, and ideas that bother us are not as difficult as we or society or other people made them out to be.

Some of us, including myself, forgot that happiness isn't to be found elsewhere, we just have to stop wanting it so badly, and stop assuming other people's perceived happiness is our pain - That's jealousy / "FOMO" which needs a different solution.

I have to run, spent way too much time on social media today.

 

[moody]

anyone read wise man's fear?

oh have I read it? Don't you mean have I read the bible?!?!

 

[peoplesuck]

Apparently the eye color charging drops use a chemical found in skin creams designed to lighten areas of skin by stopping the production of melanin. So they probably do work, unfortunately the melanin behind the iris is very important, the melanin in the front is the part that isnt necessary. It is unknown which area of the iris the melanin would be removed from. as well as the fact that from what I know the optic nerve bypasses the blood brain barrier, meaning you are sending chemicals into the most dangerous part of your body.

 

[Kormak]

The whole world would benefit if everyone stopped being assholes and decided to be healthy and helpful.

Where is the fun in that?

I'm learning a lot of interesting stuff here. Y'all are a cool bunch of nerds. Tbh my interactions with INTPs have always been very fruitful... for me at least ^^;.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I don't think chaotic neutral is accurate for you.

What do y'all think of a global government? The UN is a fucking joke, but I'm sure the ROI is a delayed WW3. But as it is now it's basically just governing by suggestion, at least when it comes most things. It relies on superpowers cooperating and holds little power on its own. So states really give little shits about funding things it does and would rather keep it's wealth within its own economy.

I thought maybe if I do get a bachelors or more I would want a job with the UN, as it would feel like I'm apart of something. but then I'd be a fucking gimp, I hear that working for the UN crushes your spirit and is hyper competitive for little pay. Paired with the fact that it's ineffectual org I don't know probably won't do it. But I can dream.