Nope. Not sure where you got that from. It’s a commonly held error however. Lions and tigers breed etc. Just not often
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 15:51:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631683735862104067
Reply addressees: @GronFarm @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631681752916688896
That’s not the definition of a species. In fact, that’s a long term effect of speciation. Speciation requires only a differentiation that influences selection. For example, frogs in chernobyl turning from green to black (darkbrown) by melatonin mutation. Or the famous british white moths that turned black because of the spread of a rare mutation as soot accumulated on birch trees. Or as we watch generations of bacteria adapt to survival in a medium with an antibiotic. It’s visible over just a few days.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 14:49:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631668050956042240
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631666215159570432
Sorry, there are multiple definitions of agency used in different fields. Your definition is the marxist definition used in marxist sociology. I used the scientific definition from behavioral economics.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 23:28:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631436412204597250
Reply addressees: @88Fires
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631435215250882561
A couple of things.
I think we are closer to a systemic understanding of the universe than we think. That’s because my work has taught me how the universe works at all scales and how simple it is.
There are only two directions of “OMG!” discovery left to us (biological engineering and if anything can be done with the quantum background to circumvent SOL limits.) Only one of those has radical potential (quantum background).
I think that another cognitive revolution is possible in ordinary education. (I’m trying to make it possible) It should give us a std deviation – as much as the scientific revolution did.
I am not sure I have anything to add to the long history of visions of human-computer interaction that have been theorized for many decades now … OTHER than social disintigration will absolutely follow. I didn’t realize the degree of normative behavior we had presumed prior to mass internet communication and how well it would disrupt socialization and interpersonal cooperation.
I think the problem of human cooperation under robotics and AI especially given warfare possibilities, is the only uncertainty that exposes us to risk. So I expect AI and integration to accelerate social deconstruction. And I can’t really envison anything GOOD about that world.
I think the population problem (plus in Africa and India minus in everywhere else, and the starvation that is likely to result) is the most terrifying we can see on the horizon. And I don’t know HOW we avoid a century of wars to adapt to it.
I want star trek but I’m afraid we’ll get another dark age.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 22:53:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631427600785522689
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631423159139282945
I love this diagram, because it conveys that the universe is made of spherical legos, that separate from the quantum background by spinning, and that’s how they persist and don’t ‘fade’ back into the background (or at least, do so, in some cases, over terrifyingly long periods of time.) We are overly fascinated by particles, and a bit mystified by protoparticles and waves. But we can, and probably should, explain the universe, with less mathematics, and more classical models and explanations, because we confuse the limits of our measurements and the limits of mathematics with the relative simplicity of the universe at every level, even the quantum background, and it’s insanely fast ‘boiling’, which, using liquids at least as that model, makes perfect sense to anyone.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 19:54:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631382409311559703
Ok. I see. You’re just behind the science and tech.
The brain is pretty simple it turns out.
Its means of disambiguation categorization, episode creation, memory, and stack preservation is relatively simple.
And its means of recursion from episode and contents is pretty simple.
The only problem we have today is the hardware.
The energy cost, training, number of iterations of training, slow speed of training, and inability to adapt in real-time without new training is just the hardware problem that is just a few years away.
There is only one rule in the universe, one logic, and the brain is a result of it and it only does a few things, and falsification is produced by hierarchy of prediction via recursion.
Last summer’s paper was a bit lame but laid out the same case.
I’ve worked on this problem since the 80s and nothing has changed but the cost of hardware to do it the wrong way, and the reduction of chip design and production so that we can eventually do it the right way.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 19:09:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631371242015010816
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631368138766917632
I have a problem understanding why if you speak in ruliads, that you don’t understand the limits of mathematics and mathematical reducibility, limits of computation, limits of adversarial simulation, and limits of commensurability, because of limits of categorization.
All of mathematics is purely statistical (approximate). That’s why it’s valuable. And very little of the universe is quantifiable. That does not mean it can’t be rendered commensurable, but commensurability results in supply-demand (entropy-negative entropy) competitions, and adversarialism results in overlapping supply-demand competitions.
So you’re crippled by mathiness: the oldest cognitive error in western civilization. from that error evolved one-ness (universalism), and justifications, and proof, when all three of those concepts are false. A proof is a statement of possibility, justifications tell us nothing, only falsification does, all logic is falsificationary, telling us only that statements survive. There is no ideal human, only a distribution of male and female, across age and ability, in an adversarial competition between reproductive strategies, and resulting class, ethnicity, national, and civilizational strategies. And the calculation is performed by accumulated adversarial competitions by a vast hierarchy of supply demand competitions where cooperation functions as the only possible ‘equals’ sign, that tells us we have discovered a condition of reciprocity, that is the cognitive social and living equivalent of physical disambiguation of energy into mass.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 18:18:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631358218831028231
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631354482561802251
How does that differ from ripples on a lake, rolling bones, reading entrails, tarot cards, astrology, scripture, theology, philosophy, pseudoscience, essay, opinion, gossip et al? LLM is just predicting from existing compositions of words, so it’s a sophisticated search engine…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 04:01:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631142617521045504
Reply addressees: @TyrantsMuse @Lord__Sousa @johnslygore @TheAutistocrat @MartianHoplite @bryanbrey @LukeWeinhagen @ThruTheHayes @NoahRevoy @Turbo_Flux @InTruthVictori1 @Psyche_OS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631141496777760768
RT @NateSilver538: This is so refreshingly honest. The Bad People thought the lab leak might be true, therefore as journalists we couldn’t…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 00:27:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631088702544904192
There are no liberal pop intellectuals that hold opinions informed primarily by data and evidence rather than instinct, bias and preference. I’ve explained why elsewhere but it’s unavoidable. Not sure why you would wan’t some of YT rather than academic level?
That said:
(A) Jon Haidt (psych/soc) for ‘ways of thinking’ @JonHaidt
and;
(b) Brad Delong (econ) for history @delong
Both would talk to you and it would improve your reputation. You should about have enough influence that they’d take the discussion.
The right person is Delong because he takes the history of human development very seriously, even if he’s a liberal.
(He exasperates me, but he knows his material and he’s very bright. And there is no point in arguing with people who are midwits.)
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-01 23:51:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631079637563453441
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631045863748562944