Yup. And the writing style gives big divorced dad (but with a phil degree) energy... but I think there's something interesting in the rough to poke at.
It's a velocity + availability "no Tom Brokaw" argument as applied to relationships. Like the question it's poking at "if an ecosystem can radicalize a person, what are its effects on a relationship?" is at least interesting to consider.
lol, my wording on the internet makes me sound harsher than I am in person.
I do think that's a good question to ponder and one I hope I'm thoughtful enough to consider in my future relationships. If it were my idea I would keep growing it into something, but that's just me.
Yes, good of you to ask. But don’t you worry your little head, now! You aren’t the first patient that developed a thin skin from their own medicine, and you won’t be the last.
Engineers are not exactly famous for people-pleasing. Maybe management, but engineering? Maybe some fresh junior?
I'm not convinced that the existence of a low-probability event justifies normalizing the regular occurrence of a much more likely (and negative) event, like a belligerent engineer throwing a fit in a design meeting. I'd go as far as to say I'm open to more people-pleasers in engineering.
Also, fwiw, if you want to know why someone changed their mind, you can just ask them and see how you feel about the answer. If someone changes their mind at the drop of a hat, my guess is that their original position was not a strongly held one.
You and I obviously have different experiences because I encounter belligerent engineers much less frequently than ones who are enthusiastic to do what they can, and those who don't want to rock the boat when challenged.
I thought I made a fairly innocuous point, I don't even think I was talking about engineers specifically.
Do the physical quanta we call electrons experience the phenomenon we poorly define but generally call consciousness?
If you believe consciousness is a result of material processes: Is the thermodynamic behavior of an electron, as a process, sufficient to bestow consciousness in part or in whole?
If you believe it is immaterial: What is the minimum “thing” that consciousness binds to, and is that threshold above or below the electron? This admittedly asks for some account of the “above/below” ordering, but assume the person answering is responsible for providing that explanation.
It can bind to anything. Human consciousness can temporarily bind to a shovel, and to a gopher who can only perceive things at its level, under the ground, the shovel will appear conscious. Similarly, our body is the outer layer that's temporarily bound to our brain, which in turn is bound to activity within neurons, which in turn is driven by something else. As for the fundamental origin of consciousness, it's at different levels in different people. In some rare examples, the highest level is the electrochemical activity within neurons, so that's their origin of consciousness. Those with the higher level will perceive those below as somewhat mechanical, I guess, as the workings of their consciousness will look observable. On the other hand, consciousness from a higher origin will seem mysteriously unpredictable to those below. Then I think there is a possibility of an infinitely high origin: no matter at which level you inspect it, it will always appear to be just a shell for a consciousness residing one level higher. Some humans may be like that. Things are complicated by the fact that different levels have different laws and time flows: at the level of mechanical gears things can be modeled with simple mechanics, at the level of chemical reactions things become more complicated, then at the level of electrons the laws are completely different, and if electrons are driven by something else then we are lost completely. For example, a watch may be purely mechanical, or it can be driven by a quartz oscillator that also takes input from an accelerometer. I understand that this idea may seem uncomfortable, but the workings of the universe doesn't have to fit the narrow confines of the Turing machines that we know of.
That's a very meta view. There's levels to consciousness for sure, due to intelligence and perception.
But, my mind never leaves my skull so it's definitely bound to my brain and nothing else (ignoring electrical fields).
We can imagine what it's like to be other things, but we can never be sure (and almost certainly would not accurately match reality). Our imagination is bound to our senses, so it's limited. I can't even be sure that the color red that comes to my mind is the same color you see in your mind. As long as our imaginations paint the same color every time red is perceived: we'd be none the wiser and would go on thinkong we see the same thing. And also consider animals that can perceive colors and sounds beyond human range. Does this say anything more about consciousness?
An electron almost certainly is not thinking or aware, but does it perceive? Does a thermostat on a wall perceive temperature? Do AIs perceive anything?
Is perception even useful to think about when trying to define consciousness?
I'm rambling off topic... going back to your points: if something is sufficiently intelligent to understand the workings of a thing: does this automatically place the understood thing in a lower consciousness?
Could a diety, or a force of nature have a higher consciousness than us? Or are we above the force, in terms of consciousness? It doesn't even seem useful to make these comparisons....
I would say yes, that things below us is what we clearly understand and see, and things above us is what we are confused about. For example, the motions of electrons as well as the motions of galaxies is a mystery to us, so any lifeforms at those levels will be above us. Studying them won't be an option, as any meaningful understanding of their ways of life would require consciousness at their level.
When we blow air, the motion of air particles may be studied in a mechanical way, and some intelligent microbes, if such exist, would come to a naive theory of air motion, as they are oblivious to what brings that air into motion. It's understandable, because many generations of those microbes change while we exhale just once. Similarly, what we perceive as magnetism or even the time itself might be some incomprehensible formless lifeform, and it would see us as simple and predictable microbes.
As Lenny once said on the Simpsons: "While it has been established that eggs contain cholesterol, it has not yet been proven conclusively that they actually raise the level of serum cholesterol in the human bloodstream."
In 2015, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines shifted from implying that one egg a day is “probably a bit much” to saying “one egg a day is fine if you don’t fry it.” This coincided with the removal of the quantitative cap of 300 mg/day on dietary cholesterol (a single egg basically maxes that out).
EDIT: The calorie count used to compute the portion of the comment below were incorrect. I'm leaving it unchanged for posterity, but want to clarify that an egg has about 80 cals.
Four eggs a day is almost 1,000 calories of egg, roughly half of many people’s total daily calorie intake.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like the "Forbidden Knowledge" Trick (think of it as a cousin to Galileo's Gambit)
(1) In your most authoritative tone, state something as fact without citation.
(2) Say major testing-based orgs are never going to give you the real truth.
We have a system for knowledge. I think it is an absurd mess, but I trust it way more than anything presented in the format you’ve just used.
Maybe this is just a formatting issue and you have credible information to back your claim, but as it is currently presented it does not pass the sniff test.
Heck, you still are; "Read other people's experiences and feel your own body." That is a mode of interacting with the external world and processing knowledge. You didn't even suggest I do it; your sentence was a directive. Furthermore, it was packaged in that cool detached "above it all" way that humans sometimes use to convince others.
It's good/okay/whatever to try and sell people on your worldview. I was engaged and conversing that is the social cue to do so. The fact that you didn't convince me is whatever on the internet. But playing it off like you weren't doing that... why?
I'm pretty sure the number of times someone has been convinced on the internet wouldn't even correctly round in IEEE double-precision floating point.
Like most things I’m sure you can overdo it. But if you’re choosing between cereal and a bagel or a couple of eggs, I think most would be better off with the eggs.
Liver can be pretty good if you spice it up Jamaican style. I regularly make this for people who tell me they don't like liver and they just love it. Pretty easy - Fresh and whole tumeric, ginger, garlic, onions, thyme, oregano, and as much scotch bonnet as you can handle. Soak the liver in brined water or milk for a few hrs and it will draw out a lot of the strong taste as well (French technique). Stew in some water after sautéing the onions to your liking. Same recipe works for stewing heart meat if that's something more to your liking, and it also contains a lot of the same nutrients that a lot of people are lacking in modern westernized diets. Consider what other predators do when they get to their prey: They go straight for the liver and heart.
However if you don't like the idea of trying new things, and just want something in pill form, honestly lecithin or even better citicoline is the way to go in my opinion
I think I could eat just about anything if it were doctored up that way. First, seriously, that sounds delicious! Second, I doubt even the terrible (to me) tast of liver could make it through that wall of flavor.
Chicken liver has more iron and selenium in it per Oz than beef liver. Easier to eat a ton and not as harsh tasting. Make some dirty rice or just liver stew!
Says who? Your tone vs. your actual authority on the subject are wildly incongruous.
There are many modes and methods for interacting. I, personally, am not fond of the dragonwriter method. I'm sure it has its place, but it's just not for me.
Oh, that is nice idea! Do you think it would be more interesting for the community to reach out to scirate and integrate the podcasts there, or would it more interesting to try to scrape the scores from the scirate and integrate it to ekoAcademic?
The guy who runs scirate is a fellow quantum computing researcher (and all around friendly... fellow, lol). I can't speak for them, but I'm pretty sure they'd, at least, hear you out. The problem is more getting through the signal-to-noise of an academic's email:
Honestly, from what I understand, most men’s relationship to “lovemaking” isn’t exactly winning awards. Plus, if the tables were turned, I’m sure some SV types would just call it “rational” or “logical” and magically develop nuanced yet expansive understandings of consent, autonomy, and ownership (“your wife”) overnight.
Assuming the Everdrive is M and the SNES cartridge port is F, I can understand why the Everclan men are particularly attuned to this topic. Many better-quality, more feature-rich, and cheaper SNES multicarts have hit the market; the Everdrive is looking dated.
It’s not just whataboutism when the comparison points to a broader systemic process of eroding rights and worsening conditions. It is also an observation of this next stage in that process and how it departs from the last.
Ultimately, I think it’s self-serving/pointless Daily Show “gotcha” finger-waving trying to face down a steamroller of hate, but it’s more than whataboutism.
It's a velocity + availability "no Tom Brokaw" argument as applied to relationships. Like the question it's poking at "if an ecosystem can radicalize a person, what are its effects on a relationship?" is at least interesting to consider.
reply