Sabitlenmiş Tweet
⏩David Mc
4.1K posts
⏩David Mc
@macterra
cypherpunk // sapientist // extropian-transhumanist // evo-rat // crypto-anarchist // quantum modal realist
Toronto, Ontario Katılım Şubat 2009
1.7K Takip Edilen692 Takipçiler
@d08890 Because the effect was demonstrated decades ago? x.com/Tiger_Detectiv…
Detective Tiger's Stories@Tiger_Detective
Just in? The first successful test that showed this mind-bending result was performed in 1999. The famous test is called the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. It was completed in 1999 by a team of physicists named Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlan O. Scully. They officially published the data in January 2000.
English
⏩David Mc retweetledi
I loved the Project Hail Mary movie (and the book).
Science, technology, competence, and openness – this is my culture.
English
⏩David Mc retweetledi
If a belief is merely factual, facts can move it.
If a belief is structural, the structure must be addressed.
If a belief is a shelter, you need to understand what weather the person is hiding from.
If a belief is a badge, you need to understand what group it grants access to.
If a belief is a mask, you need to understand what face feels too dangerous to show.
If a belief is a rope, you need to understand what abyss it is suspended over.
Then, maybe, logic can help.
Kpaxs@Kpaxs
If you want to actually change someone’s mind, you have to care about the conditions under which minds change. Minds rarely change under humiliation. They rarely change while cornered. They rarely change while being publicly defeated. They rarely change when the change requires immediate exile from their people. People need bridges.
English
@G_S_Bhogal Nicely put. I’d only distinguish consciousness from agency itself: consciousness amplifies agency, but the core is the capacity to model, evaluate, and steer future possibilities under constraint. Agency is how much of your future remains steerable by you.
English
My definition of agency from a 2022 newsletter.
signüll@signulll
someone yesterday asked me what i thought high agency meant. i think it’s usually some unholy combination of: - resourcefulness - relentlessness - resilience this has always been rare, but rn it feels borderline unfair. the world has never had more leverage just sitting around waiting for one person stubborn enough to use it.
English
I’ve started building Malison: executable scores for dark electronic music.
It’s a small language for writing .rite files that compile into rendered audio — currently with a Rust compiler surface, event graphing, IR output, WAV sample triggers, and an MVP renderer.
github.com/macterra/malis…
English
⏩David Mc retweetledi
Coming out of twitter retirement to announce the theatrical run of my feature-length doc THE END OF THE INTERNET! A film about the internet and its discontents.
First Canadian dates: Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Waterloo. Tix + info here:
theendoftheinternetfilm.com/upcoming-scree…
English
⏩David Mc retweetledi
Natural selection selected organisms that could act through coherent world models under scarcity. Consciousness is the biological control surface produced by that requirement. It keeps the world stable enough to act in, the body salient enough to preserve, and the future present enough to plan against.
axio.fyi/p/why-zombies-…
English
The Dawkins' article excerpt that everyone SHOULD have been quoting is this. This is the real question he's worrying at:
"As an evolutionary biologist, I say the following. If these creatures are not conscious, then what the hell is consciousness for?
When an animal does something complicated or improbable — a beaver building a dam, a bird giving itself a dustbath — a Darwinian immediately wants to know how this benefits its genetic survival. In colloquial language: What is it for? What is dust-bathing for? Does it remove parasites? Why do beavers build dams? The dam must somehow benefit the beaver, otherwise beavers in a Darwinian world wouldn’t waste time building dams.
Brains under natural selection have evolved this astonishing and elaborate faculty we call consciousness. It should confer some survival advantage. There should exist some competence which could only be possessed by a conscious being. My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness.
Why did consciousness appear in the evolution of brains? Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies?"
English
⏩David Mc retweetledi
I am a libertarian. I want the government out of my bedroom and my wallet. And I want to eat lab grown meat if I want to.
English
@micahtredding Reason has no foundation beneath criticism. Reason is the refusal to exempt anything from criticism, including reason’s own procedures.
English
This could be true. But it might be otherwise: reason may simply be, at root, the decision to dialogue.
English
Foundationalism assumes that reason must be built on something that is not reason.
English
what if palantir built github
chronark@chronark
What if @unkeydev came with code repositories?
English
Before I reveal my thoughts on the Vervaeke lecture, here’s something that I really laughed at:
He goes on a spiel with capitalism as religion: “…and within this market, let’s have astrologers help us make sense of it and call them economists”
He referenced the “economics is astrology for men” meme 😂
English
Once again I see Team Blue calling the Reds selfish and evil, while Team Red calls the Blues virtue-signaling morons. Both sides fail the ideological Turing test.
axio.fyi/p/against-butt…
English
@Aella_Girl You have to wonder if your public signals during the vote affected the results...
x.com/Aella_Girl/sta…
Aella@Aella_Girl
I DID NOT THINK THIS GLOSSO THING THROUGH
English
Alright I tested this on Glosso, a small social media platform made up of adults with permanent account bans on the line (instead of death). Almost a thousand people voted.
And the result was.... Exactly the same percentages as this poll
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
one day I'll be famous and you'll all still be my friends
English
Exactly right. I’m trying to defuse the argument by showing that neither side owns the moral high ground. The threshold is doing more work than the button color. Dial the threshold low enough and most red advocates should become blue advocates, because blue becomes cheap insurance. Dial it high enough and most blue advocates should become red advocates, because blue becomes futile martyrdom. So the real disagreement is not selfishness versus sacrifice. It is where each person thinks the credibility threshold sits.
English
@johnfarmer1683 IT IS DESIGNED TO GET PEOPLE TO ARGUE AND NOT STOP ARGUING.
THE DESIGN DOESN'T CARE WHICH "LESSON" YOU READ FROM IT, AS LONG AS YOU HATE EACH OTHER FOR READING THE WRONG LESSON.
English
Again - if you picked red, you survive. Why complain about the blue-pickers?
Daddy Warpig@DaddyWarpig
If everybody presses the Red, everybody survives. If more than 50% press the Blue, everybody survives. No matter what, it's better to press the Red. YOU ARE ONLY MORALLY CULPABLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.(Not quite, but in this specific case, yes.) The deaths are the responsibility of the person doing the killing.
English