Live data from Hacker News

Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

youtube.com

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#61
post #39

Other videos on his channel is also quite interesting

Interesting is understatement, it's a channel which is one of the closer ones to hard science on the hard science - pop science spectrum and still having more than a million subscribers. Some outstanding videos IMHO: The channel owner applies himself a gene therapy to fix his lactose intolerance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY How exactly the Covid Tests work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_usIkrVQwE…

Couldn’t agree more! I’ve been following his channel from very long time, it’s one of the underrated gem YT channel.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#62
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so

Speaking of styropyro, he's very adept at sourcing less than savory laser parts and has no qualms putting those extremely high wattages to crazy uses. I'm still not sure the guy isn't blind and just faking it really well. No, really . I've got spots in my vision from using >5W lasers, I've no idea how he doesn't (Pro-Tip: don't put wedding rings in the laser path) Nile Red is also really good at chemistry and seems t…

> Speaking in prosecutor-terms, these guys more than have the means and opportunity, they need only the motive and the case is a slam dunk. The lines they walk are quite fine.

What case are you talking about specifically? You're implying there's been a crime, can you expand on this?

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#63
post #59
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious or trying to make a joke? I don't get it. Generally nice people, maybe slightly narcissistic, like any youtuber, maybe irresponsible. These people are nowhere near being "dangerous criminals", that's just slander.

I'm not trying to slander them, they are very talented people. They are all people who know how to build dangerous things.

Every (experimental) scientist on earth knows how to build dangerous things.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely we are in simulation with ppi resolution set to planck constant. Matrix isn't so far fetch. Now we have to wait for Neo.

More like, we have to invent Neo FWIW, even if we are all in “prime” and this is not a simulation. There is always the possibility of inventing a way to elevate ourselves out into a higher dimension. Either way, same goal really.

"a higher dimension"? If you mean to suggest that our reality is like, a (3+1)D slice of something bigger, I don't think we have much reason to suspect that, and, even if it were true...

Well, ok, I suppose maybe we could construct some kind of vessels in this larger space which could like, well, if mind-uploading is achievable (or, even if just mind-transfer-to-a-new-medium is possible) then conceivably we could do that to be able to live in such higher-dimensional space?

But, unless it granted us more control over our environment in a useful way, I don't see why that would be particularly desirable? Well, I guess it probably would grant some more control, but like,

our minds, I think, are suited for the kinds of experiences that humans have generally had, not so much for, whatever constructed bodies we might somehow build for such a higher-dimensional space.

I don't mean like, "our minds aren't well-suited to navigating in higher-dimensional spaces, with higher-dimensional sensory-input". That might be true, but maybe we could adapt to that part without too much of an issue, idk.

Rather, I mean stuff like, it is important that we have things like, the feelings of sharing a meal with one's loved-ones, hugs, and other physical expressions of affection. (I am not making the claim that hugs are a human cultural universal. I don't know. But I'm fairly confident in my assumption that all successful human cultures have some form of physical expression of affection.)

Now, I'm not saying that such things would be inherently impossible with more dimensions of space. Why would they be? But, I'd imagine that even if our minds can adapt relatively easily to piloting a body in a higher-dimensional space, that, probably the combination of our minds and whatever bodies we constructed for navigating such a higher-dimensional space, and the kind of larger-environment that there might be in such higher-dimensional space (I imagine it being fairly desolate, as if there were things living there we would probably be toast already) would not be conducive to having those experiences in those bodies.

If you mean more generally, "some true-er view of reality" and not necessarily "higher-dimensional space" (but still in a way that differs substantially from reality-as-we-currently-perceive/experience-it)...

Well, sometimes I imagine that heaven might not operate like (3+1)-dimensional space (perhaps not corresponding to any kind of smooth manifold). In this case, I would imagine that this would be fine (by assumption of it being "heaven"), because either we would always have been designed so as to be compatible with it, or it would have been designed to be compatible with us, or both.

(side note: If I had to guess, I think my current guess is that heaven does actually, at least sorta-kinda-in-some-sense(not that I have an idea of "in what sense") be spatially 3D, or resemble that in some way. But, I'm not confident either way.)

But, if we are working under the assumption that reality doesn't hold those-we-would-regard-as-people as "special" in any way, such that we would have particular reason to expect it to be good to us outside the scope we find ourselves in currently, then, I would generally not expect this this "higher reality" or whatever, to be well-suited for us.

Maybe it could be exploited in some way, to make things better in this portion/view of reality, and maybe more parts could be made to be like this one, but, under the assumption of an uncaring universe, I would expect that any "higher/true-er reality" would not be really nice for living in.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#65
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely we are in simulation with ppi resolution set to planck constant. Matrix isn't so far fetch. Now we have to wait for Neo.

"Planck constant" isn't the same as "Planck length". Please don't say the former when you mean the latter. In addition: no, the planck length is not at all likely to be a consequence of discretization for the purpose of simulation. It is a length scale implied by various other constants. Like, if you considered the "laws of physics except gravity is stronger", you would end up with a different value for the Planck le…

> why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale?

Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#66
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to slander them, they are very talented people. They are all people who know how to build dangerous things.

Every (experimental) scientist on earth knows how to build dangerous things.

That's true but I would wager most scientists don't stockpile on explosives and chemicals like cyanide and arscenic at home.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#67
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every (experimental) scientist on earth knows how to build dangerous things.

That's true but I would wager most scientists don't stockpile on explosives and chemicals like cyanide and arscenic at home.

I really dislike your framing of chemistry enthusiasts as potential criminals. All the prohibition around chemicals makes it real hard to do fun stuff. Especially for people who don't want to break the law. Dangerous criminals don't care and will always find a way.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every (experimental) scientist on earth knows how to build dangerous things.

That's true but I would wager most scientists don't stockpile on explosives and chemicals like cyanide and arscenic at home.

I wouldn't call it stockpiling if people keep small amounts of stuff around which they intent to use for (legal) experiments. It's not like he has tons of that stuff.

The real danger comes from farmers. Ammonium Nitrate (fertilizer) and diesel (tractors). They must be up to something [/s]

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#69
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Planck constant" isn't the same as "Planck length". Please don't say the former when you mean the latter. In addition: no, the planck length is not at all likely to be a consequence of discretization for the purpose of simulation. It is a length scale implied by various other constants. Like, if you considered the "laws of physics except gravity is stronger", you would end up with a different value for the Planck le…

> why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take

Yes, it's true that changing the strength of stuff would change the possible values for the discretization scale that wouldn't cause problems,

but, it shouldn't be that changing the strength of gravity, 100% of the time force you to change the discretization scale regardless of what it currently is.

Re: Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]

#70
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, we have to invent Neo FWIW, even if we are all in “prime” and this is not a simulation. There is always the possibility of inventing a way to elevate ourselves out into a higher dimension. Either way, same goal really.

"a higher dimension"? If you mean to suggest that our reality is like, a (3+1)D slice of something bigger, I don't think we have much reason to suspect that, and, even if it were true... Well, ok, I suppose maybe we could construct some kind of vessels in this larger space which could like, well, if mind-uploading is achievable (or, even if just mind-transfer-to-a-new-medium is possible) then conceivably we could do…

I don't anticipate it will be nice for living in.

Similarly,

I don't anticipate Mars will be nice for living in, until we Terraform it.

Why couldn't we both 1. find a way to "reach it", and 2. find a way to improve it in our favor?

I feel like it'll be the best puzzle yet! Asked differently: What keeps you motivated for society's success, and what will keep you motivated after that is accomplished (asked recursively)?

Post reply on HN