61–70 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nerds are good at pretending they understand everything by way of reductionist metaphors.
He's above us because he could reduce human life beneath his sophisticated sentence. Maybe nerd is a type of narcissism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloc…
This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Plus, there are identifiable differences (disproving the "just as"): LLM's can reliably acknowledge epistemic unsoundness in their prior claims without aversion and rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are very good at pretending we are more than just biological machines acting according to genetically imposed network structure refined by lifetime history of training inputs.
And your 18th century equivalent would have said the same using a mechanical metaphor using gears and sprockets. Chances are you are both equally wrong.
If you presuppose such things exist, of course we reach different conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could believe that, and it might even be true, but it's no way to live your life.
I'm not sure deflationary statements like this are "beliefs", rather defence mechanisms to truncate further difficult thought. The article has some extraordinary demands; radical openness, reflective practice, co-evolution, mentalisation... all things you'd associate with high emotional intelligence and hard inner work. Some people just aren't up to that. Maybe we need to be able to say "that's okay". Humanists need…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could believe that, and it might even be true, but it's no way to live your life.
I'm not sure deflationary statements like this are "beliefs", rather defence mechanisms to truncate further difficult thought. The article has some extraordinary demands; radical openness, reflective practice, co-evolution, mentalisation... all things you'd associate with high emotional intelligence and hard inner work. Some people just aren't up to that. Maybe we need to be able to say "that's okay". Humanists need…
This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."
This is a very powerful concept, but people don't trust in it as much as they used to, because our culture has become hostile to it. Sexual promiscuity is counter to it. This level of fine detail requires a culture of commiting to a specific individual rather than a quantifiable generic gain. School is counter to it. It wants to shoehorn people into a specific definition of achievement. Internet is counter to it. The…
This stems from the same increasing winner takes all format that it is not only predating the internet but many other environments as well. Inequality is another factor in the equation. When you don't have a social net, it's a winner takes all/ everyone against everyone/last man standing situation..
It is sad. But I wonder if this is the average human, in its sedentary way of living as it has been for the last 14k years approx, situation. And what we've lived the last 60~ years was just an anomaly product of the huge and numerous industrial revolution benefits and advancements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's above us because he could reduce human life beneath his sophisticated sentence. Maybe nerd is a type of narcissism.
Do you feel attacked? Nobody is above anyone. Seems like that's your defensiveness reading something between the lines which isn't implied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your 18th century equivalent would have said the same using a mechanical metaphor using gears and sprockets. Chances are you are both equally wrong.
What makes you believe it is wrong? Can you construct an argument which does not require the existence of a supernatural "divine"? If you presuppose such things exist, of course we reach different conclusions.
This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."
This is why much of the advice online pundits give on how to "get a woman" is so misguided — because it usually is advice on "in which Bretzel do I need to twist myself in order to make woman like me". The issue with that advice is, that once you found a woman that likes that Bretzel, you can't know whether she liked the Bretzel or the person behind the Bretzel. Even better if she twisted herself into a Bretzel to ma…
Much of it is even worse than that - it's oriented towards people who want to get a woman in order to impress other men. The Andrew Tate school. The woman in this is a trophy. Unsurprisingly women are wise to this and want nothing to do with it.
Once you see that, suddenly the contradiction of a womanizer who hates women makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you have enough problems to list them on a weekly basis, your relationship is probably in trouble I feel like healthy relationships don't have a rate of a problem or more per week
I like how the xkcd seems to frame it: seeking out problems to list can cause insignificant problems to seem significant. It's how "writer's mind" can be a problem in deepening a meditation practice.