Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

henrikkarlsson.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#101

Post by satvikpendem »

walterbell wrote: post #99
satvikpendem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This seems If you're going to casually dismiss twenty years of funded research on the topic you asked about, then this is a self-regulating thread. https://constructivist.info/riegler/pub/riegler05foerster.ht... > Artificial neural networks were one of the “hot” topics at the BCL. They combine engineering.. and empirical science.. As early as in 1960, the BCL developed a neural network prototype called “Numa-Rete,”…

> If you're going to casually dismiss twenty years of funded research on the topic you asked about, then this is a self-regulating thread.

Again you misunderstand what I am asking for. There is no use in me asking for the color blue and you talking about the color red, then when I say, I am asking about blue, you tell me that there has been 20 years of research on red. That may be true but that is not what I am asking about.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#102

Post by satvikpendem »

1659447091 wrote: post #95
satvikpendem wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence > unless they've been socially (or perhaps even physically) repressed

I took repressed to mean a far greater extent than typical school yard bullying I meant to convey

Repression comes in many levels. It does not mean to be psychologically beat down until one is a shell of a person (and indeed, even typical schoolyard bullying can create such an effect in certain individuals).

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#103

Post by [deleted] »

mettamage wrote: post #76
bloopernova wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After a divorce, I met my soulmate. We're both weird and silly together, and together we discovered that we're both people with autism. We've stopped masking around each other, and we both support each other's growth in self understanding. The passage quoted in the parent comment really resonated with us both. We both know we're incredibly lucky and privileged to have found each other.

Same, I have approached more than a 10000 women to find her. In the grand scheme of things, fearing rejection is silly. Every time rejection was painful, never fully got over it, but the journey was fun nonetheless and in the end so worth it

[deleted]

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#104

Post by keybored »

isk517 wrote: post #94
keybored wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing more boring than someone who explains everything according to their passion-hobby or work. - Programmer: my life is a program - Marathoner: you know, life is like a great long race...

As both a programmer and a marathoner my life is a program in which I'm constantly either in or preparing for a great long race. I wish this was a joke.

I wish that too.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#105

Post by walterbell »

satvikpendem wrote: post #101
walterbell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems If you're going to casually dismiss twenty years of funded research on the topic you asked about, then this is a self-regulating thread. https://constructivist.info/riegler/pub/riegler05foerster.ht... > Artificial neural networks were one of the “hot” topics at the BCL. They combine engineering.. and empirical science.. As early as in 1960, the BCL developed a neural network prototype called “Numa-Rete,”…

> If you're going to casually dismiss twenty years of funded research on the topic you asked about, then this is a self-regulating thread. Again you misunderstand what I am asking for. There is no use in me asking for the color blue and you talking about the color red, then when I say, I am asking about blue, you tell me that there has been 20 years of research on red. That may be true but that is not what I am askin…

This is an HN thread about co-evolutionary feedback loops. You can start a new thread on your topic of interest.

Multiple, independent responses to your "question" have said almost the same thing. Good luck finding different answers.

If you want to move the conversation forward in your new thread, you can offer evidence of a positive claim, instead of asking others to provide evidence of a negative claim.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#106

Post by keybored »

satvikpendem wrote: post #91
keybored wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This physicalism/dualism obsession is besides the point.

No? It is exactly what is being argued in this thread. If you have a different point to make, I'm not sure why you engaged in this specific thread, as there are many others that talk about the specifics of the article itself.

If you assert so. I have no interest in this supposed physicalism/dualism split since that’s a dead debate, at least as far this forum is concerned.[1] My pet-peeve was about the part about having understood everything, supposedly.[2]

And if the point is so narrow as to be about Free Will then I don’t know why people are being coy and talking about input-output machines, washing machines and whatever. Just say that Free Will is not real. Then you get 70% less pushback.

[1] No one here is going to argue for Cartesian Dualism. So the only way that it will come up as a supposedly “live” belief is if someone else accuses them of being a crypto-cartesian because of whatever reasons…

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41055373

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#107

Post by satvikpendem »

keybored wrote: post #106
satvikpendem wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? It is exactly what is being argued in this thread. If you have a different point to make, I'm not sure why you engaged in this specific thread, as there are many others that talk about the specifics of the article itself.

If you assert so. I have no interest in this supposed physicalism/dualism split since that’s a dead debate, at least as far this forum is concerned.[1] My pet-peeve was about the part about having understood everything, supposedly.[2] And if the point is so narrow as to be about Free Will then I don’t know why people are being coy and talking about input-output machines, washing machines and whatever. Just say that F…

Well, it looks like you are in the wrong output then. That is not what most people here believe.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#108

Post by mistermann »

satvikpendem wrote: post #82
mistermann wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say it (and if you use language persuasively, and repeat it often enough, you can even cause it to appear to be true [1], the effects of which can usually be seen in any thread like this), but you cannot say it soundly (known to be necessarily conclusive): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency Plus, there are identifiable differences (disproving t…

Your links do not support your conclusions (actually, I don't believe there are any in your comment). Yes, while you can repeat something often enough for it to appear true, it may not actually be true; this is a vacuous statement that does not need to be stated. My comment about LLMs are generally analogistic, they are not meant to be taken concretely on current implementations. You have not actually answered my que…

> Your links do not support your conclusions (actually, I don't believe there are any in your comment).

1. What a strange comment.

2. They do support my answer to your question: "how one cannot say that biological machines compute "just as"(!) silicon based computers do"

> Yes, while you can repeat something often enough for it to appear true, it may not actually be true; this is a vacuous statement that does not need to be stated

It is directly related to your question, and the underlying phenomenon: human belief (more popularly known as: truth, the reality, etc).

> You have not actually answered my question however, your comment is a deflection of what I'm asking, so I will ask again, why are biological beings not considered computational?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41056319

"I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do."

That is the question I answered.

As for "Why are biological beings not considered computational?"

Well, consciousness (which implements "considering") is not understood, so it is unknown. But as my last link above describes, instances of can be made to function certain ways simply by good story telling. So in this case, maybe some chunk of the whole have heard that they are not computational.

> They do the same thing a general computer can do.

The ambiguity and misinformative of English (as we (or at least I) see here) is why I linked to Set Theory. Do you see the relevance?

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#109

Post by cpill »

jalapenos wrote: post #44
wizerno wrote: post #5

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…

Having lived in Germany for about 10 years (I'm Australian) I found their attitudes to most things more mature than ether Australia or what is portrayed in American media. Europeans always seem to step back, try to find a compromise and ideally mutual benefit. Asian cultures have also quite different again. I found the refreshing thing about 'Spirited Away', the animation, is the character arc for the "adversarial" characters which was they are like that because of pain, lets understand them, and then help them thought it and grow together. Whereas in American content it predominantly seems to be they are just "bad" so if they beat us just get a bigger gun and that will solve that/all problems. Always zero-sum games with shallow looks into who people are any why they are like that. Its almost like the dog-eat-dog spirit of the wild west is still prevalent somehow...? You see this played out in American politics too. No attempts at compromise or understanding, opposition must be annihilated, no middle ground.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#110

Post by sulandor »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #14
mijustin wrote: post #2

These were the crucial bits for me: > "Sundays are for listing everything that went wrong during the week on the blackboard we painted on the wall of my study, so we can figure out what needs to change." and > "I liked to think about our life as a piece of software. We had our routines and our principles, this was the code. We ran the code by living it. The list on the blackboard was the bug log, a record of the ways…

Works as long as you don't think too deeply about why exactly you're doing that.

as is with most thing
Post reply on HN