81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“When I began to navigate psychospace with LSD, I realized that before we were conscious, seemingly self-propelled human beings, many tapes and corridors had been created in our minds and reflexes which were not of our own making. These patterns and tapes laid down in our consciousness are walled off from each other. I see it as a vast labyrinth with high walls sealing off the many directives created by our personal…
I feel like if all the things people believe and espouse about hallucinogens were true and not just the effect of permanently damaging your mind, with the illusion of wisdom, we’d be able to point at all the revolutionary scientific breakthroughs and discoveries made under the influence of hallucinogenic substances. However, everyone I’ve met who admits to having taken hallucinogens seems reduced in some way, rather…
Books suck (imho). We need a new format to teach and learn this deep technical stuff. Not youtube, something interactive with exercises and engagement.
I urge you to rethink this perspective. All research shows that paper increases comprehension significantly over screens and even over eink. Additionally hand note taking again has a positive impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a thumbprint can do damage, why can't a lower dose? What's the mechanism?
Water will kill you if you consume too much of it - almost universally, the poison is in the dose not the substance.
stupid question: can a LLM (i.e neural network) tell me the probability of the answer it just spew? i.e. turn into fuzzy logic? Aaand, can it tell me how much it does believe itself? i.e. what's the probability that above probability is correct? i.e. confidence i.e. intuitionisticaly fuzzy logic? Long time ago at uni we studied these things for a while.. and even made a Prolog interpreter having both F+IF (probabilit…
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but there is token probability available in some providers: https://cookbook.openai.com/examples/using_logprobs
stupid question: can a LLM (i.e neural network) tell me the probability of the answer it just spew? i.e. turn into fuzzy logic? Aaand, can it tell me how much it does believe itself? i.e. what's the probability that above probability is correct? i.e. confidence i.e. intuitionisticaly fuzzy logic? Long time ago at uni we studied these things for a while.. and even made a Prolog interpreter having both F+IF (probabilit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s exactly the same argument.
Please explain how they are equivalent and why the psychoactive properties of a psychedelic don't make it categorically different in this situation than a carrot.
stupid question: can a LLM (i.e neural network) tell me the probability of the answer it just spew? i.e. turn into fuzzy logic? Aaand, can it tell me how much it does believe itself? i.e. what's the probability that above probability is correct? i.e. confidence i.e. intuitionisticaly fuzzy logic? Long time ago at uni we studied these things for a while.. and even made a Prolog interpreter having both F+IF (probabilit…
Potential exists, probability is a mathematical description of its distribution. Every attribute is a dimension (vector). State is merely a passing measurement of resolve. Potential interacts through constructive and destructive interference. Constructive and destructive interference resolve to state in a momentary measure of “now” (an inevitability decaying proposition.)
Existential Reality is potential distributing, not arrangements of state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain how they are equivalent and why the psychoactive properties of a psychedelic don't make it categorically different in this situation than a carrot.
The argument was: lots of people do X, so X has obviously inspired discoveries.
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-tablet-screen-brought-aid-carr...
> It was the Austrian botanist Friedrich Reinitzer and the German physicist Otto Lehmann who discovered liquid crystals in 1888 when they were experimenting with the natural substances found in carrots
Carrots have also inspired art, I don't need to find an example of that.
That said, if you view that premise as it being a given that X has inspired something just because lots of people do it, then it is indeed preposterous.
However, if you view it as "a critical mass of people have done mind-altering substances and thus it's almost a certainty that discoveries have been made under and due to their influence", then it makes a lot more sense. It's a fundamentally different argument and you can't generalize it to any non-mind-altering substance. The point is that the mind is altered by the substance, causing different modes of thought. I think you were just confused about the way the other commenter laid out their premise, because it's a purely statistical argument with the qualifier that we're talking about substances that measurably alter thought processes.