"When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube."
I just realized this reference may be too old, and that made me sad.
Why does everything need a normative judgment attached to it? The interesting part of TFA is the information about the structure of the internet and how that has developed (or not) over the past ten years (as this was new to me, though it may not be to you), not the author's opinion about what he thinks are the right topics to debate and which ones are wrong.
Something that has the property of being grey does not have both the property of being white and the property of being black. Similarly, something that has the property of being a particle-wave does not have both the property of being a wave and the property of being a particle. That we call it a particle-wave is a contingent artifact of our developmental history; on the macro-level, there are no things that behave like particle-waves, but there are things that behave like waves and things that behave like particles. Had there been things that behaved like particle-waves, we would have a word for it other than the clumsily put-together "particle-wave".
Because names are properties acquired by stipulation. Discovery entails an existence of algorithms independent of humanity, while creation entails the existence of algorithms depends on humanity (or other algorithm creators). That's why it's a true dichotomy, as one entity cannot have contradictory properties at the same time.
1. If the machine learning algorithm has been found to be mathematically identical to the genetic spread algorithm, how would biologists be able to use it to better understand natural selection and genetic diversity? What can they learn from the first algorithm that they couldn't learn from the one they already had? If the two algorithms are mathematically identical, aren't they both just different names for the same mathematical structure? Learning a cat is called neko in Japanese doesn't tell you anything about cats you didn't already know -- it just tells you something about the Japanese language.
2. Are algorithms discovered, or created? If anything is discovered, the underlying mathematical structure more than one algorithm can point to seems to be a better candidate than the algorithms themselves. Fossils are discovered; algorithms are made up.
I've never understood this term. It makes no sense as an informative expression, because everyone attempting to use the internet needs a thing to do so. There can be no internet without things. In fact, the internet exists in the connections between things. The "internet of things" is like "the story of words" or "the forest of trees". It means nothing.
Slowing undesirable traffic down could be (and therefore will be) interpreted as creating slow lanes, not creating fast lanes. To maintain net neutrality both need to be forbidden.
provided it works on people (which is a big if, given that mice can't be autistic; they can only either exhibit behavior that when displayed in a human would be considered autistic, or otherwise have brain structures similar to those of people with autism. Also keep in mind that neural correlates of anything, though, are still rather tricky in contemporary neuroscience), I would take it if it alleviated the symptoms I experience negatively. If it would reduce the stress and anxiety I experience simply being around people or in about fifteen other situations, I would take it in a heartbeat. If it stopped me from enjoying the things I enjoy to the extent that I enjoy them, I would never take it. But maybe that's obvious.
If it let me correctly interpret what other people are thinking I would also take it.
From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?
How do you know other humans "think like a human"? The way people with autism think about the mental states of others differ significantly from the non-autistic, but does that make their way of thinking therefore inhuman? Similarly, I think differently about mathematics than my sister does, because we've had significantly different educational histories. Does that make her thinking or my thinking not human?
There are so many different ways in which human beings can think that the constraint "thinks like a human" is as good as meaningless. Turing realized this, which is why he operationalized intelligence in the way he did with the Turing test.
Another article I read about this mentioned that she confessed to fabricating "at least some results". Now, there are various reasons why a researcher would fabricate results, from the pressure to publish to just literally being evil, but in this case how would she ever expect to get away with it? This is not like a paper in my sub-field, which if I'm lucky five people will ever read. EVERYONE wants pluripotent stem cells, so of course a simple method to create them is going to be tested and replicated over and over and over.
Slashdot Mirror
"When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube."
I just realized this reference may be too old, and that made me sad.
I'm genuinely curious, because that word does not fit in that sentence.
Why does everything need a normative judgment attached to it? The interesting part of TFA is the information about the structure of the internet and how that has developed (or not) over the past ten years (as this was new to me, though it may not be to you), not the author's opinion about what he thinks are the right topics to debate and which ones are wrong.
I think in medicine the "accidental" part is assumed.
I wish psychiatrists could stop you from getting upset on other people's behalves.
Something that has the property of being grey does not have both the property of being white and the property of being black. Similarly, something that has the property of being a particle-wave does not have both the property of being a wave and the property of being a particle. That we call it a particle-wave is a contingent artifact of our developmental history; on the macro-level, there are no things that behave like particle-waves, but there are things that behave like waves and things that behave like particles. Had there been things that behaved like particle-waves, we would have a word for it other than the clumsily put-together "particle-wave".
Because names are properties acquired by stipulation. Discovery entails an existence of algorithms independent of humanity, while creation entails the existence of algorithms depends on humanity (or other algorithm creators). That's why it's a true dichotomy, as one entity cannot have contradictory properties at the same time.
1. If the machine learning algorithm has been found to be mathematically identical to the genetic spread algorithm, how would biologists be able to use it to better understand natural selection and genetic diversity? What can they learn from the first algorithm that they couldn't learn from the one they already had? If the two algorithms are mathematically identical, aren't they both just different names for the same mathematical structure? Learning a cat is called neko in Japanese doesn't tell you anything about cats you didn't already know -- it just tells you something about the Japanese language.
2. Are algorithms discovered, or created? If anything is discovered, the underlying mathematical structure more than one algorithm can point to seems to be a better candidate than the algorithms themselves. Fossils are discovered; algorithms are made up.
I've never understood this term. It makes no sense as an informative expression, because everyone attempting to use the internet needs a thing to do so. There can be no internet without things. In fact, the internet exists in the connections between things. The "internet of things" is like "the story of words" or "the forest of trees". It means nothing.
Slowing undesirable traffic down could be (and therefore will be) interpreted as creating slow lanes, not creating fast lanes. To maintain net neutrality both need to be forbidden.
provided it works on people (which is a big if, given that mice can't be autistic; they can only either exhibit behavior that when displayed in a human would be considered autistic, or otherwise have brain structures similar to those of people with autism. Also keep in mind that neural correlates of anything, though, are still rather tricky in contemporary neuroscience), I would take it if it alleviated the symptoms I experience negatively. If it would reduce the stress and anxiety I experience simply being around people or in about fifteen other situations, I would take it in a heartbeat. If it stopped me from enjoying the things I enjoy to the extent that I enjoy them, I would never take it. But maybe that's obvious.
If it let me correctly interpret what other people are thinking I would also take it.
And if only you had gone to them, you would know that correlation is not the same thing as causation.
Why don't you put your degree to work and go work at Anthropologie?
I don't know about you but news makes my life considerably worse than it would be without it, as news is not so much "news" as it is "bads"
From Google's perspective it does of course, because more people online are more people to sell ads to. But what about us, other connected citizens of earth? Will Mbembe's life really be enriched by being able to spend two dollars on special candies in Candy Crush? What about Min Soo-Ah, how will wifi balloons save her from living in a country where hot water doesn't reach above the second floor? How is this not just silicon valley jerking itself off?
Let me blow your mind right now: all currency is fake. That's what makes it currency instead of bartered goods.
None of those are sceptics.
under his control to disseminate, he would have been dead by now.
How do you know other humans "think like a human"? The way people with autism think about the mental states of others differ significantly from the non-autistic, but does that make their way of thinking therefore inhuman? Similarly, I think differently about mathematics than my sister does, because we've had significantly different educational histories. Does that make her thinking or my thinking not human?
There are so many different ways in which human beings can think that the constraint "thinks like a human" is as good as meaningless. Turing realized this, which is why he operationalized intelligence in the way he did with the Turing test.
Thank you for your informative reply. I understand the situation a little better now.
Ah yes I see, the speed at which water flows and average water level are the same thing. Thanks for this accurate explanation.
Not to mention that the difference between high and low tide would be much larger than the increase in average water level.
How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).
Another article I read about this mentioned that she confessed to fabricating "at least some results". Now, there are various reasons why a researcher would fabricate results, from the pressure to publish to just literally being evil, but in this case how would she ever expect to get away with it? This is not like a paper in my sub-field, which if I'm lucky five people will ever read. EVERYONE wants pluripotent stem cells, so of course a simple method to create them is going to be tested and replicated over and over and over.
Because people would instantly start using them sarcastically.
[sarcasm]It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife[/sarcasm]