Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Kikker

Member
  • Content count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Kikker

  1. Imaginary things

    Since it comes up on this forum a lot in some way or the other, I decided to make a topic about it. Mainly people seem disagree about the difference between real and unreal things. It seems fairly simple to distinguish a unreal being like Santa from a real being like the pope. But that's not what the disagreement is about, it seems to me that the disagreement is about imaginary orders, whether they are real or not and what that means. To begin with, an organization is imaginary and to give an example; a government. When searching for something physical to represent a government you will find nothing there. Every single building or person part of a government can't represent it but more importantly when they're all gone a government can still exist as an imaginary organization. That means government is not real right? Well, it depends, if you just mean that it has no single physical form to point to then yes. But not real doesn't mean it's not important nor easily discarded. A myth in the minds of millions of people becomes real because they will act according to that myth. It's actually observable, if you get a Birdseye view of a government you would be able to see certain behavioral patterns emerge from people believing in a government. Same principle for imaginary orders. Orders being overarching ideas about the workings of the world, for example: Christianity but also communism. The interesting part of imaginary orders is that religions and ideologies have the same origins, they just argue whether the world order is supernatural or natural. But you could also go closer to reality. Someone on this forum said that a squirrel could see the white house but could never see the government, thus making the government imaginary. The problem is though, that a squirrel can't see the white house and identify it as the white house. It probably can't identify a house in general, making that imaginary too. I would argue that those concepts are indeed imaginary. Let's take a better example, a chair; there is no collection of features you can use the describe all the chairs in the world without classifying a bunch of non-chairs as chairs. However, there can be a decision tree describing every chair in the world without any mis-classification. Better yet, you probably have a similar thing constructed in your brain. Very small animals don't have the ability to do this kind of classification while bigger animals don't have any incentive to waste brain capacity on the classification of chairs. Nevertheless it doesn't make the concept of chairs less imaginary, while any instantiation of chair is very real. Example of a simple decision tree. Notice how the feature Cone has different implications depending on the previous feature(s) identified.
  2. What proof is there of the conscience?

    Are you saying a moral system is encoded into your DNA? Are you saying a moral system isn't encoded into your DNA?
  3. Why IQ?

    It's very hard to find such relations. Maybe you can look for studies about certain activities being too simple or too complicated for a person and how it affects productivity and/or happiness. Also you could frame your question differently by asking whether high IQ diversity is beneficial to a society, since a higher average IQ generally means a society can do more stuff more quickly with the same amount of people.
  4. Because an anarcho-capitalist society doesn't rule out organizations capable of violence but does rule out the organization currently holding monopoly of force?
  5. Seems his premise was that lack of monopoly of force would result in competition for the monopoly of force by organizations capable of violence. Hence there would be more violence without a monopoly of force.
  6. Good vs Evil - Not a choice

    Yet your only way of knowing intent is to look at the consequences of someone's actions..... You for example provide consequences of an the global elitist's actions to argue their evil intent, so what's stopping you from doing the same with someone killing someone?
  7. Good vs Evil - Not a choice

    You're already inconsistent with your definition of evil, is it intention or consequence? Or do we just assume evil intent when consequences aren't in everyone's interest? Isn't that convenient? How you can think your incoherent mess can add anything to "the age old debate" is beyond me.
  8. Driving Improves...

    From a "science" journal with no link to the actual paper ofcourse.... If there is a paper to link to that is.
  9. GM mosquitos

    That link is dead btw. But you're probably talking about mosquitoes which are modified to stop specific (disease carrying) mosquito populations from reproducing? What exactly are the dangers of that?
  10. Just noticed I was a bit obscure, I meant that mercury pollution generally increases with the new lamps. I'm just speculating because I'm not going to research the issue in detail. But I think you can imagine a push from Germany for a greener Europa, abolishing the import tariffs. Then when they decide the market was changing too slowly (probably estimated at decades) because of the already established brands they decided to campaign in favor of the new lamp. Add a little lobby money from established overseas companies (or maybe domestic looking to destroy competition) and you get a situation where report after report is produced which outlines the advantages of the new lamps, occasionally obscuring negatives. Public opinion changes, a few major companies which produce both lamps are happy to switch completely for compensation (probably a few bribes) and the path is free to ban the normal lamp. In short, it fits the green agenda and government action hastens (maybe causes) the transition pretty well in this case.
  11. They where 175% more expensive but about 600-800% more durable, meaning it's cheaper in the long run. The color spectrum is experienced as less pleasant but it should achieve any brightness a normal bulb can after a few seconds. It's energy efficiency is from 40 watt to 8 watt meaning it's 500% more efficient. The mercury is potentially dangerous. The argument is that it compensates it's own mercury pollution by reducing the need for energy plants which in the case of coal produces mercury pollution. The total mercury pollution should be 200% or so more if your country has a lot of other energy sources. But you failed to mention the import tariffs raised on Compact fluorescent lamps until 2008 under the normal light bulb lobby to protect the European Market. You just experienced a power switch in an government agency.
  12. Artificial vs Natural Intelligence

    Backpropagation introduces the concept of self-correction instead of environmental correction. It is contradictory to genetic algorithms, something can't be a genetic algorithm and a neural network at the same time. Unless you have an population of self-correcting routines encapsulated in a genetic algorithm. You misunderstand. Fastest subroutine to finish doesn't equal subroutine which actually does something. You only explain how a already working subroutine gets faster not how you get a working subroutine in the first place or how it rules out unnecessary actions. If your estimate is so rough that it can differ by dozens of magnitude, you should just argue that the actual number is unknown. I assumed you where comparing neurons to transistors from here: Or do I need to explain that each layer of transistors could half the switches per second of the whole thing? Your a good sport you know, first slander my arguments and then demand I don't refute you.
  13. Artificial vs Natural Intelligence

    I don't understand how you see this process as a genetic algorithm... There is no combination of genetic traits between subroutines to make new ones, no killing of unfit subroutines and you don't even try to explain how random mutations come into being and how the fastest subroutine is also evaluated as the best one to do a particular thing. Before trying to fit a square into a round hole, please just read up on neural networks and backpropegation which more closely resembles your own description on how the brain works. I don't understand where yo get your 400 billion from, even if it's possible, observations I googled (I don't have the time to spend a workweek understanding precisely what scientist agree on) all come down to 20-1000 switches per second average across the brain (link your article if you don't agree). That's not even near 400 billion. More importantly a transistor can't hold even remotely the amount of information to represent a neuron. You would need at least a transistor for the neuron itself and one for every connection it has (average of a 1000) to other neurons, which is still wildly inaccurate. Your estimate needs some serious adjustment.
  14. Artificial vs Natural Intelligence

    I'll put the other arguments on hold for a post or two. Of all the things you don't explain you choose this core idea you hold... What is this base level you're talking about? How are they almost identical? What exactly is the theory of how the brain works?
  15. Artificial vs Natural Intelligence

    I admit the phrasing was sloppy. But if you keep insisting I meant X = X and X = X+1 then you're assuming I'm an idiot beforehand. Just to be clear what I meant was: you could have a goalstate(x) but you could also have a goalstate(y) which has a subgoal(x). Since you generally don't know subgoal(x) it's potentially dangerous. I agree that the brain structure is essentially* encoded in DNA. But if you learn about physics your DNA doesn't change after every bit of knowledge you gain. Your structure has enabled you to learn it. So AI researchers don't have to recreate the process that produced a human structure after 4 billion years, you could just reverse-engineer the governing principles of the current brain structure in order to get a human level AI. * It's mathematically impossible to encode every neuron in dna so it's probably a certain growing pattern which has different outcomes if environmental factors change, most importantly during pregnancy. I didn't say that, to adjust your analogies: "A rock being heavier than a bullet doesn't imply bullet level dangerousness." "A car having more mass that the H-bom doesn't imply it having H-bom level deadliness." The very fact that you had to change the sentence structure completely to disprove an analogy should ring a bell in your head. I'm not sure what your syllogism clarifies as it can be used to argue any property of a human to be the same for an Ai. I assume you don't want to argue that. Humans want to take over the world Humans have legs AI wants to take over the world. Therefore it is implied AI have legs. Human legs are strictly related to human biology. Human biology implies desires among other things. Therefore it is implied that an AI that wants to take over the world has legs. To be specific the condition that the desire to take over the world requires human intelligence isn't believable. You can make it observe a (simulated) situation which resembles a world taken over and turn it into a goal state. And like I said before a world taken over could be a hidden sub-goal of a goal-state which we had programmed in. And no I do not know any action of myself that doesn't have a evolutionary foundation behind it. I'm not sure what an evolutionary biological motive is if it's different from an evolutionary foundation..
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.