muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-29 10:36:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

minor corrections

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2010-06-23 07:23:50 +02:00
parent 26c691469b
commit 034aeaea42
2 changed files with 35 additions and 35 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

24
src/experiments/speedreading.pdc
View file

@ -391,23 +391,23 @@ aggressive pattern prediction. It's time to throw away the chains of ~~oppressio
comrade!~~ intended text flow that the author gave us and to read in any order comrade!~~ intended text flow that the author gave us and to read in any order
and any direction that gets to the meaning faster. and any direction that gets to the meaning faster.
Reading nonlinearly means you read text just like you normal look around. You Reading nonlinearly just means you read text the same way you look around. You
jump to the points that look most interesting, figure out the context around jump to the points that look most interesting, figure out the context around
them, then jump to the next spot. But if you read everything sequentially, you them, then jump to the next spot. But if you read everything sequentially, you
can't do that! At least, you'd have to go back and start reading the current can't do that! At least, you'd have to go back and start reading the current
sentence you're in. sentence you're in.
Imagine you looked around like you read. You go into a room and move your eyes Imagine your vision would work sequentially - like normal reading. You go into a
to the upper left, start moving them to the right, line by line, until you have room and move your eyes to the upper left, start moving them to the right, line
scanned the whole room. Sure, you would *see* everything eventually, but it by line, until you have scanned the whole room. Sure, you would *see* everything
would be *way* stupid and inefficient. Instead, you first have a quick look eventually, but it would be *way* stupid and inefficient. Instead, you first
around, maybe 2 or 3 unconscious eye movements, to figure out if anyone is in have a quick look around, maybe 2 or 3 unconscious eye movements, to figure out
the room and where the interesting stuff is. Nothing unusual on the floor or if anyone is in the room and where the interesting stuff is. Nothing unusual on
ceiling, so you skip those areas altogether. But you saw something like a face the floor or ceiling, so you skip those areas altogether. But you saw something
over there, so you concentrate more on this point until you recognize who it is like a face over there, so you concentrate more on this point until you
(and in what mood they are). This takes maybe a second or so in total, and you recognize who it is (and in what mood they are). This takes maybe a second or so
may have only actually looked at 5% of the scene, but you sure know everything in total, and you may have only actually looked at 5% of the scene, but you sure
that matters. So why not read that way? know everything that matters. So why not read that way?
A good exercise I found was to enforce a time limit per page. I set up a A good exercise I found was to enforce a time limit per page. I set up a
timer[^pororo] to give me a little beep every 20 seconds, following which I timer[^pororo] to give me a little beep every 20 seconds, following which I

46
src/reflections/con_exp.pdc
View file

@ -70,21 +70,21 @@ is also quite flexible and will adapt to new senses, like magnetism, as long as
we can input it. Some body hackers have achieved neat things in that regard. we can input it. Some body hackers have achieved neat things in that regard.
Even better, you can do this even after the person has experienced a "real" Even better, you can do this even after the person has experienced a "real"
world, as long as you modify their memories as well. There are plenty of world, as long as you modify their memories as well. There are plenty of
documented cases of people losing parts of their brain and not noting it. Losing documented cases of people losing parts of their brain and not realizing it.
a whole direction, like "left", is not that unusual for a stroke victim. They Losing a whole direction, like "left", is not that unusual for a stroke victim.
don't notice at all that they don't see anything to their left, the very concept They don't notice at all that they don't see anything to their left, the very
is gone. Ask them to get dressed and they only put on one sock. So if vision is concept is gone. Ask them to get dressed and they only put on one sock. So if
too complex for you, just cut it all out. Once technology has improved, you can vision is too complex for you, just cut it all out. Once technology has
add it back in again. To lie convincingly, we really only need to be consistent. improved, you can add it back in again. To lie convincingly, we really only need
If movement and touch is only binary (I touch you or not; you push or not), then to be consistent. If movement and touch is only binary (I touch you or not; you
the brain will think of it as normal. push or not), then the brain will think of it as normal.
Furthermore, we already have brains in vats! There are already complete Furthermore, we already have brains in vats! There are already complete
simulations of neurons. Some primitive animal brains (worms, mostly) have simulations of neurons. Some primitive animal brains (worms, mostly) have
already been simulated! As of 2010, the best we can do are small parts of a already been simulated! As of 2010, the best we can do are small parts of a
rat's brain, but in less than 30 years, we will be able to do human brain's as rat's brain, but not that foor of, maybe this century even, we will be able to
well. So his claim of this being "beyond human technology now and probably do human brain's as well. So his claim of this being "beyond human technology
forever" is utterly ridiculous. now and probably forever" is utterly ridiculous.
Strong Hallucinations Strong Hallucinations
--------------------- ---------------------
@ -417,12 +417,12 @@ Turing machine.
*How can that be?!* It completely surprises me. Such ideas go clearly against my *How can that be?!* It completely surprises me. Such ideas go clearly against my
own experiences, clash with all of my introspections, have been widely and own experiences, clash with all of my introspections, have been widely and
thoroughly taking apart in all the traditions about consciousness *I* seem to thoroughly taking apart in all the traditions about consciousness *I* seem to
be aware of, like from Buddhism, Christian and Gnostic mysticism, the whole drug be aware of, like from Buddhism, Christian and Gnostic mysticism, the whole drug
culture and so on. Really, most of the time the first things a mystic is gonna culture and so on. Really, most of the time the first things a mystic is gonna
tell you is that reality is not fundamental, but can be taken apart, that your tell you is that reality is not fundamental, but can be taken apart, that your
perceptions, emotions and thoughts are independent processes and not *you* and perceptions, emotions and thoughts are independent processes and not *you* and
that most common sense of self, the ego, can entirely disappear[^ego]. In fact, that the sense of self, the ego, can entirely disappear[^ego]. In fact,
the belief in the self is the very first thing on the way to nirvana a Buddhist the belief in the self is the very first thing on the way to nirvana a Buddhist
has to overcome. It can take many forms, but the basic experience of selfless has to overcome. It can take many forms, but the basic experience of selfless
existence is one thing really *every* mystic or guru or saint has ever said or existence is one thing really *every* mystic or guru or saint has ever said or
@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ Beyond Belief conference, on which I can really only quote Scott Atran[^atran]:
Evasion Evasion
======= =======
But enough of praise. The last might have given you the impression that I was But enough praise. The last might have given you the impression that I was
convinced by Dennett, that his approach seemed reasonable to me. And in fact, convinced by Dennett, that his approach seemed reasonable to me. And in fact,
for a while, I was. Fortunately, along came another chapter, the one about for a while, I was. Fortunately, along came another chapter, the one about
"philosophical problems of consciousness", in which Dennett tries to answer some "philosophical problems of consciousness", in which Dennett tries to answer some
@ -514,13 +514,13 @@ part, but the part on *seeming*... oh, *seeming*...
Dennett reviews his progress so far and pretends to address one obvious Dennett reviews his progress so far and pretends to address one obvious
criticism: that he still hasn't explained qualia. And he is very much aware of criticism: that he still hasn't explained qualia. And he is very much aware of
it, but he just plain refuses to answer, just throwing a few smoke-bombs it, but he just plainly refuses to answer, just throwing a few smoke-bombs
instead, hoping the reader forgets all about it! It's like, "Why are there still instead, hoping the reader forgets all about it! It's like, "Why are there still
qualia?" -> "To understand qualia, we must understand phenomenology." -> "To qualia?" -> "To understand qualia, we must understand phenomenology." -> "To
understand phenomenology, we must understand selves." -> "Hey I got them really understand phenomenology, we must understand selves." -> "Hey I got really cool
cool stories about them multiple selves! Let me show you them!" -> "Any stories about them multiple selves! Let me show you them!" -> "Any questions?".
questions?". Like, what?! I feel I just got mugged by that stupid... ALL GLORY Like, what?! I feel I just got mugged by that stupid... ALL GLORY TO THE
TO THE HYPNOTOAD. HYPNOTOAD.
Dennett still completely depends on a big leap of faith. He can not explain the Dennett still completely depends on a big leap of faith. He can not explain the
*particular* features of consciousness. His draft, or functionalism in general, *particular* features of consciousness. His draft, or functionalism in general,
@ -529,9 +529,9 @@ resulting subjective experience. Or in other words, functionalism may figure out
what particular point in Design Space we inhibit and how we got there, but not what particular point in Design Space we inhibit and how we got there, but not
*why* Design Space looks the way it does. To give an example, functionalism and *why* Design Space looks the way it does. To give an example, functionalism and
evolution explains just fine why the difference between ripe and unripe apples evolution explains just fine why the difference between ripe and unripe apples
is reflected in their different perceived color, but not why *red* looks like is reflected in a different perceived color for each, but not why *red* looks
*red* and not like *green* instead. He can only explain the *differentiation*, like *red* and not like *green* instead. He can only explain the
but not the absolute position! *differentiation*, but not the absolute position!
I'm sure Dennett would answer that this is a meaningless question to ask and I'm sure Dennett would answer that this is a meaningless question to ask and
that's exactly what's infuriating me so much about the book. To me, that is a that's exactly what's infuriating me so much about the book. To me, that is a
@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ right. Afterwards, it moves one field straight ahead and then repeats itself.
There, I just gave you a *full description* of the universe of Langton's Ant. I There, I just gave you a *full description* of the universe of Langton's Ant. I
left nothing out, all the rules are in there. If you want, you can build your left nothing out, all the rules are in there. If you want, you can build your
own, genuine Ant from that, without anything missing. But then you observe the own genuine Ant from that, without anything missing. But then you observe the
ant and the following happens: ant and the following happens:
![Langton's Ant builds a highway](LangtonsAnt.png) ![Langton's Ant builds a highway](LangtonsAnt.png)