= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yes, I think that's where the association comes from.
Thank you.
People with number form synesthesia sometimes have the first twelve digits in the form of of a clock face, I was wondering if something similar was going on with male bodies usually being relatively angular in comparison to female bodies.
I associate genders with digits, based on their shapes. 1, 4, 5, and 7 are distinctly male. 0, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are distinctly female.
Is it possible that this has something to do with how rounded the shapes are? I noticed that the ratio of cusps to rounded edges (a circle counting for two) is 1:0, 2:0, 3:1, 2:0 for the male digits and 0:2, 1:1, 0:3, 0:4, 0:3 for the female digits. Though obviously this can change with typeface it often remains more or less true.
Besides the issue of "subjective experience" that has already been brought up, there's also the question of what "thing" and "exists" mean. Are abstract concepts "things"? Do virtual particles "exist"? By including ideas, you seem to be saying "yes" to the first question. So do subjective experiences have subjective experiences themselves?
Also, it's "an aforementioned". That's especially important when speaking.
Besides the issue of "subjective experience" that has already been brought up, there's also the question of what "thing" and "exists" mean.
I believe some form of MUH is correct so when I say exist I mean the same thing as in mathematics (in the sense of quantifying over various things). So by a thing I mean anything for which it is (at least in principle) possible to write down a mathematically precise definition.
Presumably abstract ideas and virtual particles fall under this category though in neither case am I sure because I don't know what you mean by abstract idea/I don't know enough physics. I not sure whether it possible to give a definition for subjective experience so I don't know whether subjective experiences have subjective experiences.
Also, it's "an aforementioned". That's especially important when speaking.
Substituted an a for an an.
By "any subcomponent," do you mean that the powerset of the universe is composed of conscious entities, even when light speed and expansion preclude causal interaction within the conscious entity? Because, if the universe is indeed spatially infinite, that means that the set of conscious entities is the infinity of the continuum; and I'm really confused by what that does to anthropic reasoning.
By "any subcomponent," do you mean that the powerset of the universe is composed of conscious entities, even when light speed and expansion preclude causal interaction within the conscious entity?
If you replace consciousness with subjective experience I believe your statement is correct. Also once you have one infinity you can take power sets again and again.
I'm really confused by what that does to anthropic reasoning
As far as I understand it breaks anthropic reasoning because now your event space is to big to be able to define a probability measure. For the time being I have concluded that anthropic reasoning doesn't work because of a very similar argument though I will revise my argument once I have learned the relevant math.
How would one define subjective experience for rocks and atoms?
Defining subjective experience is hard for the same reason that defining red is hard, since they are direct experiences. However in this case I can't get around this by pointing at examples. So the only thing I can do is offer an alternative phrasing which suffers from the same problem:
If you accept that our experiences are what an algorithm feels like from on the inside then I am saying that everything feels like something from the inside.
I don't think "exist" means a single thing even in mathematics. For example, in second order logic I'd consider quantifying over elements in the domain of discourse to be different than quantifying over relations.
I would still consider this to be a single thing, the same way that "P and Q" is still a statement.
Phrasing this in different way when I say "exist" I mean "either exist in the sense of quantifying over relations or elements"(definition subject to revision as I learn more non-first order logic).
In response to
Irrationality Game III
Irrationality game: Every thing which exists has subjective experience (80%). This includes things such as animals, plants, rocks, ideas, mathematics, the universe and any sub component of an aforementioned system.
In response to
Irrationality Game III
Irrationality game - there is a provident, superior entity that is in no way infinite (I wonder if people here would call that God. As a "superman theist" I had to put "odds of God (as defined in question)" at 5% but identify as strongly theist in the last census)
Edit: forgot odds. 80%
Could you explain your reasoning? I'm very curious about this.
[Link] First talk by CSER
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) has recently held its first public lecture which can be found here:
Existential Risk: Surviving the 21st Century
The talk's blurb:
"In the coming century, the greatest threats to human survival may come from our own technological developments. However, if we can safely navigate the pitfalls, the benefits that technology promises are enormous. A philosopher, an astronomer, and an entrepreneur have come together to form the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. The goal: to bring a fraction of humanity’s talents to bear on the task of ensuring our long-term survival. In this lecture, Huw Price, Martin Rees and Jaan Tallinn will outline humanity’s greatest challenge: surviving the 21st century."
From CSER's about page:
"An existential risk is one that threatens the existence of our entire species. The Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) — a joint initiative between a philosopher, a scientist, and a software entrepreneur — was founded on the conviction that these risks require a great deal more scientific investigation than they presently receive. CSER is a multidisciplinary research centre dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to human extinction.
Our goal is to steer a small fraction of Cambridge’s great intellectual resources, and of the reputation built on its past and present scientific pre-eminence, to the task of ensuring that our own species has a long-term future."
The philosopher, scientist and entrepreneur in question being Huw Price, Martin Rees and Jaan Tallinn respectively.
Incase you are looking for the talk that Jaan Tallinn referred to, I think that it is this.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Perhaps you should link to the article directly. At first I was trying to figure out the connection between densely packed Hitlers and one-line generators. (Edit: My mistake the link was there I just didn't see it)
Also, unless you want to elaborate, maybe this should go into the open thread?