All of Hudjefa's Comments + Replies

What. if I may ask, is the sense in it? 

Do you mean to say "nothing is bigger than X" is nonsensical? We regularly encounter such expressions e.g. "nothing is greater than God".

So you mean to say ... supposing there are no dogs and 3 cats and n(x) returns the numerical value of x that what 0 < 3 means is n(dogs) < n(cats) i.e. n({ }) < n({cat 1, cat 2, cat 3})? There must be some quality (in this case quantity :puzzled:) on the basis of which a comparison (here quantitative) can be made.  

Do you also mean that we can't compare nothing to something, like I was doing above? Gracias. Non liquet, but gracias. 

Just a thought, but what if our ancestors had used an infinitesimal (sensu amplissimo) wherever they had to... (read more)

LW is huge and I've just joined (it's been less than a year). I didn't realize ... apologies. I will be mindful of what kinda questions I ask. Gracias

Si, it is absurd. I take that to mean some kind of error has been committed. On cursory examination, it seems I've made the blunder the Greeks were weary of: considering nothing to be something. Only something can be greater/less than something else. Yet in math we regularly encounter statements such as $3>0$ or $0<0.5$, etc. Aren't these instances of comparing something to nothing and deeming this a valid comparison? Am I not doing the same when I say nothing is greater than $X$, which in math becomes $Nothing>X$? 

This is curious. The usual is atheism using psychology to discredit theism. Roles are being reversed here with trapped priors, the suggestion being some veritas are being obscured by kicking religion out of our system. I half-agree since I consider this demonstration non finito. 

As for philosophia perennis, I'd say it's a correlation is causation fallacy. It looks as though the evident convergence of religions on moral issues is not due to the mystical and unprovable elements therein but follows from common rational aspects present in most/all religio... (read more)

Hopefully, not talking out of my hat, but the difference between the final states of a double pendulum can be typed:  

1. Somewhere in the middle of the pendulum's journey through space and time. I've seen this visually and true there's divergence. This divergence is based on measurement of the pendulum's position in space at a given time. So with initial state $A$, the pendulum at time $Tn$ was at position $P1$ while beginning with initial state$B(|A-B|\approx 0),$ the pendulum at time $Tn$ was at position $P2$.  The allege

I have nothing against AI as a Jarvis/Friday-like assistant/advisor. A bad workman blames his tools (absit iniuria). Some us don't know how to use stuff properly. My reckoning suggests that I'm aware of only 5% of my smart phone's capabilities. Sometimes I get these random notifications full of interesting suggestions. 

I don't know the exact values Lorenz used in his weather simulation, but Wikipedia says "so a value like 0.506127 printed as 0.506". If this were atmospheric pressure, we're talking about a millionth decimal place precision. I don't know what exerts 0.000001 Pa of pressure or to what such a teeny pressure matters.

Most kind of you to reply. I couldn't catch all that; I'm mathematically semiliterate. I was just wondering if the key idea "small differences" (in initial states) manifests at the output end (the weather forecast) too. I mean it's quite possible (given what I know, not much) that (say) an atmospheric pressure difference  of 0.01 Pa in the output could mean the difference between rain and shine. Given what you wrote I'm wrong, oui? If I were correct then the chaos resides in the weather, not the output (where the differences are as negligible as in th... (read more)

Would I be correct to say that chaos as a science lives in the margins of error of existing measuring instruments. For weather, we could have one input, atmospheric pressure, say 760 +/- 0.05 mm Hg (margin of error stated). So the actual pressure is between 759.95 and 760.05 mm Hg and this range just happens to be the "small difference(s) in initial value" that leads to prediction divergence. That is the weather forecast could be as opposite as bright, sunny and heavy rain, stormy depending on whether you input 759.95 instead of 760 or 760.05 instead of 76... (read more)

Experiences differ. The experts I've seen bow out when discourse shifts, as it usually does in a free discussion, from one topic (they know like the back of their hand) to another (they have little to no clue about). 

I didn't realize it was AI age until I did. I believe the Turing Test has 2 tiers:   

1. A candidate computer (soft + hard ware) must perfectly mimic AGI
2. An AGI must perfectly mimic a human

ChatGPT et all are probably past checkpoint 1

Bowdlerized version follows:

1. Don't utter falsehoods
2. Senses aren't reliable
3. Don't comment on matters outside your area of expertise
4. Please state beforehand that what you're saying is opinion, not fact
5. Try to work with others to discover the truth
6. Beware of confirmation bias and don't cherry-pick your "evidence" to support your pet theory/hypothesis
7. All arguments boil down to a modus ponens, you better know how it works
8. Allow people to recalibrate based on new information/evidence
9. Moving to a more-easily defendable position when attacked for holding a stronger view i

That's ok, different folks, different strokes. Yet, in the world in which this paradox lives, it is a mystery how we went/progressed from an absolute unknonw unknown state to where we are now, knowns, known knowns, known unknowns, oui? Do you have a hypothesis as to how this happened?

That's a very interesting train of thought. Would you like to expand on that a bit? Please read my reply to @localdeity (vide supra). How did we make that saltus from literally everything being an unknown unknown to (some) known knowns?

Gracias, that's the exactly the point in me humble opinion. The origin (0, 0) for all knowledge is late Donald Rumsfelds' unknown unknowns. That means we made what could only be described as a quantum leap in epistemology. Raises the question do we know anything we didn't know already? 

I was wondering if the paradox was solved. The Wikipage doesn't inform much about its status in current philosophical discourse. 

The solution seems a sine qua non, before we can make progress.

Si, I have the same difficulty. However, sources indicate that Socrates/Plato/others didn't brush it aside as inconsequential. 

I tried googling, but haven't found anything that could be considered a solution.

I don't know what to believe. On the one hand we have people who are genuine about their concerns about a looming AI takeover and on the other we have those who think the current cohort of purported AI (ChatGPT et al) are simply sexed up predictive text apps.

Would I be wrong to say that AI is just an upgraded flint axe ... only a tool that grew a brain, well sort of?

About children, I'm pessimistic. There was a time when the only "temptations" that could lead them astray were wine/money; over time there's been an explosion of psychotropic drugs - vastly inc... (read more)

He's what I would call a living puzzle. From my first encounters with late Daniel Clement Dennett III till his passing, I've always felt he needed to be put together like a jigsaw; perhaps that says more about the randomness of our bumpings-into-each other on the network than anything else.

He said of himself that he was an autodidact, which is wonderful news for those with a tanha (craving) for knowledge.

His deep (?) interest in memes as some kinda theoretical framework for the ideaverse has merit, his work though is non finito. If Dawkins is god (of memes), Dennett was for certain the high priest.

To sum up, the fecundity of this tree was limited only by its death.

Requiescat in pace 🥀💀

Si, it's standing-ovation stuff. What I find odd is that the lyrics are human. I suppose, less out of necessity, but more out of possibility. If one were to classify the AI music, which bucket (Euro/Afro/Asio) would it fall into? I wonder ... a mashup perhaps? If this ain't your style, maybe something else is ... and so ... bucket.

As far as I'm concerned, you're one of few who show an interest in what could be loosely termed as a epistemological map. I've met a few netizens with the same intention although most of them were interested in the organogram of a single, specific discipline like mathematics.  

Your synopsis of how your system is constructed bears the hallmark of well-intentioned, dedicated effort. You get a gold star for that, everyone should agree.

I can sense the dynamism, the vital energy, in the centerpiece of your project, ACTION. It's reminiscent of Schopenhauer'... (read more)

His magnum opus was definitely his extensive work on cognitive biases, though his Nobel was in economics.

Requiescat in pace Daniel.