I been Ayn Randed
Nearly branded a Communist because I'm left-handed
If that's the hand ya use well, nevermind.

Chalmers' canonical p-zombie argument is a mataphysical one that is not much concerned with computers or programs, even though they are often dragged into discussions of AI, often under the misapprehension that chatbots and such are examples of p-zombies. The argument is subtle and lengthy, but I think this is a good introduction. — A Raybould

Can you summarize the main point please? What is a p-zombie if it's not a TM (or some alternate mechanism) that emulates a human without being self-aware? I confess that I have little inclination to dive into a subtle and lengthy piece by Chalmers. My limitation, I admit. The question I asked is simple enough though. What's a p-zombie if not a TM or super-TM (TM plus some set of oracles) that emulates a human without being self-aware?

ps -- Feeling guilty at my laziness for not clicking on your link, I clicked. And it's NOT an article by Chalmers at all. I skimmed quickly but didn't read it. I'd still like a simple answer to how a p-zombie differs from "a thing that is indistinguishable from a human but lacks self-awareness," such as a TM in a nice suit.

It was this bit, which felt like an accusation that what I'm / we're doing here on this forum / in this thread is somehow deridable:

Or by philosophy do you mean typing idle thoughts into a philosophy forum, which is no more involved that watching tv; as opposed to excelling in academic philosophy, which typically takes years of focussed study?
— fishfry — Pfhorrest

But I absolutely reiterate the question. It's the heart of my objection to your thesis. You conflate idle forum chitchat to the work of professional philosophers. The former is available to anyone; the latter requires years of formal training.

If you regard this as hostile I truly can't help that. You are equating a kid stabbing a doll with a knife, with a trained surgeon excising a tumor. You're claiming the actions are essentially the same. That's nonsense.

I hope I haven't triggered you even more. I challenged your core assumption with a sharp question. Isn't that what philosophers do? Amateurs AND professionals!

Why do you label a clarifying question as derision?

So I have this perfect vacuum right (it cleans my house really well -jkjk). — Benj96

In other words, it really sucks. For vacuum cleaners, that's a compliment!

I realize that AI = artificial intelligence and not consiousness. — TheMadFool

I think we're agreed on that.

I jumped into this thread based on only one phrase from one post without reading the rest. I only posted to get out of my system pretty much everything I knew about the subject. I have no idea what the answers are to the question of consciousness and machines; but I do think I have a fair grasp of the questions, at both the technical and philosophical level.

So I said my piece, and if it's not clear, I'm not espousing or even expressing any kinds of opinions about anything. If you disagree with anything I write, that's perfectly ok. I disagree with a lot of it too. I probably won't engage though. I literally said, at a high level, everything I know abut the philosophy machine intelligence in my first post.

Firstly, even if that's the case, we still have the problem of inferring things about the mind - intelligence, consciousness, etc. - from behavior alone. The inconsistency here is that on one hand (AI) behavior is sufficient to conclude that a given computer has a mind (intelligence-wise) and on the other hand, p-zombies, it isn't (p-zombies have no minds). — TheMadFool

Yes ok. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing or having an opinion about this, beyond what I've already said. I perfectly well agree with your analysis of the problem.

Secondly, my doubts notwithstanding, intelligence seems to be strongly correlated with consciousness - the more intelligent something is, the more capacity for consciousness. — TheMadFool

AHA! But ... why do you say that? Until you give a rational reason for WHY you believe that to be the case, I regard it as an entirely bio-centric prejudice on your part. Mean chauvinism again. So on that point, I am pushing back a bit on your ideas. I want to know what is the rational reason we think that intelligence must correlate with consciousness? Other than that it's how our mind works?

In addition, and more importantly, aren't computers more "intelligent" in terms of never making a logical error i.e. Turing had something else in mind regarding artificial intelligence - it isn't about logical thinking which we all know for a fact that even run of the mill computers can beat us at. — TheMadFool

No, Gödel and Turing decisively delineated the hard limitations of what can be computed. The core of the argument that humans do something machines can't do is that WE can solve noncomputable problems. Sir Roger Penrose believes consciousness is not a computation. I personally believe consciousness is not a computation.

Computers aren't intelligent at all. They're dumb as rocks. In fact you can implement a computer with a bunch of rocks painted white on one side and black on the other. You can sit there flipping rock-bits according to programs, and what you are doing is computing. Computers don't know the first thing about anything. That's my opinion. Others have different opinions. That's ok by me.

What do you think this something else is if not consciousness? Consciousness is the only aspect of the mind that's missing from our most advanced AI, no? The failure of the best AI to pass the Turing test is not because they're not intelligent but because they're not, or are incapable of mimicking, consciousness.[/url]

Funny you said "mimicking" consciousness instead of implementing it. As in faking it. Pretending to be conscious.

I think we're each using a slightly different definition of consciousness. I think it's purely subjective and can never be tested for. I gather you believe the opposite, that there are observable behaviors that are reliable indicators of consciousness. We my need to agree to disagree here.
— TheMadFool

In short, the Turing test, although mentioning only intelligence, is actually about consciousness. — TheMadFool

Nonsense. Turing never used the word. You're adding your own interpretation to what's not actually there. Do you know anything about how chatbots work? People have a tendency to think dumb chatbots are human. That means nothing.

It's not meaningless to inquire if other things have subjective experiences or not. — TheMadFool

It's not meaningless, it's just damned hard to investigate! I heard one thing they do is the "mirror test." If an animal or a fish or whatever can recognize its own reflection, we think it's got some kind of inner life going on.

I don't disrespect or downplay the importance of the question.

I do oppose overly glib and strongly asserted answers. Truth is nobody knows.

All I'm saying is a p-zombie is more human than a computer is. — TheMadFool

As I mentioned I haven't read the rest of the thread and wasn't really talking about p-zombies except as a shorthand for Turing machines passing as humans among us in society. Essentially the same idea as the standard meaning of "something that looks and acts exactly like a normal person, but has no inner life at all."

For purpose of anything I'm saying, these two ideas of p-zombies can be taken as the same. I'm not really up on any fine points of difference. A standard p-zombie looks human but has no inner life. A Turing machine operating a perfectly lifelike robot body would in my opinion BE a p-zombie; but I guess you'd say that if it behaves with intelligence, it must be conscious.

Ergo, we should expect there to be more in common between humans and p-zombies than between humans and computers, — TheMadFool

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between p-zombies and computers. In my opinion a program running on a computer might possibly implement a true p-zombie -- something that behaves perfectly like a human; but that has no inner life whatsoever.

If all you mean is that the p-zombies are wetware, why do you have such a meat prejudice? Where does it say that being made of meat is better than being made of vegetable matter? It's meat chauvinsim: believing that meat is superior because we are meat. That is not a rational argument.

something contradicted by philosophy (p-zombie) and computer science (Turing test). — TheMadFool

I am not aware of this interpretation, but I don't know much about p-zombies. It seems to me that a lifelike chatbot is exactly what philosophers mean by a p-zombie: a thing that behaves like a human but isn't and that has no inner life. It just operates on a program. Like a computer.

I see p-zombies and computer programs as being very closely related. Perhaps you can educate me as to what I'm missing about p-zombies.

I got a strong sense of hostility in your post, which was perhaps a mistake on my part. If so, my apologies. — Pfhorrest

No prob. Please quote the exact phrase that set you off so that I can analyze it and adjust my programming. At my end it felt like sharp questions in response to vague and ambiguous thinking. You could just as well have thanked me.

My curiosity is genuine. Please quote the phrase I wrote that set you off so that I can learn from it.

I
I don’t see those as different in kind, but more of a spectrum of quality: doing the same thing at its core, but with different degrees of skill and sophistication. — Pfhorrest

By that standard a high schooler cutting up a frog in biology class is engaged in the same essential activity as an experienced surgeon. In which case you've said nothing.

I reject your argument and don't find your arguments convincing. That's not hostile. It's an invitation for you to tighten up your thinking and your writing.

I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

Eric Berne identified this as a harmless form of the game of Rapo. A woman dresses provocatively.I f you look, you lose.

More advanced forms of this game, of course, have put men in prison or gotten them lynched.

http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/rapo/

I feel like I shouldn’t even respond to this, — Pfhorrest

I don't know why. If you feel you shouldn't respond to something I write, you probably shouldn't. I surely meant no offense and don't understand why you wrote that. But if it's true you shouldn't have replied! Or perhaps asked for clarification.

but I don’t mean that mere sapience is all it takes to do philosophy WELL. Just that people who do philosophy, well or otherwise, aren’t using any special faculties or abilities besides their capacity for reflection, honed to various degrees. — Pfhorrest

If they are using "special faculties or abilities," then they are like surgeons: starting out as disciplined and ambitious learners, and acquiring much knowledge and many skills over the years and sometimes building to true mastery only after decades. Just as academic philosophers take years to develop their skills and abilities.

Again if you're just talking about philosophizing as shooting the breeze around the dorm or bar room or online forum, that's not actually what passes for philosophy these days. It would be helpful if you say which use of the word philosophizing you're using: breeze-shooting or academic research or at least serious philosophy, even if done by amateurs.

And that other faculties like intelligence, as in problem-solving ability, all by themselves, no matter how well-honed, don’t make someone able to do philosophy, without first adding in that capacity for reflection. — Pfhorrest

Ok. If your entire point was to say that a capacity for reflection is necessary, then I understand your point. I don't actually agree. I'd say that good philosophizing might require that, but plenty of what passes for philosophy these days falls short of reflection and sometimes even coherence. Wouldn't you agree? Or would you go No True Scotsman and say, "Well that's not really philosophy!" In which case your position reduces to a tautology.

The difficulty with employing a method to detect consciousness is that such a method is completely behavior-dependent and that raises the specter of p-zombies, non-conscious beings that can't be distinguished from conscious beings behaviorally. — TheMadFool

Yes.

The Turing test, as a way of identifying AI (conscious), simply states that if there's no difference between a candidate AI and a human in terms of a person who's assessing the AI being fooled into thinking the AI is human then, the AI has passed the test and, to all intents and purposes, is conscious. — TheMadFool

Yes but with a big caveat. You used the word conscious but Turing uses the word intelligent. Intelligence is a behavior and consciousness is a subjective state. So we could use the Turing test to assert that we believe an agent to be intelligent, while making no claim about its consciousness. In fact asking if an agent other than yourself is conscious is essentially meaningless, since consciousness (or self-awareness) is a subjective state.

So that's a semantic difference. The Turing test evaluates intelligence (whether it does that successfully or not is a matter for discussion). But it makes no claims to evaluate consciousness nor do we think any such test is possible, even in theory. Not for an AI and not for my neighbor, who's been acting strangely again.

P-zombies are treated differently: even if they pass the Turing test adapted to them, they're thought not to deserve the status of conscious beings. — TheMadFool

Thought by whom? You and me, I think. But Turing and Aaronson would say, "If it acts intelligent it's intelligent. And nobody can know about consciousness."

On what rational basis do we say our neighbors are conscious but that a general AI, if one ever passed a more advanced and clever version of the Turing test, is "intelligent but not conscious." That sounds like an unjustified value judgment; a prejudice, if you will. Meat chauvinism.

In short, something, AI, that's worlds apart from a flesh-and-bone human, is considered worthy of the label of consciousness while something that's physically identical to us, p-zombies, aren't and in both cases the test for consciousness is the same - behavior based. — TheMadFool

Isn't that just an irrational prejudice? They used to say the same about certain ethnic groups. It's the same argument about dolphins. Just because they don't look like us doesn't mean they're not "considered worthy of the label of consciousness." What is your standard for that?

I hope you see the problem here. If we can't tell a human from a p-zombie then what's the difference? I'm not advocating that argument, I disagree with it. I just admit that I can't articulate a rational defense of my position that doesn't come down to "Four legs good, two legs bad," from Orwell's Animal Farm.

Interesting question. I would say philosophy is like sitting on the couch watching a Science Channel show on brain surgery, then chatting knowingly about it with others in the room. Hmmm . . — jgill

See I have a problem with this. There's philosophizing like we used to do late at night in the dorm, or as we can do in an online forum; then there's academic philosophizing. I get the feeling the OP means the former and not the latter. There are years, decades of technical training and acquired knowledge and skill. "Shooting the breeze about the universe" doesn't count except as, let's call it amateur philosophy or forum philosophy. And I think there's a big difference between a forum and an academic paper in philosophy! A difference in kind not only in degree, that would be my point.

how would one know whether a computer is conscious in the sense we are? — TheMadFool

Haven't been following discussion but noticed this. If I may jump in, I would say that this is THE core question.

I put it in the following even stronger form: How do I know my neighbor is self-aware and not a p-zombie? I leave the house in the morning and see my neighbor. "Hi nieghbor." "Hi ff. Looks like a nice day." "Yeah sure is." "See you later." "You too!" I cheerfully respond as I drive off with a wave. What a sentient fellow, I think to myself. He surely must possess what Searle would call intentionality. This is my little joke to myself, how little evidence we accept for the sentience of people. The interrogator is always the weak link in real life Turing test experiments. The humans are always TOO willing to accept that the computer's a human.

In truth, I operate by the principle that my neighbor is a fellow human, whatever other differences we may have; and that all fellow humans are self-aware. That's my unspoken axiom.

Computer scientist and blogger Scott Aaronson calls this attitude meat chauvinism and he has a point.

I have no way of knowing if my neighbor is self-aware, let alone some inanimate program. But at the same time I must admit that just because a thing is different from me, does not count as evidence that the thing is not intelligent. If self-awareness can arise in a wet messy environment like the brain; why shouldn't it arise in a box of circuit boards executing clever programs?

Personally I don't think machines can ever be conscious; but still I do admit my human-centric bias. I have no proof that self-awareness can only arise in wetware. Who could begin to know a thing like that? The wisest among us don't know.

And of course this was Turing's point. As a closeted gay man in 1950's England, he argued passionately for the acceptance of those who were different. That's how I read his 1950 paper, not only mathematically but also psychologically.

If we define self-awareness as a purely subjective experience, then by definition it is not accessible to anyone else. There is no hope of having an actual self-awareness detector. Turing offers an alternative standard: Behavioral. If we interact with it and can't tell the difference, then there is no difference.

Some days I do wonder about my neighbor.

I hold that all that is needed, strictly speaking, is personhood — Pfhorrest

Is personhood sufficient to do brain surgery? No.

Is personhood sufficient to sit on the couch and watch tv? Yes (plus owning a tv, having electric service, and being physically able to operate the remote).

Is philosophy therefore more like sitting on the couch and watching tv than it is like brain surgery?

Or by philosophy do you mean typing idle thoughts into a philosophy forum, which is no more involved that watching tv; as opposed to excelling in academic philosophy, which typically takes years of focussed study?

Please clarify your terms.

Value can be subjective but based on fact. One person makes their living running a grocery store. Another person wants dinner. The hungry person values food more than money; the grocer values money more than food. That's the basis of commerce: Two rational actors can have different preference functions; hence markets exist.

One person values long term appreciation. Another needs a place to live. The former buys a house, at great initial expense. The latter party rents it, often for less money than the owner's monthly mortgage payment. Yet both parties are happy. They are both acting purely rationally, yet with different preference functions.

Just look at pro sports. One person values a high draft choice because they're building for the future. The other values an experienced player because they're aiming to win right now. So they trade. Different preferences, but entirely rational. Economic actors have different preference functions because they have different circumstances and objectives.

If everyone had the same preference function, no market could exist. No free exchange of goods and services would occur.

Would one simply keep there finger down on the endorphins, dopamine and oxytocin buttons until they die of an overdose of bliss. — Benj96

We already have plenty of real world experience. We don't need a magic conveyor belt. Any run of the mill pharmaceutical will do. Your local chain drugstore and your local drug dealer both have plenty of options. On the legal side are the SSRIs (selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors) and on the illegal side are cocaine. In fact in terms of neurochemistry, a Prozac or other SSRI is nothing more than a cleaner version of cocaine, simply being more specific in which neurotransmitters it affects. It's merely a matter of degree. Prescription opiates are another example of a legal and highly habituating drug that some people indulge in to their doom.

This brings up another issue. Regulating subjective mental/emotional states (and even behavior, in the case of the heavier-duty psych and recreational drugs) isn't only about delivering neurotransmitters to various areas of the brain. The idea of reuptake is fascinating. What cocaine (and Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) do is sneak into the synapses between two neurons and simply prevent the neurotransmitters from being reabsorbed into their respective neurons. Instead, they flood the synaptic junction. In other words the effect is second order: there's not more of the neurotransmitter; there's an inhibition of the mechanism that reabsorbs it from the synapse. So the same given amount of neurotransmitter stays in the synapse longer hence produces an enhanced effect.

Don't know if any of this was helpful but it's everything I know about neurotransmitters.

The direct answer to your question is that rats love to press the cocaine lever and will do so to their death. Some humans too.

The notion of existence is predicated on detectability i.e. for something to exist it must be detectable — TheMadFool

You deny all abstract existence? Numbers, justice, beauty?

If we all stop using words like "black" "white" etc and teach our children that those are bad words then racism will end in a few generations. — dazed

We could sit in a circle together and sing Kumbaya. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Just someone who remembers the 60's here.

Fucking Americans. — Isaac

Right you are. I was referring to American psychologists, the American Psychological Association, and good old all-American torture. USA! USA! USA!

Yes, that too. By what ethical standard does studying some subject somehow make me complicit in the actions of others studying the same subject? — Isaac

Psychologists did a lot more than "study" torture. If you're unfamiliar with the voluminous body of evidence of the complicity of the psychological profession in the US's torture regime, you're ignorant. Did you read the link I provided? Why don't you Google around? It was a major scandal in the psychological community and still is. If you claim to be a professional in that discipline, I urge you to repair your ignorance of this topic ASAP. I've been following this issue since Bush (and Pelosi and other prominent Democrats) turned the US into a torture regime. It reflects very badly on the psychology profession.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/psychologists-are-facing-consequences-for-helping-with-torture-its-not-enough/2017/10/13/2756b734-ad14-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/10/us-torture-doctors-psychologists-apa-prosecution

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201412/the-complicity-psychologists-in-cia-torture

If we're to condemn people for the actions of others with whom they share some common field — Isaac

I'm doing no such thing. The profession's own ethical standards are at issue and the evidence is clear. Educate yourself. I'm not stating a controversial position. I'm stating established fact.

I'm sorry if you've had some bad experiences with psychologists, but accusing us of complicity in genocide is not ok. — Isaac

How about complicity in torture?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30792344/

I never like these predictor-type puzzles. If you have a predictor you can ask it to predict if its next statement will be a lie. If it says yes then then it told the truth, making the statement a lie. You get a contradiction.

Therefore there is no such predictor. The very concept of a predictor is contradictory, hence anything follows. All such puzzles are vacuous. I get that they're popular, but I don't see the appeal.

I wrote a brief and general text comparing Descartes to Newton — GustavoRassati

Do you have a source for your claims as to Newton's philosophy? I'm not familiar with his direct expression of the ideas as you related them. Could be that I'm more familiar with his scientific work so I'd appreciate some references.

Patrick Henry Winston, MIT professor, posed this question: "“What does Genesis know about love if it doesn’t have a hor­monal system?” he said. “What does it know about dying if it doesn’t have a body that rots? Can it still be intelligent?” — Frank Pray

When the computer chip in your clothes dryer receives data from the humidity sensor and decides when your clothes are dry, do you think it has feelings and opinions about the matter?

And if not, why would a bigger machine, operating on exactly the same fundamental principles, be any different?

Issac Newton is known to be a person you wouldn't want to be friends with, yet brilliant. Do you see the connection? — Wheatley

John von Neumann was a famously social genius, as was Richard Feynman. Einstein, for all his eccentricities, was social. In the case of Feynman and Einstein, a little TOO social if you know what I mean. Besides, I'd have loved to have been friends with Newton.

A student asked if I'd pay her for virtual sex to raise money for her law degree. Is that ethical, do you think? — ernestm

If you ask a woman out, buy her dinner, and have sex with her, that's a date. If you ask a woman out, have sex with her, and give her money so she can buy her own dinner, that's a crime!

I'd appreciate it if you could unpack this a bit. The more I read it, the more I can't quite figure it out. — tim wood

As I thought about responding, I soon got into thickets I couldn't figure out either. Here are some idle thoughts for what they're worth.

I'll offer a guess, on the off-chance I get it. To wit: Nature is unpredictable, either because it is essentially unpredictable, or predicative/calculative power will never be up to the task of being able to make exact predictions. — tim wood

Exactly. This is the point I got to in my thinking. Is chaos an ontological or an epistemological phenomenon? Is nature itself actually chaotic? Or does chaos only arise from the finite computer approximations we make to the differential equations that describe the world?

If chaos is only an artifact of the physical limitations of computers; then in fact a butterfly flapping its wings may not make much difference to the future. I actually don't know what the experts think about this; and as I Googled around, I didn't find anything on point. Perhaps nobody's noticed the question.

To sum up and emphasize this point: There is nature itself; and then there are computer approximations to the differential equations that model nature. The later may be chaotic with or without the former being chaotic as well. I believe that's the question we're both asking.

Or both. — tim wood

Yes. It might be that the computer approximations are chaotic AND the "real" universe is too.

* An example that comes to mind is the Mandelbrot set. This is a purely mathematical phenomenon and NOT a physical one so it's useful as an idealized case.

Mandelbrot is purely mathematical; and it is inherently chaotic. Points that are arbitrarily close to each other can have dramatically different evolutions under the transformation rule, following the math itself. It's a fact about the Cartesian plane; and not about the computer models. In other words if we used "God's computer" and could manipulate real numbers exactly, the Mandelbrot set still exhibits chaos. The strange and beautiful patterns are inherent in the equations and not in the physical computation of them.

The mathematical chaos of Mandelbrot is contrasted with the physical modeling aspect.

According to Wiki, chaos theory applies to dynamical systems. These are systems that evolve in deterministic ways and whose behavior can be modeled as a set of differential equations.

The classic example is the three body problem in Newtonian gravity. We can solve the equations for two bodies but not three. Let alone all the stuff bouncing around the solar system.

Since we can't solve the equations we have to approximate the solutions using iterative methods implemented on physical hardware. That's where the chaos comes from.

* Aha! It occurs to me, it might be that just like the Mandelbrot set, it might be that the equations themselves are chaotic; and not just the computer approximations. In other words Newtonian gravity might be "inherently chaotic" by virtue of the differential equations themselves, and not because of rounding errors in the computer.

This is a distinction that had not previously been clear in my mind but I think it's important.

And if we ask, Is Newtonian gravity chaotic in nature? And then of course we realize that the question itself is a mistake. Nature doesn't do Newtonian gravity. The issue is moot.

* This is pretty much how I see all this without being a specialist in the least.

But I think we can conclude that the butterfly story may be about computations than about the world. Perhaps in nature the butterfly effect is false. Nearby points have nearby fates.

Or perhaps the butterfly effect is inherent in the differential equations Lorenz used for his weather predictions. But that doesn't really apply to butterflies. The popularization is really kind of muddled.

In the end nobody knows whether the butterfly effect is part of nature OR just a feature of the differential equations OR just a feature of the computer approximations to the equations.

Notwithstanding that gross and imprecise predictions are made all the time and that in the aggregate more-or-less dependable predictions help to get the world's work done. — tim wood

The stability and seeming coherence of the world are deep philosophical mysteries. I could just be a Boltzmann brain, a momentary coherence in an otherwise random and formless world.

After all bridges seem to stay up most of the time, even though quantum theory tells us that with nonzero probability, half the bridge could move a mile away in an instant. Modern physics doesn't give us much to stand on.

If you want to work in a reference to the strange attracters of chaos theory, I'd be glad to read that too. — tim wood

Can't help there.

Ok tl;dr on all this:

Three levels:

* Chaos in nature itself;

* Chaos inherent in the differential equations that we use to model nature;

* Chaos arising from approximating the solutions to those equations on physical computers.

It's good to think about which level is being talked about in any given situation. And there's no reason to believe that the butterfly effect is true in the real world. It was true of Lorenz's computer simulation of the weather. That's a specialized domain. The public is misinformed on the butterfly effect. This is my opinion.

There's no evidence nature is a specific kind of (mathematical) dynamic system. — jgill

You summed up my thoughts a lot more efficiently than I did!! Thanks!

All the misnamed "butterfly effect" means is that in a discrete deterministic iterative system, very small changes in the inputs can lead to huge changes in the outputs. It's mathematically true and easily reproduced. The Mandelbrot set provides a striking example. Starting points extremely close together may have strikingly different evolutions under repeated applications of the transformation rule.

The idea that you go back in time and kill a butterfly and thereby bring about the election of Donald Trump is a popularization and not to be taken too literally. For one thing, there's no evidence that reality is a discrete deterministic iterative system; whereas computer simulations of weather or calculations of the state of the solar system under Newtonian gravity, are.

The evolution of the solar system under Newtonian gravity is a good example of how even though a system is deterministic, its future can't be predicted. The idea that "if we knew the position and velocity of every particle of the universe, we could predict the future," turns out to be flat out false. Even if we know the initial conditions with perfect accuracy, accumulated rounding errors in the computation make it impossible to even know whether the solar system is stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System

How would that work with a hypothetical decimal expansion? — jgill

I'm still wondering how you would describe writing down the decimal expansion of it. — tim wood

There's a decimal-like notation for the hyperreals, called the Lightstone notation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._H._Lightstone

The Wiki article on the Surreals doesn't mention anything about notation, so it's likely that there is no notation yet discovered for them. The article mentioned that the Surreals contain all the ordinals; and there aren't workable notations for all the ordinals as far as I know. I'm under the impression that there aren't even notations for all the countable ordinals but I'm fuzzy on this. Clues might be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_notation

And as there are extensions of the complex numbers into more than just two dimensions, hypercomplex numbers including most notably four-dimensional quaternions and eight-dimensional octonions (beyond which they lose most of the properties that make numbers useful as numbers), — Pfhorrest

This process can be continued indefinitely as in the Cayley-Dickson construction.

There's another generalization of the process called Clifford algebras.

I also wanted to mention in passing that the question has been raised as to "where you fit" the extra numbers when you go from the reals to the hyperreals to the surreals and so forth. I believe that the answer is that the claim that "the line in my mind" is the same as any particular mathematical version of a line, is a belief and not a fact that could ever be proven. Is Euclid's line the same thing as the set of real numbers? We take as an unspoken axiom that it is; but if we remember that this is just an assumption, we can resolve our confusion over where the extra points go.

In fact there are a lot of real lines. The constructive mathematicians, who don't believe in noncomputable real numbers, have their constructive line. There are various flavors of the intuitionistic line. The hyperreals form the hyperreal line. It's clearly not the same as the real line, since there are no infinitesimals on the real line.

The surreal numbers are a totally ordered proper class; and if they're totally ordered, we can imagine lining them up in order and calling that the surreal line. But it's not the same line as the standard real line or any of the other many alternative models of the real line. It's a bit of a category error to ask where the extra points go. It's a completely different model of the continuum. That's my understanding, anyway.

even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%
— fishfry

No, he never said that. — Baden

I did think I read what I posted but if I'm wrong so be it. I don't dive too deeply into all the claims and counterclaims. So much conflicting information and politicized spin out there.

That's the old argument of "it isn't true capitalism". But that's about as convincing as the equal and opposite "real socialism has never been tried". The fact of the matter is that capitalism has always included state intervention. Capitalists try to capture the state using their economic power. It's in their interest to do so. The mythical "pure capitalism" that has never existed is nothing but a fairy tale used to conceal the downsides of the real and existing economic system.

I call the system we have right now capitalism. You can disagree with the name, but it doesn't matter what we call it. The fact is the policies you blame on "globalism" are motivated by economic interests. The interests of the holder of capital. If you don't want to contest that point, you can call the economic system whatever you like. — Echarmion

I agree with you and concede your point that rather than my claiming "this isn't real capitalism,"; on the contrary, what we have now is the inevitable result of capitalism. I'm not up on the details but I gather this would be Marx's prescient critique of late-stage capitalism.

I don't necessarily disagree with my own point, but I do agree with yours. I hold a little of both. What we have isn't capitalism, but maybe it is after all and Marx was right. I don't think Adam Smith anticipated the Fed bailing out the bad bets of private corporations. For what it's worth I'm against that.

That's not a negotiation though. That's the administration using what tools they have to try and get a reaction. I have yet to see evidence that anything of substance has or will come of it. The hard reality is that the american standard of living depends on outsourcing production to countries with cheap labour. If you want to get the manufacturing jobs back, you have to accept a significant reduction in the standard of living. — Echarmion

I don't want to argue with you about Trump's handling of China. I believe that his stance has been historic, reversing decades of US policy for the better. I'll stipulate that you don't agree.

That's not an answer. Are you saying the CIA is outsourcing jobs? — Echarmion

The only thing I don't like about that kind of response is that it forces me to go look up the spelling of non sequitur. That's "not even wrong" as the physicists say.

Why have the media declared a national hysteria?
— fishfry

It gets people to watch more media. — Echarmion

Ok so we're at least in agreement on that. That there are two thing going on: a medical pandemic and a media-induced hysteria driven by agendas having nothing to do with the medical situation. And that it's legitimate to question and analyze the media hysteria. Once you accept that, we have no fundamental disagreement. In fact I'm even surprised you acknowledged that.

I cannot think of many powerful people that benefit from an economic downturn. Powerful people are, by and large, rich people, and rich people like to make money. — Echarmion

Rich people's lives don't change when they lose a billion dollars. If that's what it costs to, say, get rid of Trump or impose various globalist agendas, they can easily handle the loss. Honestly I'm sure this is something you already know. Are you playing naive just as a way of interacting with me? You act like you just fell off the turnip truck.

Right. And I guess the "powers that be" simultaneously control the US, Europe, China, India etc. Do you really believe in a world conspiracy? You're only one step away from "it's the jews" at this point. — Echarmion

[Mod Edit: Expression of extreme outrage and indignation.]

Thank you mod.

@Echarmion, I find your style of discourse distasteful. All the best.

I'm not so sure about that. In the end it's the same discourse as we heard about NAFTA long time ago: — ssu

And Ross Perot was right! He talked about the loss of jobs from the US and he talked a lot about our crazy aunt in the basement, the national debt. Which is a heck of a lot bigger today than it was back then. How long to people think this can go on? Longer than anyone thought, but not forever.

Ah Ross Perot. Cost Bush 41 his reelection and gave us the Clintons. Of course some argue that point too, but I think Perot pulled the fiscal conservatives from Bush.

During that time China's economy was a little bigger than the Netherlands, I guess, so China wasn't on the forefront yet. — ssu

We're talking Nixon? I think if he knew how China was going to turn out he wouldn't have bothered. The dream of "good world citizen China" isn't working at all. Nixon did see how big they'd be though. Maybe it's still too soon to know.

You'd almost think someone's using this medical panic to fleece the public. But what kind of person could be that cynical at a time like this?
— fishfry
I don't think that it's that. — ssu

Well of course YOU are not the kind of terrible person who would even voice a speculative idea like that. I am, of course. It was Obama's Chicago buddy Rahm Emanuel who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Surely you can't believe NO ONE's using this medical panic to fleece the public. Right? So we're both somewhere along the continuum, but I'm a pretty cynical observer of politics.

As I said at the time when I didn't believe this would be serious, this is the only way governments can react. They cannot say "This isn't our problem". They cannot say "We aren't interested". And from that they will really do whatever they can. Which I still believe is the right thing to do. — ssu

Ok. Just tell me this. Why wasn't there a national panic and stay-at-home orders when 80,000 died of the flu in 2016. Yes R-zero and flatten the curve and exponential growth and death rates and so forth, I read the papers too. But really, 80,000's a lot. Nobody said a word. Why is that, exactly?

Yes I know the government has to "do something." I don't say I'd run things any better. I can't refute your point but I'm very uneasy about what's going on. Just from a civil liberties point of view, this is all disturbing.

I believe there is a truth to them. Even in China, there is a limit how much you can suppress the truth.
Unfortunately epidemics/pandemics can have different outcomes in different countries. One country takes a huge hit where another is left nearly untouched in an pandemic. The wrong way to think about it is that the country that has less infections has done it's job better than the other. That's why we didn't take the lessons learned from SARS etc. to heart as those countries that took a hit.

The complacency of Trump is quite understandable. Preventing pandemics (SARS, MERS, Ebola) had worked pretty well. — ssu

I don't get that he was or is complacent. I seem to recall him restricting Chinese immigration while the Dems were busy impeaching him and calling him a racist for his troubles. You mistake his expressed optimism and hope for complacency. Didn't he form a coronavirus task force in January during the impeachment? I confess I don't run down every rabbit hole of point-counterpoint in these political squabbles. You use the word complacent, I say you are assuming facts not in evidence.

The people who are outraged at the administration will only change. — ssu

You are saying nothing's at stake. Maybe you're right. I don't agree. I might have formerly felt that way. I the past three years the Democrats and the left have frightened me very much. I actively oppose them now. I think the upcoming election matters a lot.

It was 12 years ago. 12 years is quite a long time in the lifespan of anybody. And typically the forecasters can be divided into "bears" and "bulls" that unfortunately turn into permabears and permabulls, talking just to a specific crowd that either wants to be pessimistic or optimistic. It's hard first to paint a picture of doom & gloom and then suddenly change it to a rosy dawn with great optimism. Or vice versa. I remember this one commentator I've followed who was very bullish about gold (before and in the start of the great recession), yet then changed his view and finally disregarded the hyperinflation argument. He got at first so much flak from his audience that basically he stopped answering questions of the public. — ssu

I'll concede your point that people have been calling for this crash for a long time.

And people politicize these issues. Those buying gold started to be the Tea-party type libertarians while on the other side the liberals upholded Paul Krugman etc. as real economists to be listened to. The idea of "right" and "wrong" economists isn't the way one should approach these issues: one economist has one point, another has another point. Hopefully we won't see a similar politicization of the response to corona-virus, but those lines can be seen emerging with Trump "let's go back to work" attitude and with his opposition. — ssu

Krugman is a fool. I mean that sincerely. And he got his Nobel prize (which isn't actually a Nobel prize) for some technical work, not for insight into public monetary policy.

Trump's not foolishly saying let's get back to work. After hoping publicly that we could lift the restrictions by April 12, now he says end of April. He's a pragmatist. He says stuff, gets new information, changes course.

I've heard it said that Trump's supporters take him seriously but not literally; and his detractors take him literally but not seriously. This is an example of that. What on earth is wrong with hoping this thing will be over soon? I was at the store the other day and they couldn't bag my groceries because they're not allowed to touch the paper bag I brought in (paper bags are outlawed where I live). I sighed, "I sure hope this is over soon!" and someone else said, "We all feel that way!"

So having some enthusiasm and hope for a better future is regarded as a sin? This is what's wrong with the left. This is how they think. How dare anyone express optimism and hope. Don't you know there's hysteria on?

And will we have a long economic depression or can it be a shorter sharper depression? Is that easy to predict too? — ssu

I'm one who does think the market was incredibly overvalued and due for a major correction. I take your point that this is "only an opinion" and that no matter what arguments I gave in support of it, many smart people hav eequally strong arguments to the contrary. But we need not be nihilists about ever figuring things out. The Fed tried to unwind its balance sheet at the end of 2018 and the market immediately tanked. Since then they've been accommodative and it was just a matter of time before the thing blew. That does seem obvious to me. You're right, I have no idea whether there will be a recovery. I think a lot of damage is being done to the economy the longer this drags on. Tomorrow's rent day, millions of unemployed people and small business owners won't be paying their rent. This thing could go south. I have no idea.

It's fine to speculate but it's based on little more than op-ed contributors simply trying to churn out articles. — Maw

So when Cuomo was asked by his brother, on tv, whether he's running for president, that was not actual news? They just made it up?

Do you think that Biden's weakness and apparent cognitive issues on display in every one of his public appearances in the past week are just clickbait? That his mind is sound as a dollar? Well actually now that you mention it ... Biden's mind IS about as sound as a dollar.

I mean seriously, you haven't heard anything about speculations about Biden not getting the nomination. You've heard nothing. Is this now the claim of at least two people on this board? Why are you even bothering to talk politics?

I'm serious about this. I consume news from a lot of sources and I see this speculation all over the place. When I tossed off my line about Hillary the other day I had no idea it would trigger anyone. It's commonplace political speculation; as is Biden's weakness as a candidate.

Just give it up man, for the love of God. There's no chance in hell this happens. None. Zero. That some "speculate" about it to rile people up, create buzz, and broaden readership is completely irrelevant to any thinking adult. — Xtrix

You'd be factually wrong about that. Here are the latest betting odds on the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. These odds reflect beliefs that people are willing to wager money on. As of 3/30 they are: Biden 83.4, Cuomo 6.9, Clinton 5.9, Sanders 5.5.

And Biden's continued to stumble badly in every podcast and every tv interview every day for a week now. His unsuitability as a presidential candidate is impossible to ignore. Surely you are not going to deny this.

Was Sandyhook a "false flag"? I could cite Alex Jones and several articles about it. I guess that makes it plausible, in your world, and totally worth entertaining? — Xtrix

That's a bit of a strawman argument, isn't it? How does one relate to the other? When the government tells you the North Vietnamese attacked us at the Gulf of Tonkin, or that Saddam has WMDs, are you one of those people who wave the flag for war without a moment's thought? You never question what you're told? Ever?

I'm curious, do you even read much political commentary? I agree Hillary's not getting much buzz lately but Cuomo's name keeps coming up. Just yesterday he officially denied he's running for president, saying, "This is no time for politics." Exactly what a politician would say, don't you agree?

Are you completely unaware of all of this that I'm talking about?

I'm not liberal — Xtrix

What's your political orientation? Curious to know.

and I'm not your friend. — Xtrix

You'd be lost without me.

Nor am I "all in" for Biden. I've never liked Biden as a candidate. Will I vote for him over Trump? Of course I will. That decision should take about 3 minutes to make. — Xtrix

That's why they hold elections.

But the hysteria out there frightens me. So WHY has an official national hysteria been planned?
— fishfry

How do you know it has been planned? Of those members here who support Trump, you're one of the interesting one's (actually, I think you're the only interesting one). Please don't tell me you've gone off the deep end. — Echarmion

Thank you for the kind words. You're absolutely right. I meant to write "declared." Why have the media declared a national hysteria? In another post I suggested that it's not out of the question that the response is part of a larger globalist plan. But for me, "not out of the question" is never confused with "I know." I do like to speculate, and to try to put current events into the historical context of powerful people doing nasty things for their own benefit. An economic crash in an election year is always bad for the incumbent, especially one like Trump who brags about the stock market. (When he was running for president he accurately pointed out that the whole thing was a house of cards, but he evidently forgot that).

So it's not out of the question that a nasty flu came around (even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%, rather than the ten-times-worse 1% he announced last week) and the powers that be said, "This is it, tell the country to shut down all commerce, tank Wall Street AND Main Street, and Trump will be thrown out of office). I not only believe that's possible, I regard at as strongly possible. I'd go so far as to say likely.

After all the stock market was totally ready for a big fall. Everyone knows it was a Fed-induced bubble. Now the Fed's blowing yet another, bigger bubble. It's not clear whether it's going to inflate this time though.

But point being that I DO believe certain powerful interests wouldn't mind a huge financial crash this year; and certainly we didn't shut down the economy in 2016 when 80,000 Americans died of the flu (official CDC number).

So with that in the back of my mind, I said the hysteria was planned when in that particular context, declared made more sense. What I mean is, why didn't the media declare a hysteria in 2018? I'd really like a rational answer to that. 80,000 dead is a lot. I never even heard about it till the CDC announced the number in 2019. Why not? I'm curious.

How is that different from 8 years of Obama? — Echarmion

He had his foot on the throat of the economy the entire time. In fact Obama is somewhat correct when he takes clam for Trump's (pre-crash) economy. It was the economy we would have had if Obama had let it happen. Obama did a lot of bad things, this isn't the time to go into all that but his foreign policy was Bush's 3rd and 4th terms and that's exactly what the Obama/Hillary wing would bring back if Biden became president. More wars, and the left won't say a peep if they get a few social justice programs and plenty of social justice rhetoric.

I don't want another 8 years of Obama. And neither, let me point out, did the American people.

I think I partially agree with you here, but I don't think understanding Trump's success really helps much unless you want to emulate Trump. It's a movement borne of disaffection and anger. Hard to turn that into something genuinely positive (not that I think the DNC are a bunch of saints). — Echarmion

The Dems prefer to call the heartland racists and deplorables, rather than come to terms with the neoliberal selling out of that very heartland the past 30 years. You say disaffection and anger. Over what? The Dems will tell you it's anger over minorities and gays. That's bs. The Dems won't come to terms with the consequences of their own economic policies. This is what the 2016 election is about and it's what the 2020 election is about. The Dems hate the country they claim to want to lead. Strong words. I'll stand by them. I've been seriously radicalized watching the Dems in action lately.

That's just capitalism. Give me a single economic policy of "globalism" that's not motivated by the interests of capitalism. — Echarmion

I didn't think I'd have to explain to anyone that our economic system is as far from capitalism as can be. I've seen it described as corporate socialism. Not to pick one example over another but just the other day I ran across a story. Capital One ("What's in YOUR Wallet?) made a horrible bet and lost a billion dollars. If they had to declare the loss their stockholders would be wiped out. Don't worry, though. The government did some financial chicanery to protect them.

CFTC Quietly Bails Out Capital One

Exclusive: Capital One got CFTC waiver after oil price plunge increased swap exposure - sources

So, what has been negotiated so far? — Echarmion

Are you being disingenuous? Trump has reconfigured our trade relationship with China using strong words during his campaign and tariffs now that he's president. If you're unaware of these ongoing developments, President Xi certainly isn't.

And just who are those powerful interests? — Echarmion

Read your Chomsky. Or maybe this is the first time anyone told you that the CIA writes the news you read. What kind of magic fairyland do people think we live in where everything's like it's supposed to be in high school civics, which I hear they don't even bother to try to teach anymore.

Why would either the DNC establishment or the registered voters want to replace the guy they just build up? Has anything dramatic changed about his viability as a candidate? — Echarmion

Gradually changing for the worse by the day over the past several months. A cruel charade. The Dems are in such deep denial it's something to behold.

Right, the market was a huge bubble set to burst. The real drop was triggered by Russia's refusal to cooperate with OPEC, Friday March 6, which sent the price of oil into the basement. Planned event? Lots of money to be made. The price of oil has a huge overall significance in the market, and coinciding with corona fears the drop was amplified. Notice the usual rebound now, lots of waves yet to come. Sell high, buy low. Social distancing isn't so bad when you're sitting at home with the same portfolio and lots of cash in the pockets. — Metaphysician Undercover

People have been predicting the burst of this 2008 Fed-induced bubble since 2008! The virus was a convenient excuse. If it had collapsed of its own weight, which it was about to do any day now regardless of the virus, then the bankers and the Fed would have been blamed. Now the virus is blamed ... and they did yet another identical money-printing bailout of the bankers only this time much larger. And out of thr $2.2T they graciously threw in $360B for the proles. That's 300 million people times $1200 each, that's my rough estimate. The actual number's probably a lot smaller. What a swindle and what a scandal. They're blowing an even bigger bubble leading to an even worse crash down the road.

The problem might be foreign elements in the US markets. With the globalized economy, the factors with the greatest power to influence the markets have moved outside the country. Despite laws against inside trading, conspiracy, etc., much remains an honour system. If you cheat the market, you might get caught, therefore don't cheat the market. Foreigners might play by different rules, if I cheat the market, no one has the power to punish me. It would be a big problem if the US government was channelling huge amounts of money into bailouts, and that money was being siphoned off by foreigners who cheat the market. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Davos crowd. George Soros blowing up the economy to screw Trump. The Illuminati. Who the hell knows. But the DOW was definitely ripe for a sharp drop. A lot of smart people were selling in January, you didn't have to be a Senator to see this coming one way or the other.

Oops, meant to type "Hillary" ;) — VagabondSpectre

She is a bit reptilian, don't you think?

No he sucks — Maw

Ok. So do you think it's reasonable to speculate that the Dems might try to replace him? And that if that were to happen, that She Who Must Not Be Indicted is one of the names that would naturally come up? Or is Michael Goodwin simply trafficking in idle speculation with no basis in reality, in addition to lazily writing about it twice?

↪fishfry Fuck it, why not?

#Reptile2020 — VagabondSpectre

??? LOL