The internet is hierarchical in its hardware design - https://www.hierarchystructure.com/internets-hierarchical-structure/ — apokrisis

That article uses the word hierarchical incorrectly and fails to back up its incorrect assertion; in fact, it perfectly well describes the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet as implemented via the TCP/IP protocol suite. TCP/IP is a pure software specification and does not specify any particular hardware implementation. I did mention the Backbone network in order to get ahead of this particular objection regarding the engineering aspects of the Internet, as opposed to its essential nature as a pure peer-to-peer network. I distinguish the essential and original design of the Internet from its current implementation, which does have hierarchical features: namely the DNS system and the Backbone networks.

It is hard to think of any complex human-made system – from brick buildings to software systems, societies, and institutions – that does not have a hierarchical structure — JerseyFlight

Isn't the global Internet a perfectly obvious counterexample?

Of course the Domain Name System (DNS) is hierarchical, but the Internet would work fine without it, if less conveniently. The Backbone system is an engineering hierarchy that makes the system more efficient, but again it's not necessary to the functioning of the Internet. The Internet itself is peer-to-peer and even its basic design and protocols are public and developed through collaborative technical proposals called RFCs, with no central authority. There is no central authority on the Internet.

But please feel free to speculate — philosopher004

You can never rationally argue a counterfactual. Absent Hitler, Stalin arguably takes over Europe and in the end 100 million die instead of the actual 50 million in WWII.

Besides, suppose you have a baby and I kill it, explaining that it's destined to become a bad person. What kind of insanity would that be? Wouldn't it make more sense, if you could affect the past, to act as minimally as you could? Get Hitler admitted to art school, mission accomplished, no bloodshed. Or get the Allied powers to adopt less punitive measures at the Treaty of Versailles. That would actually make some historical sense. You can't just go killing people's babies. Where would it stop? Some of the Antifa types would gladly kill your baby if you wear the wrong colored hat, and they'd feel very self-righteous about it.

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas? — DingoJones

Just an impression I have. Nothing in particular that I remember, although I usually find something when I watch one of his videos.

I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, — rickyk95

I didn't read the rest, but I have a definite opinion that I wanted to toss out. Of all the so-called "public intellectuals" out there, Sam Harris is in my opinion the absolute dumbest of the lot. He's just a stupid man that is (1) educated; and (a) articulate to the max. And he has such a calm, soothing delivery. His ideas are just dumb. But he's stylish, I enjoy watching him talk

Differing conclusions (or interpretations) are worthy of probitive discussion but not incommensurable premises (i.e. "facts"). — 180 Proof

If you ever want to exchange views I'd enjoy that. I know you're sincere. I think you're a victim of a terrible ideology that's sweeping the country. You have no idea of the struggles that have gone before.

But one thing. You have not given me the courtesy of telling me exactly what it is I said that bothered you. Tell me exactly what I said so that at least I know what you're talking about.

And on what evidence do you decide I have certain ethnic characteristics; decide that I'm the enemy on that basis; and declare that even speaking to me is unthinkable? Where did this insanity come from? You can't run a society that way. You hate me and you haven't a single shred of evidence as to who I am and what I am and where I've been. The fact that you "feeeeel" angry at me is enough for you to point the finger and cast me out of the world.

Your teachers and your society have failed you to have allowed you to believe this poison. It's on them, not you. You yourself are a perfectly decent person, one who should study a little history. I hope that you're young and that in your journey through life, you will come to some compassion and understanding. If you're old, there's no hope. Either way ... you've been led astray. You have toxic ideas.

Point and shame. If you get enough people to think and act the same way you can terrorize an entire country. For the record, I stand opposed. I stand for free speech, free expression, and free exchange of ideas, especially with those with whom you disagree.

Maybe because the point was already made rather clearly in this thread. — Benkei

I wasn't reading the entire thread and I'm afraid I don't recall the referent for this remark. I'm pretty sure I've said my piece here. One individual (@180 Proof I'm discussing you so as a courtesy I'm tagging you so you'll see this. I'm not soliciting a reply or meaning to address you. Just think it would be rude to refer to you without letting you know) believes that not only are my ideas wrong, but that I don't even have the right to express them by virtue of personal characteristics of mine that the individual hasn't even bothered to inquire about and can't possibly know! Whether this kind of thinking will peak, crest, and fade away; or whether the US is headed for a re-run of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, I can't say.

I do know that these political discussions sometimes turn into struggle sessions. Here's a photo of me after I shot off my two cents about Kamala.

Agree to disagree, or not; there's surely no benefit on my end — 180 Proof

I'm disappointed that you prefer not to dialog at all with people you disagree with. A lot of that going around these days. All the best.

Yep, Read it then. And apparently the methodology was good. and yes, somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th. And yes, being a member of a tribe according to some tribes is political rather than blood. But what, exactly, did she claim? That family lore had her as part Indian, and that she was part Indian. The lore was wrong, but that's how it is with lore, but the testimony of her DNA supported her claim. And where does that leave us? With this question: what is your problem? — tim wood

As with my remarks about Kamala Harris, my comments on Liz are political and not personal. Whatever you may think is the truth of the matter, as if such a thing exists ... after all we're all quarks from the Big Bang, all in the same quark tribe ... but there is no question that she was hurt badly POLITICALLY. Enough to peel off just enough support to keep her from going all the way in the primaries. She'd be a hell of a lot better candidate than Biden. I don't agree with Liz on much but I totally admire her brilliance and force of will.

That is why I linked a New York Times article whose main theme was the political damage she had done to herself with the DNA test.

I am just surprised you'd bring this up. The talking points are well known and thoroughly litigated in the media and online; and at this point even if it turned out that she was a full-blooded Native-American after all -- IT WOULD NOT MATTER. She had "phony" attached to her persona in a portion of the public's mind.

I can distinguish between political analysis and one's personal feelings. Not everyone does, especially these days. Why do you ask what is my problem? You are taking something personally, and I'm willing to listen to what you think that might be. Because even the NYT admits that the DNA stunt backfired and hurt her badly. Surely you do not dispute this, regardless of your feelings for her policies.

Why do you accuse me of personal ... what ... malevolence? wrongthink? whatever ... when from where I sit, I am typing in my opinions about the state of politics.Which might be different than yours.

And if you recall there was a greater point on the table (still is) so you are taking my remarks about Ms. Warren totally out of context.

"Two weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren released the results of a genetic test showing she has a small but detectable amount of Native American DNA. The report concluded there is “strong evidence” she had a Native American ancestor approximately six to 10 generations ago. But many have misconstrued the results — including President Donald Trump, who wrongly claimed Warren “doesn’t have any Indian blood.” — tim wood

I'm sure if you read into the details of your (unreferenced) article you would know that first, there are insufficient samples for scientists to have a specific marker for Native American blood. She might have something like 1/1024 south or central American indigenous blood: about as much as the average white person walking around. Your post is disingenuous in the extreme based on the factual content of that incident. And more to the point, actual Native American tribes were furious with her. It turns out that DNA tests are politically incorrect in the Native American community. Who knew! We all (except for you) learned that from the extensive reporting around her bungled DNA test.

Are you claiming to not have read these facts at the time?

Come on, man. This was beneath you. Do your homework. That test was a major political embarrassment for her. And it wasn't two weeks ago, it was in 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020.html

Turing devised a system to analyze behavior that in my opinion self-affirms a negative existential. In terms of behavior a computer, according to Turing, was always in the mode towards a human being of imitation. There's even a movie about this, called, The Imitation Game. But, computerized behavior is neither a game or one derived from deeper analysis as if standing in front of a mirror and getting a deeper resolution picture at your features, in my opinion. — Shawn

The phrase "imitation game" is from Turing himself, in his 1950 paper.

The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

What leaps out (to me, anyway) is that a closeted gay man in 1950's England is interested in how well a third party can determine someone's gender. After all his entire life was premised on being able to pass as heterosexual in an intolerant society.

Secondly, for Turing the essence of AI is the ability to deceive. But we know that some humans are better at deception than others; con artists, sociopaths, and successful poker players.

Perhaps in retrospect we can say that the Turing test tells us as much about Turing's own psychology (and psychological response to the social attitudes of his time) as it does about whether machines can think. Perhaps we need a new standard. What if there were a true general AI that was honest to a fault? "Are you human?" "No, I'm a program running on a supercomputer, thanks for asking." End of game.

And, so, I have thought about this deeply, and think that imitation isn't all that Turing machines would only be able to accomplish. Thinking a little deeper, if a Generalized-Artificial-Intelligence computer can define behavior of a human being outwardly, then doesn't that de facto prove that it would have to have its own sentient behavior towards this human being gazing into their own picture without any surroundings? — Shawn

Not in my opinion. The weak point in the Turing test is the human questioner! The first chatbot, Eliza, was written by computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum to show that machines CAN'T think; that simple chatbot logic can emulate human conversation. You'd say, "I hate my mother," and it would respond, "Tell me more about your mother."

Weizenbaum was shocked to find that many of the people he showed the program to told it their deepest secrets and believed they were speaking to a psychologist.

ELIZA's creator, Weizenbaum regarded the program as a method to show the superficiality of communication between man and machine, but was surprised by the number of individuals who attributed human-like feelings to the computer program, including Weizenbaum’s secretary.

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

The question is whether ANY behavioral standard can be regarded as evidence of sentience. Philosophers have invented the concept of a philosophical zombie: a lifelike robot with perfect human behavior and no inner life at all.

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

We see this in contemporary society. People are all too willing to believe that computers can think, that true AI is just around the corner, that "computers will soon be smarter than us." It's just hype. We don't even know what consciousness is. How do you know your next door neighbor is conscious? "Hi fishfry, nice day." "Hi Fred, sure is." "See you later." "You too." I think to myself: "What a sentient fellow. He surely must possess what Searle would call intentionality." But of course I know no such thing. He looks human so I assume he's conscious on no evidence at all. Computer scientist and blogger Scott Aaronson calls this "meat chauvinism." He agrees with Turing, that machines might someday think. I disagree.

I feel helpless to help that person. — Metaphysician Undercover

Metaphysician heal thyself!! lol

Any ideas, Monsieur? — TheMadFool

No, was just acknowledging that life, whatever it is, may well be prerequisite to consciousness.

It has something to do with the ability to form memories. — Wayfarer

An elevator forms memories. I fail to grasp your point.

Res ipsa loquitur (or, more your speed, "it is what it is" re: your remarks). You doth protest too much - with ahistorical and banal rhetoric of privilege - methinks. — 180 Proof

You think people's free speech rights are determined by the color of their skin. You're an actual racist.

That said, we're talking politics. Harris polls very badly with actual African-Americans. She flopped miserably in the primaries.

I'm disappointed you chose not to engage with anything I said. You claimed that self-identification is all that matters when it comes to race. I gave you the examples of Rachel Dolezal and Liz Warren and asked your opinion. Your silence speaks for you.

Hah. Wasn’t expecting that comeback! :rofl: — apokrisis

I appreciated the correction.

Have you ever checked out Howard Pattee on the “epistemic cut”? He makes the best hard-nosed physicist’s case for the difference between life as a process vs machines. — apokrisis

I will definitely check that out. I could use some more clarity on the subject.

Another theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen, used category theory to say something similar in a mathematically abstract way. — apokrisis

(Must ... not ... take ... bait ...)

Both provide the rigorous basics of what I’m arguing, — apokrisis

I'm afraid I have not been following your argument, nor as far as I know have I taken any stand on it. I am grateful for the reference to life versus machines.

What is it that made the meat alive before it ever got bagged and put on display at the supermarket? — apokrisis

You are absolutely correct. As I was writing my post I was actually thinking of having to talk about life. I think that's Searle's point though I'm no scholar. Something about life-animated meat that does the trick when it comes to implementing consciousness.

I completely agree with you, it was just a composition error that I forgot to mention it. We have to figure out why some piles of atoms become life. And if life, whatever it is, is prerequisite to consciousness.

I do not deny that words can lead to logical mazes, but reality is not merely a word. — JerseyFlight

I take your point about the cyanide; and if you say reality is not merely a word, then we are in agreement.

If you can establish the existence of this thing I will agree to it as a negative criteria. — JerseyFlight

If there's no absolute truth, that also is an opinion and not a fact. I'm not up on this dialectic stuff, can you toss me a lifeline here? Tell me exactly what claim you are making. It seemed to me that you are making a claim about how the world is; and I believe that any such statement is necessarily an opinion and not a fact.

That being is more than a dead image or fragmentation of time, is not an opinion. — JerseyFlight

I don't know enough Hegel or Marx to discuss dialectic. I do know that dialectic is a historically contingent idea of humans; and that therefore it can't be true in any absolute sense. That's what I meant by your statement being an opinion. You said: "Further, "intuition" is not what lies beyond logic, being, comprehended through dialectics, is what lies beyond logic." That is an opinion, not a fact.

Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight

This seems like a logic trick. If two things are the same, they're only one thing. If they're two things they're not the same. In fact it is not possible to give an example of two things that are not the same.

This is the heart of my ongoing argument with @Metaphysician Undercover. He thinks 2 + 2 and 4 are two things. I say they are two representations of one thing.

Further, "intuition" is not what lies beyond logic, being, comprehended through dialectics, is what lies beyond logic. — JerseyFlight

Marxist? Hegelian? Bravo. But you made a claim far in excess of available evidence. You wrote down an opinion, not a fact.

You believe Trump is for peace? — creativesoul

Yes most definitely. He has not started any new wars. The Dems are chomping at the bit for more wars. The selection of Biden is a huge win for the war party. Don't you remember the 2016 GOP debates when Trump knocked Jeb! out of the contest by attacking him for his brother W's war? Trump has always been for peace and against the bipartisan War party. What can I do to wake liberals up to that? Hillary was a bloodthirsty warmonger. On Obama's watch we destroyed Libya, Syrian, and Yemen. The neoliberal Democrats are ascendent in the party. Only Trump stand for peace. If the fools on the left manage to elect Biden, you will see.

Are you claiming to be completely unaware of Biden's fifty year record of passionate warmongering? Serious question. Do you know his record? Biden voted for the Iraq war and promoted it with passion. He has been for every war since he's been in Washington. Don't you even know this? Trump is the only one out there for peace.

↪fishfry I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade: — 180 Proof

Thank you for such a heartfelt and, may I say, provocative post. For what it's worth, questions of Ms. Harris's race are all over the media, both right and left. I'm not the only one who has questions and comments about her ethnic identity as it pertains to politics.

I don't care how she personally identifies or what her race is. But as a political player competing for high office and great power; everything about her is in play, including her race. She was chosen for her race. So I must stand my ground on at least one point: That I have every right, as a political observer, to discuss her race in the context of politics.

If I implied that I had any interest in her race of a non-political, or personal nature, that was surely not my intention and if I did that it would have been a case of poor writing on my part to fail to make that clear. I'm talking politics; and when it comes to politics, everything is in play.

↪fishfry I am black — 180 Proof

You represent modern sensibilities. You think your ethnic identity informs or amplifies or contextualizes the words you say. I'm from an older generation. I'm with Dr. King. I dream of the day when we are judged on the content of our character; and not the color of our skin. For that matter I'm with Michael Jackson: "It don't matter if you're black or white."

So I do understand that when you say you're black, it's important to you for rhetorical purposes. But for me, the meaning and power of your writing is in the writing; and not in the "meat pack" as some white rapper used to say.

↪fishfry I am black — 180 Proof

- and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black,
[/quote]

You act like you speak for all black people. But you can only speak for yourself. I could link African-Americans saying this past week that Harris has not lived an authentic African-American life. Black opinion is not monolithic, despite what Joe Biden thinks. There is some evidence that your certainty of what black people think is inaccurate. Harris did very poorly in the Democratic primaries and polled very badly among blacks. I'm not saying they didn't think she was black ... but whatever they thought about her race, they didn't think much about her as a candidate.

especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. — 180 Proof

Oh my gosh are you going to make me bring up the spectacular case of Rachel Dolezal? An emotionally disturbed young woman who frizzed her hair and claimed she was black? She was even president her her local chapter of the NAACP, until news of her complete absence of African-American ancestry was revealed and she was forced to resign. Is she black because she says she is? Am I?

How about Liz Warren? Claimed to be Native-American, did use that lie for professional advantage even though she says she didn't. When the issue finally blew up after her fiasco of a DNA test, the actual Native-American leaders blasted her six ways from Sunday.

Self-identification is not much of a standard in my opinion. Is that all she's got? Indian mom, Jamaican dad (going back generations, no African ancestors in sight, and ownership of a slave plantation to boot), Jewish husband. So she fits a checkmark for black on the Dem ticket? You really think the African-American voters will buy it? We shall see. Myself I think it's a cynical play by the Dems. That is a point of politics. Her "actual" race doesn't matter. Some experts think there's no such thing as race. The politics of her race are what matters; and that is a legitimate subject of discussion.

Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. — 180 Proof

Bullshit. I have freedom of speech and the Constitution does not say I can't make political observations of a racial nature. I am NOT making a personal judgment about Harris's race, I don't care about her race on a personal basis. Politically, I think it's quite cynical of the Dems to slot in someone like Kamala for an ethnic slot. I think deep down you know exactly what I'm saying.

That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade: — 180 Proof

I'm so not a racist that remark didn't even push my buttons. It's silly. That the best you can do?

By the way can you just tell me exactly what it was that I said that led you to this? You didn't quote any of my text and I don't remember writing anything about Harris that isn't already well-known by people who've followed her career.

Oh tell me, i never heard of him. What would you suggest to me? — Koen

Oh gosh. Hard to even know where to start. Everything! Movies based on his work include Blade Runner, Minority Report, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, and others. He was a pulp SciFi writer in the 1950s. His themes were about questioning one's very reality.

My favorite of his novels is A Scanner Darkly. But the rest of them are all good too. A good short story to start with is The Electric Ant. It's about a guy who has an accident one day and discovers that he's a bot. Then he begins to tinker with his own programming ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick

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

It's the Dems and the left who went insane.
— fishfry

In what way? — Michael

Even if you don't agree with the points I might make in response; I'm sure that if you follow politics you can at least imagine the points that might be made. Consider them made. I haven't got time over the next few days to respond to the comments I'd elicit from a more detailed response; otherwise I'd just let 'er rip. But really, it's a very long story. The day Teddy killed a girl and the Dems and liberals rallied behind him, that was the first time my leftist faith was shaken. It's been a long journey. But just two nights ago Colin Powell spoke at the DNC. Colin Powell who lied to the UN to assist Bush and the New York Times in lying the country into a ruinous war. You see the Dems are all in for the wars now. From Hillary's historic vote for the Iraq war, to Colin Powell speaking at the Democrat convention, is a straight line of descent into madness.

Maybe thru evolution we will, someday, build newer computers using only our intuition — Gregory

Ooh! I like that. Go beyond logic, find ways of using our intuition, our non-computational facilities, to do things. The science of the future. We've reached the limits of reason. Reason is failing all around us. We need a new way of controlled and productive unreason.

Do you think it is true that consciousness can arise from Generalized or non-Generalized Artificial Intelligence? — Shawn

It is clear that consciousness can arise (some like to say emerge) from piles of atoms; specifically, in living creatures made of meat. It may be that consciousness can ONLY arise in bags of meat, but it's more likely that it could arise in some other kind of substrate as well.

I do believe that.

I do NOT believe that the nature of such a substrate could possibly be computational. Despite popular gee-whizzing, AI programs are conventional computer programs running on conventional hardware. It is true that the sophisticated multi-layered learning networks of today are very clever ways of organizing a computation; but as they are implemented on conventional hardware, it follows that these are ultimately conventional programs; and limited by the built-in limits to computation, which were discovered by Turing.

Penrose for example thinks that consciousness is not computable, Searle also, though he doesn't phrase it like that.

Here is something I know for sure. Even if some future AI does somehow become conscious or self-aware; it will NOT be by means of the current approach to machine learning. Neural networks don't do anything but pore over data looking for patterns. They tell you everything about what has happened; and nothing about what is happening. That is the fatal flaw of current approaches to AI. Plays a kickass game of chess but do you really want it running your life?

? Maybe you should get your priorities straight and look closer to home. — Benkei

As I took pains to indicate, I vote in California so that there is no danger that my political opinions could have any effect on the presidential race. I thought that might perhaps forestall anyone from jumping in only to say that they hold an opinion different than mine. I see I was mistaken. That said, my priorities are straight. It's the Dems and the left who went insane.

Let me draw a picture on this analogy to what seems to be today's situation. We have many companies that are giving these airplane rides for you to jump. And overtime, to reduce their costs and maximize their market share, they are going into risky areas like choosing target jump spots like jumping over a volcano or over the poles. Data and stats (over multiple decades) are now showing that chances of survival of the person when they finish their jump and land at these places are slim; even if they survive they are hurt. Given this situation, what would you (say as a community) do on this situation? Do nothing? Ban? Something in the middle? — Saurabh Bondarde

I'd let them sign a waiver acknowledging every bad thing that ever happened; absolving the jump company of legal responsibility except in a proven case of their negligence; and then I'd tell them to enjoy their jump.

I would also allow an adult of sound mind to use heroin, cocaine, and meth. I would stiffen the heck out of driving laws to take impaired drivers off the roads, starting with the drunks who are the real drug problem in this country. But when it comes to individuals doing things that don't impact the health or safety of others, I say let adults make their own decisions. Have you seen the statistics on American deaths related to alcohol? Appalling. They tried outlawing beer once. Led to the rise of organized crime. There are no easy answers.

I admit your scenario is a little far out there. Skydiving is statistically pretty safe. If there was some sport where people died 99% of the time, I'd ban it. I'm a small-l libertarian but I have my limits.

I would think that any simulation would also require a plurality. The simulation, and what was being simulated... — creativesoul

Yes, I see that now.

:point: :clap: — Pfhorrest

One finger pointing at the sound of one hand clapping? Is this philosophical charades?

But is she as phony as Trump? — Benkei

That's not my metric. Trump just got a peace deal today. Biden falsely claimed it was his and the Dems are upset. Remember that in 2016 and 2020 it's Trump who is the peace candidate. That's important to me and informs my vote. For what it's worth I live in California so my vote doesn't matter no matter what I do. The Clinton/Obama neoliberal wing of the party loves war. That was and is a great point of departure of my own political sensibilities from that of the Democratic party and even contemporary liberals. Joe Biden has a fifty year track record of supporting every war that came along. And the Dems and liberals have embraced the national security state (as long as it's framing Trump); which they used to instinctively distrust. My views didn't change but the Democrats did.

Pretty obvious that Kamala is Black since the Right is already trying to do birtherism on her — Maw

Hi Maw, I just want to make one point here which is that the GOP so far is missing the mark on their attacks on Kamala. There's so much substantive stuff but Trump's calling her names and GOPs claim she's a leftist and so forth. I wouldn't put much stock in that. I hate Kamala but I am capable of noticing that the GOP attacks are wildly off the mark so far. And calling her names is cheap and low, it's not 2016 anymore and Trump's no longer funny and refreshing.

It's a matter of political fact that Kamala did very poorly with African-Americans during the primaries. Sank like a stone.

I do distinguish between her personal racial identity, which I don't care about; and her political racial identity, which changes depending on her audience. I don't care if you call her black or not. The question is, does she resonate with American blacks? And the answer is no. That's not an opinion, that was demonstrated in the primaries.

A Rasmussen poll came out today. 1/3 of likely black voters say they are LESS likely to vote Dem as a result of Kamala's selection as veep. Guess black folk can spot a phony, what do you think?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/harris-divides-blacks-one-third-diss-pick-now-less-likely-to-vote-for-biden

My mind is the programming, my body is the simulator. — Koen

You program yourself? You might be a character in a Philip K. Dick novel.

Sounds like a great political pick! You couldn't have the Clinton and Obama people unhappy, could you? — ssu

Remember, the DNC would rather lose with the centrists than let the Bernie brigade take over the party. That's their mission. Hence Biden. And now hence Kamala. The GOP are making a mistake trying to call her a leftist. If only! Friend of the little guy? Don't get me started on the African-American single mom with two kids and two jobs who Kamala laughed about putting in jail because her kid was truant. Kamala got hammered from the left for that.

But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment.

And Bernie's on board. Don't know if his followers will be, but Bernie himself is meek as a newborn kitten lately. The DNC gave AOC 60 seconds of speaking time. LOL. That's what the DNC thinks of the new radical left.

In another thread someone asked, at what point does a zygote achieve consciousness.

This is the same question at the other end. When we're born, where does our consciousness come from? When we die, where does it go.

If one wants to use the word soul instead of consciousness, I would not object. It's the part of us that nobody knows how to explain in physical terms; and it's the part that animates our lives. The humans who built empires, or made scientific breakthroughs, or did anything at all significant, were driven by their minds ... something inside of them wanted to do all that. That's true for every human. Most of the time what we do is a function of what we want. And even though we can make robots Do; we have no idea what it would even mean to make them Want.

The first thing I would ask if I were the human interlocutor in the Turing test is: "What do you want?"

A computer would be unable to respond except by deliberately lying.

“And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior? — Shawn

Society is filled with an awful lot of high IQ people behaving very badly at every level of society.

Hopefully this thread can go back to its original focus. Sorry for the diversion. :sad: — jgill

We're the main show now.

Fair enough. When I speak of a topic being "beyond me" it's a cop-out for not having the mental energy at my age (83) to study it, or just a complete lack of interest. I appreciate your comment. — jgill

I figured out that you're excessively modest. I misunderstood you and drew false conclusions. You're a teacher and I learned something. Thank you.

Every so often, however, something a bit out of my purview will intrigue me and I will make an effort to understand it. For example, a couple of years ago the notion of a functional integral sparked my interest, having read of Feynman's Sum of All Paths concept. My brief exposure to the concept fifty years ago was shallow and uncompelling. — jgill

That's interesting stuff. I never studied formal physics but I watch a lot of Youtube videos.

That was a delightful exploration, starting with the basic Wikipedia definition, and I wrote a short math note about functional integrals in spaces of complex contours. I enjoy writing math programs, especially graphics, and I came up with some nice imagery. That was fun. — jgill

The modern computer tools like LaTeX and computer graphics are incredible. I wish they had those when I studied math. Especially because my handwriting was bad.

I should not be making dismissive comments about set theory. You, fdrake, Nagase, and a few others have clearly explained ideas in this subject, and it is a powerful link between math and philosophy, and a vital part of the mathematical galaxy. I apologize, and if I slip up in the future you should nail me! — jgill

I have it on good authority that you know a lot more set theory than you're letting on. Perhaps you mean some of the logic stuff, the incompleteness aspects of set theory. As far as my attempting to nail you, I also have it on good authority that you could kick my ass. I saw the videos :-) You dropped some clues, I hope you don't mind. I also found a lovely elementary survey article about infinitesimals in which you mentioned the ultrafilter construction. You are being modest. You know more set theory than most here.

Most of my research efforts have been in classical analysis, very basic dynamical systems in the complex plane, trying to determine convergence/divergence of certain sequences. At one time this was a popular topic, but modern analysis has moved the focus more toward algebraic systems and generalizations. — jgill

Interesting stuff.

But I remain attached to the old-fashioned, nuts and bolts, stuff. For example, my latest efforts concern the iteration of linear fractional transformations (f(z)=(az+b)/(cz+d)) when the attracting fixed points are functions of time and are no longer "fixed". — jgill

I do remember the linear fractional transformations from undergrad complex variables so at least I know what those are.

Like predator and prey, do the iterates "catch up" with the roving attractors? Modern theory dealing with LFTs is more geometrical and algebraic. — jgill

I remember predator/prey from diffEq. Volterra-Lotka equations.

OK. Enough rambling. Thank you for your comments. — jgill

In another life I wanted to be a professor of math. I envy you your obvious focus and discipline.