sage92's comments

You’ve stated this so matter of factly that I imagine you have knowledge that somehow has alluded most people.

You mention gradients, which implies you can measure the delta/change of conscious, which implies you have a solid working definition, AND a static still point that does not change which this “consciousness” gradually changes.

From my perspective, which is first person pov, if I can detect changes in my “consciousness”, then where am I looking from to _notice_ this change? Is consciousness not the requirement of change detection?

Safe to say you tend to lean towards your second presentation of consciousness.

I tend to lean towards the idea that conscious is akin to a field in the sense of an electron field - that what we can measure are simply “excitations” of a more subtle field. Not a perfect metaphor, but it’s the closest thing to what matches my meditative experiences. IMO, it’s illogical for me to let another subjective being define what my substrate is, so I primarily rely on meditation and then supplement with objective observations.

All in all it really depends on what you define as consciousness. The issue that I have with most “objective” interpretations of consciousness is that we can only measure the excitations of this mysterious “life” thing is. If there is more to us than can be measured, e.g, that there are first person experiences that can be felt subjectively but not measured objectively, then any objective measure of consciousness will likely be limited. Consciousness seems from my pov to be the Achilles heal of the axiomatic assumptions of our scientific paradigm (at least in the west)

In response to your question, it depends on your definition of consciousness. Is neural activity the source of consciousness, or is neural activity the result of consciousness? How can we know for sure which?

Begs the question: by what metric are you using to track the change/staticity?

I don’t see how one can concretely come to the conclusion of whether it changes or stays the same, when the presence of consciousness itself is a prerequisite of making that very claim

Would you really call that a side effect? Nocebo is more akin to the opposite effect. We wouldn't say negative is a side effect of positive

The human body is driven by a small percentage of the overall genome. It remains to be seen if that small percentage really doesn’t play a part… we tend to remember those who scored the goal, but often forget about what it took for the scorer to have a shot in the first place…

They mention "tuning millions of expert adapters", not 100k

```

total_plastic = 8.3e9 # total plastic in tons degradation_rate = 0.05 # degradation rate per day in percentage

# Calculation of daily degradation in tons daily_degradation = total_plastic * degradation_rate / 100

# Estimation of time taken to degrade all plastic in days total_days = total_plastic / daily_degradation

# Conversion of total days to years total_years = total_days / 365

# Print the result print(f"It would take approximately {total_years:.2f} years to degrade all the plastic.")

```

It would take approximately 5.48 years to degrade all the plastic.

If you use BitWarden paid version ($10/yr) then after an autofill of username/password, the totp is automatically added to the clipboard.

The premise that needs to be scrutinized is whether what we are deeming a “disability” is actually that. Thinking in systems, a component’s calibration (whether it is able or not) to a system can change due to the system as a whole changing (political, economic, cultural pressure).

One example is how the change from hunter/gatherer to agricultural lifestyles may have rendered the strengths of the hunter’s brain a weakness in an agricultural society.

I don't have a definite conclusion on anything, but I remember having this discussion with a friend a long time ago, and it made me think... What he was trying to convince me was that all of those things you mention can be seen as subclasses of other natural things:

Digital simulations are self-explanatory - All things simulated must have an existing thing they are simulating. Digital is one type of representation of an already existing thing. It can be seen as a subclass of concept/drawing/painting/.

Branching timelines are more abstract, but it's ultimately based on the idea of a tree. Dilemmas over branching decisions have existed as long as we have been able to think. We branch timelines in our imaginations while playing chess or doing any strategic endeavor where decisions and responses to those decisions matter. FFT: Decision tree, binary tree, random forests, etc. These don't quite cover the complexity of QM, but it's hard to ignore that there is overlap.

A nuke is a type of bomb, which is a type of rapid expansion, which is just an expansion of something (volcano, lightning, comets, etc...)

My friend's point was that of course a caveman won't be thinking about quantum mechanics, but they were thinking about the more basic things that ultimately led to their descendants thinking about QM.

Just food for thought.

Yes, it's a projection of fantasies, however your conclusion in unnecessarily pessimistic. It could be that these fantasies come from mass media.

When we know nothing about a topic (UNKNOWN), anything stated about it in the positive seems plausible -> Art creators play with the UNKNOWN (supernatural, aliens, <insert any person/place/thing that we know little-to-nothing about>) to add plausibility -> The content of that medium becomes the first contact with the UNKNOWN for many people -> When the UNKNOWN becomes known then people still have the ideas that were propagated -> We get to your comment.

It's not necessarily that people have a world domination complex.

This is the only library I that both can use out of the box and extend to my needs.

I suspect it may be biological. As social-creatures, I don't think we are wired (by default) to ignore people who disagree with us. From my non-expert perspective, not being oblivious to people who disagreed with us on certain things may have served well from an evolutionary perspective.

An ad absurdum case: would you find it easy to ignore people who thought drought management laws were a joke and should be ignored? Maybe it depends on where you live.

What about people who disagreed that rape was a bad thing and should be punished?

I know these are extremes, but I think it's reasonable to say that there is a spectrum of disagreements we are willing to tolerate. Not to mention that our recent history is filled with some rather deadly disagreements...

Historically, I image those who ignored their brand of Brutus may have received the Darwinian knife to the back.

> If someone wants to pontificate below that answer that maybe I wanted the extension, that's cool, but first answer the question or don't bother participating

Thanks for this. As someone who also hates undergrad with a burning passion (taking classes that seem irrelevant) you helped frame this in a way I can appreciate and reconsider.

Well why not address the elephant in the room. He's not going about his message subtlety:

"You used the word Being. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Being is the eternal, ever-present One Life beyond the myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own deepest self, your true nature. But don't seek to grasp it with your mind. Don't try to understand it. You can know it only when the mind is still. When you are present, when your attention is fully and intensely in the Now, Being can be felt, but it can never be understood mentally. To regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of “feeling- realization” is enlightenment." Ch. 1 The Greatest Obstacle to Enlightenment

There it is. That's what he considers to be God. Mind you, those are just the words he chose. He mentions that words are merely signposts. Think of pointers in programming languages.

"If you are unable to look beyond such interpretations and so cannot recognize the reality to which the word points, then don't use it. Don't get stuck on the level of words. A word is no more than a means to an end. It's an abstraction. Not unlike a signpost, it points beyond itself. The word honey isn't honey. You can study and talk about honey for as long as you like, but you won't really know it until you taste it. After you have tasted it, the word becomes less important to you. You won't be attached to it anymore. Similarly, you can talk or think about God continuously for the rest of your life, but does that mean you know or have even glimpsed the reality to which the word points? It really is no more than an obsessive attachment to a signpost, a mental idol." Ch 6 Look beyond the Words

They modified the demand.

On Tuesday, Lapsus$ modified its demand. Now, the group also wants Nvidia to commit to making its GPU drivers completely open source. If Nvidia does not comply, Lapsus$ says, the company can expect to see a new leak that would include the complete silicon, graphics, and computer chipset files for all its recent GPUs:

So, NVIDIA, the choice is yours! Either:

–Officially make current and all future drivers for all cards open source, while keeping the Verilog and chipset trade secrets... well, secret

OR

–Not make the drivers open source, making us release the entire silicon chip files so that everyone not only knows your driver's secrets, but also your most closely-guarded trade secrets for graphics and computer chipsets too!

YOU HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY, YOU DECIDE!