Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)I

infinite_ass

@ infinite_ass @leminal.space

Posts
13
Comments
176
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • What's With the Wesley Hate?

    Jump

  • I can smell him right through the screen. What's it from?

  • Just asking questions, bro

    Jump

  • To be fair, every horrible political movement starts with a bunch of angry people taking extreme measures against all those bad people.

  • What's With the Wesley Hate?

    Jump

  • It's the perky brilliant kid mascot trope. It is a tired and fucked-out trope since about 1971. That's why the hate.

  • Anon tries watching nu-Trek

    Jump

  • They both had dogshit writing. Deeply bad. Criminally stupid.

  • Is language mostly solipsistic?

    Jump

  • It means yr all sucked up into yr head. Talking to yrself. Playing games you created.

  • Ain't nobody got time for that crap!

    Jump

  • That's how plants do it. For a billion years. Must be the best strategy.

  • This Planet's On Fire (Burn In Hell)

    Jump

  • Every movie has a bad guy and a good guy. Simple stories for simple people.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • This reply makes me feel defensive and outraged.

  • Deleted Locked

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You're the ahole here. Politics has gone to your head.

  • If you could broadcast one song into everyone's mind, with them feeling the same emotions as you, what would it be?

    Jump

  • Disability in Star Trek

    Jump

  • Since when is DNA holy scripture? I'd be optimizing that every day.

  • Disability in Star Trek

    Jump

  • Neuralink

    Jump

  • Words are simple. But if you consider what they refer to, words are complex. See?

  • Neuralink

    Jump

  • Maybe memories are actually really simple. Like the words on a screen. An arrangement of symbols, then a boatload of meaning and interpretation and rationalization. So all you need to do to make memories is to insert a few words. The brain's "memory interpreter" does the rest of the work.

    For example, we insert the words "brother appears". Then, for the "new memory", we reference your memories of your brother. His appearance and the sound of his voice. Then we contrive a narrative explaining why "brother" is at this place and time. Etc. Voila! You now have a memory of your brother standing there saying some stuff.

    So to make a memory, it wouldn't require a grand delicate manipulation of brainstuff. Just a simple thing.

  • Elon Musk Dragged After His Own Chatbot Admits He's A 'Significant Spreader' Of Misinformation

    Jump

  • But he runs a spaceship company. How many of those have we got?

  • How do you tell whether I experienced it or only read about it?

    Jump

  • Most of the information isn't filtered that way, for various reasons. Maybe we could but we generally don't.

    We could make information that's easier to filter. For example, tags telling us how many steps-removed from the original source.

  • How do you tell whether I experienced it or only read about it?

    Jump

  • Yeah, solipsism.

    Consider that when you read, there are 2 sources of information, the arrangement of the words and the meaning of the words. The arrangement comes from the screen the meaning comes from you. Which is the bigger hunk of information?

  • How do you tell whether I experienced it or only read about it?

    Jump

  • That much is obvious.

    I'd say that the important things are

    1. That we swallow knowledge gained this way pretty much automatically. Like the default is to believe it or react to it, with very little filtering.
    2. That it lacks indicators that might help us filter it. First-hand knowledge and tenth-hand knowledge look exactly the same.

  • How do you tell whether I experienced it or only read about it?

    Jump

  • Of course not. Why?