DrierCycle

In 1990 I built an SE/30 from spare parts, used an 800K fujitsu rather than a 1.2 superdrive, an Ehman grayscale page-sized monitor (remember those) all in an AT tower using a PC power supply, wired to the logic board using the Addison-Wesley wiring diagrams; I could never cover it because the Ehman card exceeded the tower dimensions, and it powered up the moment I pressed the AT's switch.

When I brought in a polaroid of the unit to that early TekServe spot on 18th street, David made a sign around it and wrote, "Why pay full price? SE/30s can be made for $1500 all-in!"

Keep in mind, interoception decreases using words. Same with AI.

Citizens are individuals. We should not underestimate what a majority of citizens can achieve. Particularly in a connected society.

When terror is used to enforce policy, not laws, and its done arbitrarily, under pretexts, the govt is broken, and resistance, which is built into the framework of our development as a nation, is necessitated.

Yes! I saw that and read it but didn't favorite in time. And I'd heard some friends talking about these papers a year ago and we'd brought them up in our lunchtime chats, So when I found the link notes, I posted them.

The first one was flagged, here it is. This post here was a more specific study.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46065113

>>Claiming that that damage makes people maga is quite a different thing.

This is very obviously not what's being discussed. Please read the experiments and the summary conclusions before inventing a fantasy about the scientific method. If you keep making outlandish and false assertions like this, I'll have to ignore the response.

Clearly you have absolutely no idea how these experiments are developed. Everything you're stating is from a folk science POV. These are all controlled. There's a base used to compare the experimental evidence with, and data is used to prove the correlations. We have 40 years of proof of this statement alone: "Substantial evidence indicates that damage to the PFC can modify individuals’ belief systems."

I'd get a degree in science instead of pretending to understand neuroscientific testing.

The $ is mightier than the gun.

My previous flagged entry was a trio of papers detailing this, I'll repost them here, they're quite amazing. We talk about them quite a bit on our team of devs studying the political rhetoric.

Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism Zhong https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5500821/

A neural network for religious fundamentalism derived from patients with brain lesions https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322399121

The neural underpinning of religious beliefs: Evidence from brain lesions https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9583670/

I didn't repost anything form the previous post, I posted work that reflects the overarching view of neuropsychology that precedes that PFC work, which is neuroscience.

Mike Meager is a preeminent neurologist at Grossman/NYU, Jay Van Bavel is high-level academia. They didn't go looking for something to fit it into an argument, they used hard science to test the results.

The previous flagged posts are not "medical problems" it's hard science at Northwestern's brain lab, one of the premiere labs in the country.

This is fundamental, peer-reviewed research about how ideologies are developed. How fundamentalism and extremism as biases against flexible thinking are becoming epidemic now. The research is empirical, and it's built first in a theoretical approach (theory is evidence mapped in deeper hypothesis) and then developed through empirical results.

These are both decades of peer-reviewed approaches culminating in these papers, read the citations, check the academics, they are the highest caliber.

The earlier entry was flagged, yet the science regarding how beliefs can be made extreme with reduced flexibility has a sizable citation list. Let's keep an open mind, folks, our discourse is not expanding these days, it's constricting. We should try to find out how.

As our species looks pretty ill fitted in its niche these days, the zeitgeist is usually about preserving paradoxes at all costs to keep status quo. And that's reflected here pretty strongly. Much of what's come out of SV appeared at one time beneficial, and now it looks like the industry has shifted to dystopian. The zeitgeist that enforces that may be lost.

Movies were made to make a high majority of profits in theaters, a captive audience that had few distractions and optics developed for composite nuances.

Listen to the soft wind mixed in under Jodie's lambs tale. It comes on slowly, builds and then rapidly fades. 100s of details like these were managed for reaching audiences out of their range of conscious awareness. That's how movies used to get made. Now everything is developed to look at, to notice. And if it isn't, it's in a mode of realism that's basic.

And the occipital is developed around extraordinary levels of image separation, broken down into tiny areas of the input, scattered and woven for details of motion, gradient, contrast, etc.

First, what is spatial intelligence? How can it make any sense disembodied, lacking any referential continuity? This is ill-defined mumbo jumbo meant to turn everything into a 3-D video game.

Words can never be a substitute for sentience, they are separate processes.

The failure of interoception begins with language. What's accurate about speech that hides most of what's going on in our senses and emotions and states?

They're saying language isn't an avenue of thought.

no paywall https://archive.ph/yttjq

The overhaul of the Tinbergen/Maturana idea of a blank slate operating on stimuli is not new at all.

Buzsaki and his compatriots have been working on this idea, and found excessive pattern making for decades.

It's a rejection of the cognition model.

Words are simula. They're models, not games, we do not use them as games in conversation.

This was a big torpedo of GWT and IIT back in 2017. And it adds a big ? to Julian Jaynes. Something integrates this without the corpus callosom.

Dissolving agency, intent, authorial subjectivity might be the next stage, and preserving this could be giant steps backwards, particularly as LLM automation.

In other words, aren't we seeing the narratives invading AI problem in stark detail? Who possesses intent in a technology that imposes it is the controller of our memories.

Are there superficial details?

I almost always glean details in masterful metasurveys and monographs buried in the syntax that only emerge later. Learning is as much about the unconscious parallels. There are too many examples of this that LLMs would have zero access to, since it's an agrammatic kind of secret code that makes ideas come to life.

The idea we have any need to summarize based on the thinnest ideas of knowledge building: checklists, bullet-points, generic plain english ideation, says that learning is in collapse in favor of expediency that precedes info collapse.

It's not an "engineering" problem, it's almost always a physics problem. If life is involved it's also an ecological and bio problem.

Space Operas are mythologies disguised as a language creation process.

Just track Star Maker to Star Wars, Lucas unconsciously took the bait and visualized scale invariance using motion control, and what space film first used motion control? 2001.

there's immortality?

Explanations are best self-interpreted. Otherwise, how can eurekas emerge later in the unconscious, wordless states?

Efficiency is the path to cybernetic issues of control and eventually the functional takeover from the processual, ie biology. Imposing function on evolution eventually embeds maladaption that is fatal to the species.

Endocrinology and neuroscience are not post-modern. Dawkins is a 20th century thinker, with limited training, narrowing his conception of gender, that's all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ