protonfish

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Axon terminals of neurons release neurotransmitters. We know of dozens of different types, but are not certain that we know about all of them yet. The same synapse can release multiple different neurotransmitters too, with one or more released depending on the axonic signals. And what to these chemicals do? It depends! There are receptors on the post-synaptic cell that respond to neurotransmitters, but there can be multiple different receptors that respond differently to the same neurotransmitter. Again, we aren't sure we know about all of them. The post-synaptic neuron is probably also listening to neurons of other types that signal using different neurotransmitters that it uses to determine if it should transmit an action potential or not. Oh, and invertebrates (like nematodes) send graded potentials (not action potentials like us vertebrates usually do) where the signal strength can vary.

In short - we are a long way from being able to simulate a nervous system. Our knowledge of neuronal biochemistry is not there yet.

The paper is specifically about how space is represented in the human brain. Data representing space can be encoded in many different, but functionally equivalent, ways. Showing how it could be encoded by neurons in the hippocampus is valuable to understand our brain, but philosophically not significant.

If a rigorous definition of consciousness existed, how would you be convinced that it was correct?

That's why it's so great to hear they aren't doing well. The delicious schadenfreude.

I guess it depends on how you define religion. I think that we can have faith in anything - science, your doctor, etc. that could work in a similar fashion to religious faith.

We usually wait until Christmas so we can put a giant novelty bow around it in the driveway.

It's a good way to get the kids hooked.

Precisely - these aren't "Warning signs" that are only clear in hindsight. They are proof of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. If a person or organization has these traits and you continue to trust them, it is not an honest mistake.

Heaviside promoted Maxwell's equations and created clearer, simpler versions of them. So I think it would be a language that uses list processing and functional concepts as a feature of a syntax that is easier for beginners. Something like Python or JavaScript.

How do you give your intranet site an internal domain? Or do you make the family use the IP address?

Can this be measured? Does panpsychism predict a difference in worlds that have this property versus those that don't? I don't think it does, but maybe I'm missing something. If it's impervious to empirical evidence then I don't think it has sufficient rigor to be considered a viable hypothesis.

The problem with panpsychism is not that it is unnecessary or not anthropocentric, but that it is provably false. If everything was conscious then full anesthetic (removal of consciousness with neurotoxic chemicals) wouldn't work.

It does work though, which makes it clear that consciousness is a property produced by a mechanism in the brain.

And this small percentage of popular videos are made by a smaller amount of reputable or disreputable channels. Give me the tools and a few months and I'll clean up the English-speaking toxic content by pruning it at the source. But that won't happen because removing these dangerous, stupid, click-bait farms hurts the business. Fine, whatever. But stop claiming moderation is "impossible" or "too expensive." That is a heinous lie.

I don't see that as the case. Modern JS can do a lot out of the box but the culture looks down on "vanilla" JavaScript. I've seen way too many libraries that are nothing but a thin wrapper around native functionality. When your first (and only) technique is to look for a library, this is where you end up.

Pharmaceutical companies are evil... who knew? The problem is a medical system that rewards bad actors. The systemic problems need to be fixed. And that won't happen so we can continue to pretend that "it's a few bad apples" and nobody else's fault.

But they should have been.

Sorry for the downvote. It was a good question, but I did not want to encourage a link between game theory and objectivism to the casual observer because I seem them as complete opposites. Objectivism is, at best, short-sighted - screwing over the people around you because it is convenient in the moment and becoming indignant when the folks that were mistreated no longer want to be your friend. (At worst it is justification for people that enjoy inflicting cruelty on others.) Game theory can demonstrate how to be truly selfish, it is in our best interest to be kind, thoughtful, and good communicators and to cultivate strong and healthy relationships.

Objectivism is just toxic foolishness.

No, not at all. It's about how it is strategically better for your own goals to work with others.

Exactly! It is a powerful tool that works and conservatives wield it well while the cringing libs are all "But if we use effective techniques doesn't that make us as bad as them?" No, it doesn't - it just them the pathetic failures they are.

Good and wise people don't bring knives to gunfights.

You seem to want us to fight them with one arm behind our back. I, however, don't care whatever it is you think "we" decided. I believe we should fight fascist propaganda with all the the tools we can grab. Lord knows they are. Current authoritarian disinformation campaigns are a massive and immediate threat to all humanity. If you think so too, then stop bringing knives to this gunfight.

"The People" believe whatever information has been promoted the most. To claim that we should do nothing to stop malevolent organizations from radicalizing vulnerable citizens is reckless. To lay the blame on individuals to fight this is victim-blaming. We need to battle this industrialized con artistry with whatever power we have - including police, courts, and laws.

Throwing up our hands because "censorship bad!" is sick and wrong.

A flat head screwdriver was designed to insert and remove screws. But it can also be used to open a paint can! OMG! Is the flat head screwdriver invented or discovered?

Our mathematical system is an invented human language. We know that all symbolic systems with sufficient complexity are equivalent (see Turing machines.) Finding an arbitrary one to be useful and flexible is not evidence of magic.

I don't think the problem is inherent flaws and limitations of our language. In the spirit of "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time" I have seen many examples of, with proper effort and skill, highly complex ideas described in clear and simple language.

When you read incomprehensible gobbledygook, it is because the author is being lazy, at best. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to appear as if making a complex point, while saying nothing. Verbose and opaque writing can make one appear intelligent and be a shield from criticism. (If you don't understand me, it's because you aren't smart enough, and until you understand you aren't allowed to criticize.)

Remember, the burden is on the author to be clear and understandable. If they can't be bothered to make the effort, you are under no obligation to believe a single word.

I went to school and they didn't teach me anything about critical thinking. Our grades mainly reflected how well we followed orders.

So maybe we should make everyone take a course on critical thinking. OK, what course is that? Everyone I've ever seen is garbage. Which shouldn't be surprising coming from a population that discourages critical thinking.

> ...brilliant and also deeply flawed people

We are all deeply flawed. In my experience, being unashamed of our flaws is a side-effect of honestly and humility. Being unable to spot another's flaws is most often the result of duplicity on their part. Sure, there are some pretty decent folks out there (Fred rogers comes to mind) but nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans.

It's good to admire flawed people, because they are real.

A great point. I would argue that the "quality" of information in this context is a measure of what people want to hear, and has little to do with the accuracy or usefulness of the information. Using that definition, the overwhelming prevalence of misinformation appears to be exactly as predicted.

I've used Notepad++ and Sublime Text and like them a lot, but I could really use something that can run on a Raspberry Pi too. I guess I should have included that. Being able to use a single text editor across platforms would be terrific.

I prefer Atom.io over VSCode for simplicity. It's much closer to working the way I want out-of-the-box. There's so much junk I have to disable in VSCode to get it where I like.

Sorry, I guess I didn't know I had to include "and without a completely unnecessary non-standard interface that requires a massive learning curve to get started." as a feature.

Why is everything an IDE? I don't want an integrated development environment - I want a modular one. And as one of those modules, I would love a simple, lightweight code editor. UTF-8 only, auto-indent, a file list column, a good find-in-page feature, and file type dependent syntax highlighting and multi-line comment key. That's all I need. It seems I am always stuck between bloated IDEs (or bloated text editors like VSCode and Atom) or painfully low-featured ones like notepad or nano.

That would only be true if there were reasonable safeguards that could be suggested. But I don't see any - just the sowing of fear.