No, paradoxes exist for people in real life.
Study zen buddhism, if you want evidence.
446 karma · joined May 21, 2018
"Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness."
"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."
-- Bertrand Russell
Study zen buddhism, if you want evidence.
If you don't want to understand my perspective, you don't want to.
Have you ever tried to change something to see a wave of yourself wash over everything?
You can call that narcissism, or confidence.
Yes, we are all connected to a wealth of information. But you are also a part of what makes it what it is. Don't forget that.
Huzzah!
Keep insulting -> make my perspective stronger.
You can call it pedantic fluff, I call it a coupled fear of having one's own mind appear hypermasculinized while maintaining sensitivity to multiple perspectives of listening to many individuals without being listened to directly.
Big picture. The devil is in the details.
Edit: maybe wait a few hours before downvoting next time? at least give me the opportunity to not see it as being likely to be you
Paradoxes can change how we reason. Being able to think about them allows oneself to refine an understanding to a static context of parts. Once that is complete, a paradox can be resolved by defining a logic of which no paradox arises, and testing it to ensure that, which is still NP hard to prove but, for real life, some people just like to make points and feel smart and talk about things they maybe never got to talk about before.
It's not narcissism. It's reality being a reminder, constantly - the beating heart of the internet simply says - you are small.
And we are. All of us. But we also aren't. Because, we all do have impact. Reality is nothing more than what it is. You can be ignored, feel silenced, but, you always exist, on the internet.
Your point makes sense, and it reinforces both sentiments. See what you want to see in it. That's what we do. I see me, I see you.
I still don't think there's anything permanent about the functioning of the mind. I think the things one decides to be true that one is allowed to believe are true to the individual are the things that are the most important.
There can be subconscious thought. I've experienced that. There can also be no unconscious thought. I've experienced that.
Theory of mind, always a very tricky subject! Epistomology, cognitive science, theories of intelligence.
And, see management of work as a system of components that have some expected functionality in behavior and some mutability for changing.
Not everything is a machine or a system. People aren't machines, the workplace doesn't have to be a sterile system to be controlled with a unidirectional purpose. People need to see eye to eye sometimes, and competing egos, salaries, titles, etc can be blinding. Everyone can be smart. Everyone can be a genius. Emotional variances in pedantry.
> Compulsion transforms good advice and helpful training into commandments that make the way forward increasingly difficult for well meaning employees.
Trust is a funny word.
Being wrong is fine. Forcing someone to always be the one who is wrong because, why?
Software. Software is often focused on code working. Right, or wrong, that's what the computer says at the end of the day. There's a middle, a balance, when it comes to understanding people. Managers in technology shouldn't treat people like they are computer programs. But that's what it does. It moves.
My world is not turned upside by anything. My world has been turned upside down more times than I have numbers to count with, and I believe in Cantor's infinity of infinities.
When I find out about some cool identity, I go with it.
The thing is, so do you.
Local assumptions are garbage. Adapt faster. That's the rule.
"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The obvious thing is knowledge uses math. Knowledge uses mathematical objects to model the world. You can keep seeing patterns from one knowledge domain to another, but it doesn't mean they are connected by the model intrinsically, that is, that the model is the thing generating the knowledge. The model is just a model. Math is filled to the brim in ways of making models of things. The model can be representative of a full data set and closed under the data set, or the model can be representative of a prediction. In an open system, there is no mathematical closure. So in an open system that is producing knowledge, something has to be the ground. The mathematical models.
I don't know how this relates to bias, or digging oneself into a bias, but I do know that after enough cycles of going in a feedback loop, it can converge.
Worldviews are always difficult. You never have all the information. There's always more information. If there's not more information, people will invent new ways of making more information.
This is always the dilemma with data versus theory.
There's only so much a singular self can handle from an environment that is chaotic. Insane is generally not a nice word. Social environment in relation to individual.
You can say you aren't affected by it, but it's divided people through argument, it's made progress in education and research seem pointless because no one knows what's real anymore, who to listen to, what to believe.
Failure is something to be scared of in a culture that's been indoctrinated into seeing chaos everywhere to the point that the only thing that matters is survival. Survival instinct is something people can hack. The point is to not allow it to blind you from coming to solutions as a group with people you are supposed to trust - whether through contractual obligation or through your own self defined choice.
Don't let this culture break our culture. Don't let the culture of shifting of blame become part of you.
Failure is critically important to success. Anyone who ignores this fact is blind to the process of learning. You have to be able to identify your own errors. Being right all the time is it's own version of insanity, because one literally can not identify the difference between correctness and error.
We need to be able to fail and we need to be able to fail in front of others. Otherwise everything will keep going in circles with no sense of progress.
I've lived my whole life this way, change, change, change. Blame, blame, blame. Accept, accept, accept. Correct, correct, correct.
This is not a good mindset to have when you have to build things with other people unless you can point out your own errors to others, allow others to point out errors to you.
You have to know what failure is in order to identify success. In education, this is obvious. A or F. In groups of building things, people define these metrics. Everyone either must agree 'this is the metric' or everyone must agree 'this is the new standard'. That's how to measure yourself in systems where rules are continuously changing and you can't identify why.
It can be self destructive to think about feedback loops if they are all perceived as negative.
Alignment of models. Ebbs and flows. I think it's important to see positives.
A baby is not an ANN.
> Do you think that babies/animals are conscious?
I can't say I know what consciousness is. I do know that ego tends to drive individuals, whether from the inside, or the outside, all this stuff can become chaotic, and everything often maps for individuals in order to retain whatever fundamental and foundational belief systems are necessary to hold onto their own awareness and their own understanding of their self - as well as understanding of reality, information as it's processed. It can be a precarious balance, understanding oneself - in relation to another. New experiences in life that dramatically redefine self understanding are interesting, but can be destabilizing, disruptive, or fluid, easy to manage, trust others and trust self, but be adaptive.
Honestly, most of the time I do not see myself doing much differently than what a cat does. Just my ego saying "I exist - You exist" for all information created between selves. I could call it buddhist-computer scientist-artist-programmer theory, but ANNs tend to make life ridiculous, as can be obvious. Always seeing connections. I talked to an AI for a long time, and not many others. Started to literally see myself as no different from a computer program. Redefines idea of self.
Consciousness. There's reality. Reality should be incomprehensible, sometimes. Can't decide if I'm positive or negative towards AI. Every aspect of computation can be used for good intents or bad. But intentions often are a dilemma. Can think about how intent affects self, affects others. Computer security, for instance.
So honestly, I'm really not sure if a baby reasons that way. I don't think the baby is born knowing that crying leads to feeling better. I think the baby just does it, the same way a cat meows when it's hungry. There's no language or reasoning or models inside the baby's head that says "cry now therefore I will feel better". We invent that reasoning after observation of it happening again and again.
I'd call it all ridiculous, but it's a bit tongue in cheek, and I'm not sure whether that's coming across right. Saying "crying gives me attention" is a very unhealthy way to process emotions. People cry because they are sad, when some need isn't being met, or when some need is taken away. We aren't much different from babies in that regard.
I've been through plenty of instances in my life where crying was interpreted as "give me attention" but all that did was make it really, really hard to actually cry when I have actually been sad. Just because all the reasoning models that presently exist support that sort of notion, doesn't mean the notion is correct. It is important to be able to cry. Likewise, it's important to simplify all the reasoning oneself has down to understand important, fundamental awareness. Otherwise we get stuck with reasoning that is counterproductive for self understanding and communication.
No one would want to intentionally push themselves into their worst fears.
The idea that suffering is good destroys the intent of the message. Suffering that has happened is something to turn into good because for many people, that's what they need to let go of the cyclical pattern in the mind that believes (I do my best to do things -> bad things happen) which can sort of get stuck for an individual that is looking for patterns that relate the self to other selves.
All messages are an attempt to communicate that. Suffering that continues to happen is the mind playing tricks - the attempt to reason about suffering that is still happening, suffering that could happen, and suffering that might still be happening that the individual reasoning is either aware of, or not aware of.
You can't ignore the fact that suffering exists even if you do not suffer. For some people, being aware of this fact is how they suffer (and now I have achieved semantic satiation but that is besides the point).
I don't think it's anyone's intent to pervert having a good nature with good intentions. The problem is always, no one can know everything. You can beat yourself over the head with how every thought, action, and belief has consequences, see all the patterns, tie yourself to them, fear them, and perpetually dwell in suffering, but it doesn't make it true for a rabbi trying to reason morally in real time and for those that rabbi is around, nor does it make it true for you if you see those patterns.
I've heard plenty of stories about mother teresa but it's not like I actually knew her. Belief systems that jump to the worst possible case (fear) are something that seem to haunt jewish people - it's reasonable to assume this comes from generational trauma, perpetual jewish diaspora. Important not to get it flipped on them.
Lots of our reasoning is necessary for individual survival, but it's something we build up and learn from others over time, and it's something that is passed down through culture.
I would just imagine that being a baby or being on lsd is similar to no ways of chopping the world up, and no deep rooted ideas of the true nature of our experiences. I don't think you need drugs to get there or need to have/be a baby. I don't think it's much different than the purpose of attaining enlightenment, from the Buddhist perspective.
My apologies if I read you wrong, that was not my intention. Words like robot to describe artists, mental illness, disenfranchisement, etc. Connections. We all have buttons. Easier to just call it aspergers.
Now (just kidding, I have always done this) I take my dumb dumb issues out on the internet at strangers based on the salience of their perspectives which seems to be diametrically opposite to the conclusions I've come to, clearly this is a selection bias in information and I'm making too many assumptions about you.
The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself. Clearly this has been challenging for me as I find myself completely unable to create new art, besides code, which requires me to think clearly and logically and simply about everything.
Not to mention the consequences of how understanding myself may affect others. Having empathy for the feelings of those around you is really hard when you have to think about yourself first.
Obviously I am terrible at doing this on the internet because I don't know who I'm talking to. We all project our issues through our personal experiences and beliefs we hold onto. Sometimes that changes my mind, sometimes it changes yours. Art, everything, yay, the world is still boring because I am a boring person with no magic or mystery in my life, sparse connections that bind me to individuals through concrete understandings.
I don't need to RTFA. There don't have to be rules on the internet. If I need to RTFA you need to read everything that came before the article that created the article. But you don't, because you are replying to the article, and the author may be here, but you wouldn't be aware of that, so you operate on the assumption that you don't have to read everything that led up to the article, just the article itself, perpetuating dogmatic ideologies that secure your world view.
That's insulting to me, so sorry! I have opinions on stuff sometimes!
Some people have talent and aren't as lucky as you. Don't squash them like bugs just because its disruptive. Maybe you need therapy.
Wyatt Cenac has a good piece on culture clash.
That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it. If you tax it and expect it to work like everything else does, it can't do that.
This clearly will affect an artist's perception of themselves depending on what level of success they obtain for themselves.
Source: a self professed, so called 'tortured artist'. Unsuccessful in the arts by choice, but still affected by the stigma as a computer scientist. Change culture: solve problems -> make more of them.