“Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.”
It’s a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals. Everything the body needs.
For the unaware, this is a Quote from The Matrix, in which the character muses about how the fake reality which is the matrix might be inconsistent with actual reality but the people would never know the difference. He then goes on to explain that, to him, the steak is delicious, so he does not care.
I think you’re confusing Mouse and Cypher…?
Probably, been a long time since I saw the film.
Yeah, Mouse talks about tasty wheat at Neo’s first breakfast in the real world. Cypher is eating steak during his monologue about going back into the matrix.
More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like “it needs to pop more” or “this is good, but we need it to feel more modern”.
So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.
There’s a quote that I’m having trouble sourcing, but it’s basically:
Code is for humans to read, and only incidentally for computers to execute.
I think a lot of things are like that, especially when it comes to defining and organizing work. It’s less about making the perfect requirements document and more about getting everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way.
Specifics are great because they make for solid landmarks. But abstract language is essential too, because it clues you into how you ought to navigate the terrain in between those landmarks.
And there is always space in between the specifics. If you managed to nail down every last detail in your spec, congratulations on your new hand-compiled programming language.
This is why I like strongly opinionated frameworks! People get hung up on whether they agree with the opinions themselves, which is valid, but I think kinda misses the point. The great strength of opinionated frameworks is the speed with which you can get “everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way”, to use your phrasing. They do have their problems of course and if you ask me in 5 years, maybe I feel the opposite way about it.
I also tend to like opinionated frameworks. On top of easing the onboarding process, they can also afford to have more detailed docs/support/stability because they don’t have to account for there being a million ways to do even a basic thing.
I’m sympathetic, in theory, to the downsides noted by Rich Hickey in Simple Made Easy and Uncle Bob in Architecture The Lost Years… but IRL, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a project successfully lean into those principles at any significant scale. So maybe more of an academic appreciation there.
I just saw it quoted the other day here https://youtu.be/MWsk1h8pv2Q?t=248 but it’s unattributed so I did a search: Abelson & Sussman, “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Programming_languages
That’s why I’m so happy that we have a UI/UX team, they can deal with the design nonsense while I’m left to logic.
they would also get that if they learned more math. eventually they tell you that a lot of concrete rules are more like conventions and assumptions that we have collectively decided are “reasonable”. don’t get me wrong, those conventions are still extremely useful. calculus, for example, has made a lot of problems way easier to solve. but it’s not like moses came down from the mountain with the fundamental theorem of calculus etched in stone. you still need to assume things in order to be able to do calculus, and the ways in which calculus is taught and understood has changed a decent amount over the years (infinitesimals to limits, riemann sums to measures, the introduction of differential forms, etc)
For real. A few times, I’ve been like “What makes you think matter is more fundamentally real than consciousness?” and received an argument that you can measure matter and make mathematical proofs about it.
And I’m just… dumbfounded by the lack of awareness that they’re essentially using a mere mention of math itself to dismiss the significance of axioms.
my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.
Side note, in my experience people often misuse the word “math” to mean "arithmetic, as in “I did the math” or “Your math is wrong” when they’re just adding up some numbers lol.
yeah that one can be pretty rough too. i think i’ve become a bit desensitized to it over the years, and paul lockhart’s lament has helped me cope a bit, but the pain is still there.
the incompleteness theorems are a part of this broader point as well, since they basically say we can’t choose a perfect system that has everything we want. but still, the incompleteness theorems themselves require making assumptions. you still need to assume some axioms for them to apply, in addition to picking a set of logical rules to follow. and those logical rules aren’t set in stone either. some mathematicians don’t subscribe to the law or the excluded middle, and it makes for some interesting mathematics. for example, it lets you define an infinitesimal as something that’s basically “not not zero”, while still being different from zero.
Yep, and that goes for really nebulous things like relationships and mental health too, not just the physical world.
This sentence hit me:
seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules
I wonder how many past situations I could remember where I had anxiety and panic over not knowing the rules to follow in a situation. But that’s like asking the wrong question if the reality is that there are no rules, and you need more of a guiding philosophy or purpose than a rule book. For me, I think you do what you can to make the unique experience of life things better for yourself and others. We nerds do have a tendency to focus on “number go up” which has its benefits, but has to be in moderation as with everything else.
I got into building agents for an overpowered discord bot. I leard a lot about my own through process because the research papers were too hinged to be fun.
I mean this just means that it is not the objects that have those traits, it is the relation between the object and the human sensory organs that do. This is not really anti rules, just anti overly primitive rules.
nothing is real do what you want
That is a fallacious conclusion from this observation. Don’t use this philosophy as an excuse to act like an asshole.
While everyone perceives reality slightly differently, apples do have a specific light absorption and reflection spectrum.
Our limited perception of it doesn’t make it “not real”. Same is true for other senses as well.
Thank you.
There’s also the possibility of Boltzmann brain hallucinating things, but since there is no way to prove or disprove it, that’s still not a reason to be an asshole
In fact, if I am a brain in a vat hallucinating the world, then all the people I interact with are just aspects of myself.
So if I’m an asshole to other people, really, I’m an asshole to me.
Just a fun tidbit: The guy who proposed the math for the many worlds hypothesis, Hugh Everett, was reportedly a huge asshole (and abused his own health) because he figured that in a lot of other versions he was a swell guy.
But you’re not real!
Descartes proved to me that I was!
In the assumption that you are real, because you think and therefor you must exist in some form, but have limited control of your perceived reality through your actions, you should make choices that maximize your satisfaction but your longterm satisfaction is actually dependent on not being an asshole.
Therefor, our lack of provable existence does not factor into whether you should or should not be an asshole.
Shrimp have multiple color recptors because their brains are too primitive/rudimentary to combine input from more than a single receptor into a composite color. The result is that 12 colors (or however many receptors it is) is the total number of colors they can see.
They also see in UV and can see polarized light
and can see polarized light
So can we. It’s also like to point out that seeing polarized light is different from being able to tell that it is polarized. Which we can still do, just not as well
How can I tell when I’m seeing polarized light?
nothing is real do what you want
This is what they take away from it? Discussing qualia is fascinating, and natural philosophy of the mind in general is an amazing field, but if your takeaway is that nothing exists, your understanding is about as deep as a puddle
guess that’s just a wishful thinking
What colors can mantis shrimp even see? Having 16 different cones doesn’t mean anything if they’re all slightly different variations of green, for example.
Edit: Okay, they can see more colors that us. They can see 300 nm to 720 nm and we can see 400 nm to 700 nm.
I think your question was spot on. They have more cones but they seem worse. They also lack our ability to process the stimuli into a rich tapestry of color.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24458639/
Not sure if there’s more current info though.
Just the span of wavelengths isn’t the only thing that’s important, the spectral resolution is also important. For example, theoretically with 6 different cones we would be able to tell the difference between the mixture of red and green wavelengths vs only seeing yellow wavelengths.
Or the mixture of blue and red wavelengths vs violet wavelengths, which just happen to be at the furthest possible point from the red wavelengths. Human color perception is strange.
Physicists: spend hundreds of generations empirically proving objective science
Philosophers: yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man
Philosophers: It is what it is.
Physicians: We need to be a bit more specific than that. Can we measure it?
Physicist: Who invited the medical doctor? He seems far too invested in applied physics! Who is next, a (retches) engineer?
Are there atoms tho? Is there void?
Fancy words for “there’s something and there’s nothing”. So, yes.
:)
The term “atom” at that point was a placeholder, not a specific measurable phenomenon.
I have come to think of it as all being probability fields.
When studying a particle, one cannot know both the energy and position of that particle with certainty (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). When chemists think about the 3d “structure” of atoms and molecules, they represent the nucleus as a tiny little ball and the electrons as bubbles of probability:
.The nucleus itself is in constant motion as well, and compared to the size of the actual protons and neutrons, there is much more empty space - kind of like planets in a solar system. And each of these protons/neutrons is composed of tiny particles called quarks, which again are in constant motion and thus make up probability fields that we call protons and neutrons.
Yes, it’s where Janets go when they’ve not been summoned.
And that one time when she had to hide those people.
You are the only thing that’s real in this world. YOU’RE IN A COMA．ＷＡＫＥ ＵＰ！
The lights flickered when I read this. I think that means I’m the real one and they upped my sedative to keep me stuck here. Oh well. Maybe I’ll get fun dreams out of it tonight, at least.
Quick Guys… he’s onto us!
Wake up, Link!
*Epistemology
Mantis Shrimp actually lack the hardware for color interpolation. So they see 12 colors, total, compared to the wide spectrum that humans see.
Well, doesn’t that change everything! How disappointing. I guess that’s why they need so many receptor types, eh. They are just brute-forcing colors at this point.
You have a source for this though? I’d love to read about it and learn more.
You need a source on my comment but you took the 12 receptor comment in the meme at face value?
Calm down, Beavis. People often just take something in without reacting to it at all, then when more details come along like in your comment the whole matter becomes more interesting. I’ve never seen anybody react badly to interest being expressed in what they said.
If its interesting then do your own due diligence instead of asking others to work for free.
If it were something like politics I might source it but idgaf if ya’ll are educated on stomatapod biology or not.
Due diligence on mantis shrimp 😂
I’m asking for the source so I can read it. How is that not trying to do my research? I’m trying to read the same thing you have so we both have the same source of knowledge, lol.
But as you say, it isn’t like this is something important. So like I said, if you’re not willing to provide it for whatever reason, then fine. But to refuse because “I don’t work for you” or some shit, instead of being like “oh, sure, thanks for sharing an interest”, that’s just on you. That’s some antisocial behavior for no reason.
Have a good year though, buddy. I hope we both grow from this interaction…
So just to clarify, you don’t know how to find peer reviewed studies? Like, at all?
I do. I just wanted to read the same thing you did, sir.
Here’s a source for you. If you’re interested in learning more I’d be happy to look around for some more for you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14578
And don’t mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Very interesting read! Thank you very much! ❤️
don’t mind finitebanjo. They tend to be extremely rude and unpleasant.
Wow, really. Imagine being known for being an asshole. For shame.
Surely they could see some color half as strong in the same place as another? Where does the difference come from?
You don’t seem to understand the bare minimum concept here. You percieve smooth transitional colors on a spectrum, mantis shrimp would see slices of colors they can recognize and large regions inbetween.
The physical eyes themselves might be perfectly capable of it, but they dont have the processing power to recognize the inputs.
The reason for their adaptation is not to improve color vision, but to percieve depth better for punching with.
Can they not see the strength of colors, only their presence? Or can they not see different colors in the same location?
Is it just that they can see the color channels separately but not combine them?
Imagine if everything you saw was one of a selection of colors. All blues are just Navy Blue. All reds and oranges are just red. They cannot tell them apart.
So it cannot tell the difference between different receptor strengths, such as bright blue vs dark blue, each only has a presence and an absence, like a 1-bit per channel quantized image?
Surely it could also see blue in the same place as it sees red, and then gain information from that even if it does not interpret that as purple?
If both of these were true than it would be able to see 2^12=4096 distinct ‘colors’ (where each is a combination of wavelengths originating from the same area)
Well yeah, that thought is important. While apples do have an objective color in the sense that physics teaches us that electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency is more or less likely to be absorbed/reflected, we can only perceive a subjective color.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality. But also, most people mostly act on emotion and not based on real data.
But also, this isn’t a meme. It belongs in the philosophy or science memes community.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality.
Is there? How do you determine whether the machine doing the measurements is real?
The face punch method, (not a personal attack just a rather crude if effective philisophical tool) aka if I repeatedly punch you in the face you have a hard time continuing to argue that my fist is not real, or at the very least real enough for practical purposes. Personal involvment makes the situation a lot less abstract.
Oh, I never argued that fist are not a good way to determine reality, but calling your fist a machine is cringe.
omg qualia
omg u genius
I’m getting old and bitter.
We gotta preserve our curiosity and childish naivite. Imagine yourself a professor sharing a beauty of math – the good ones are always as excited to explain it, as the first time they’ve felt it ^^
Funny – just this week I ran into the concept of Solipsism for the first time in my life, and now this post.
I sincerely doubt you ran into anything given that you don’t exist.
Remember kids that you don’t feel matter; you feel the electrostatic repulsion of electrons that occupy part of the 99+% of empty space of each atom is composed of. The vibrational frequency of those atoms create heat that radiates through that void to be detected by other atoms as more or less heat energy. Over 99% of you is empty space and radiant energy, which means that mathematically you barely even exist.
