8baanknexer

I think this might be a case of expecting a fish to climb a tree. Brains are terrible in fp32 performance, and computers are so far not great at reasoning. But that's mostly because they are made for different things. I'm not sure of this, but i would expect a single neuron firing costing a similar amount of energy as a single transistor firing. The difference is in part that they work differently, but I think the most important part is that they are put together differently. Computers were made for arithmetic while brains evolved for socialising and survival. For most other things you are 100% correct though, we could not recreate a bee or an ant even if we wanted to.

My parents were rather strict with the music lessons, which I did sometimes resent at the time. These days I'm grateful as I couldn't imagine not being able to just play the music that's in my head. My parents a little less so, as they have heard "enough Prokofiev for a lifetime", and my polyrhythms make them feel like they have a "heart attack".

I have encountered one issue in factorio where large blueprint strings can't be imported in the Linux version. Other than that, the record has been pretty much spotless.

I am sceptical of this thought experiment as it seems to imply that what goes on within the human brain is not computable. For reference: every single physical effect that we have thus far discovered can be computed/simulated on a Turing machine.

The argument itself is also riddled with vagueness and handwaving: it gives no definition of understanding but presumes it as something that has a definite location, and also it may well be possible that taking the time to run the program inevitably causes understanding of Chinese after even the first word returned. Remember: executing these instructions could take billions of years for the presumably immortal human in the room, and we expect the human to be so thorough that they execute each of the trillions of instructions without error.

Indeed, the Turing test is insufficient to test for intelligence, but the statement that the Chinese room argument tries to support is much, much stronger than that. It essentially argues that computers can't be intelligent at all.

Maybe false vacuum decay is happening all the time but we don't notice because it's a form of quantum suicide.

Saturn?

That is not true (link is in Dutch, here it is Google translated)

Turns out the attacker was an Elon fan. Maybe he should resign himself.

Whenever I play with other autistic people the game tends to just become a discussion of probabilities and game theory, to the detriment of all non-autistic people at the table. I'm always having a blast though.

Do you think I'm calling you deranged in the first comment? Honestly? That's your take from what I've written?

On the off chance that you're serious, let me explain it to you.

1. If someone reads about cah doing something, and they are like "well I guess that's normal now" they are deranged.

2. You can't account for deranged people.

3. We should not take into account what these people think.

For all non deranged people this draws attention to and de-normalises the practice. I'm not the first person in your own replies explaining this to you.

Neither of these are claims about what you said? The second one isn't even a claim? I was and am genuinely confused as to what you're trying to say?

"You keep claiming I said things I never said"

That's... literally not something I did. You're literally claiming I said things I didn't by saying I claim you said things you didn't. I never claimed anything about what you said.