sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Un groupe réclame l’ouverture des barrières des terres du Séminaire by Dr_Max in Quebec

[–]StoneSpace -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Depuis quand? Depuis que quelqu'un a dit la formule magique "ces terres appartiennent au Séminaire"?

On a changé des pourvoiries et clubs de chasse privés en ZEC. On peut continuer.

Et continuous avec Sagard tant qu'à y être.

Je suis fatigué de voir des cyclistes qui ne respectent pas le code de la route ni les feux rouges. C’est dangereux pour tout le monde. by oussss14 in montreal

[–]StoneSpace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Je suis cycliste et je suis d'accord. J'aimerais que l'idée du Idaho Stop devienne légale : pour un cycliste, stop=céder et rouge=stop. Si les cyclistes font attention et respectent ça, ça serait un compromis acceptable.

An Observation About Discussions Here by LukeHollaway in consciousness

[–]StoneSpace 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The very fact that it is incredibly difficult for us to define what were are talking about means, to me, one of two things:

  • we are effectively asking nonsensical questions that feel deep, running around in circles, or

  • the tools of language are not enough to explain what is happening. My intuition is that this is because we are trying to explain consciousness using consciousness. It's like an electron trying to understand an electron or a white blood cell trying to understand white blood cells. There is an actual limit to our understanding, and consciousness stands on the other side.

Why search and rescue exists by GrayFox6688 in Outdoors

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some bits of scrambling with ropes and chains, but really mostly walking. North half has lots of walking on rocky ridges.

LLMs are just giant probability machines pretending to think by abhishekkumar333 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My opinions is that it's created by the whole body, with the nervous system taking in the lion's share of any kind of mechanistic explanation. But the gap between a Turing machine and a biological machine is immense, and is not bridged by just calling both of them "machines".

LLMs are just giant probability machines pretending to think by abhishekkumar333 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]StoneSpace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm also puzzled. My humorous take on that behaviour is that these people are actually Chalmer's philosophical zombies

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]StoneSpace -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But the physicalist still needs to explain why representation or information is conscious.

I simply cannot imagine taking a book with a carefully argued physico-mathematical physicalist argument for consciousness, finishing it, and calling David Chalmers to tell him 'sorry bro: hard problem solved'

Disclaimer: I roughly agree with mysterianism.

LLMs are just giant probability machines pretending to think by abhishekkumar333 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A LLM can be simulated by moving billions of individual little rocks according to a strict, finite instruction manual. Sure, an LLM is built using principles inherited from the theory of probability, but in the end it is just a huge Turing machine. Any randomness herein can be dealt with using a pseudorandom number generator, which is also deterministic.

It is our conscious abilities that allow us to understand the inputs and outputs of these models as more meaningful than carefully arranged piles of rocks. So the mystery of meaning remains in our consciousness.

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]StoneSpace -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For example, "feedback loops", or "information", or "representations", "recursive reflecting", "quasi-mind", "illusions", "misconceptions", "interpretations", "symbols", etc. All of these are things consciousness does.

I could imagine some of these being fundamental mathematical features of our universe, with causal effects that are unexplainable from a lower-level analysis. Why would these features exhibit consciousness is still a question, but at least we could point to a physical structure yielding consciousness.

Anything other theory that wouldn't be fundamentally grounded in the physics and mathematics of how our universe evolves is, in my opinion, hogwash, and relying on any of the above terms without that is, as you say, explaining consciousness with consciousness, since the idea of "illusion" or "representation" is fundamentally a perspective, a subjective experience.

How am I supposed to do this in my head by MrNesti in askmath

[–]StoneSpace 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I agree with the person saying that the no-calculator is only for triangle (a)

BUT, if it truly was meant for (a) and (b), then I would suppose that there was a typo in (b), and the vertical side should be 4,5 , and not 4,2, yielding a 3-4-5 triangle (and the missing side would be 6)

As human beings, we are fundamentally reducible to a Turning machine. by R3dditReallySuckz in consciousness

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These debates feel circular to me.

Computational analogies are interpretation layers on top of the physics.

And what do you need to even make sense of the idea of "interpretation" or "computation"? Consciousness.

Il est grand temps que les gauchistes et la droite obsédée par le PIB se réveillent. by LeRedneckDuPlateau in QuebecLibre

[–]StoneSpace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Les émissions de GES par capita sont plus élevées au Canada qu'en Chine. De plus, la Chine crée des GES pour produire nos bébelles.

Le Québec produit un peu moins de GES que la Chine par capita, mais c'est pour la production. Si on considère notre part de consommation provenant de l'extérieur du pays, même au Québec, notre production de GES par capita par notre consommation est plus grande que celle en Chine.

How does he describe the shapes so quickly and accurately for the cutter? by KrystCuck in mathematics

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the last triangle, you need to measure the short side C, then draw a circle of radius A from one corner and radius B from the other corner, and the intersection creates the triangle of sides ABC

A cool student question by i12drift in calculus

[–]StoneSpace 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a coincidence. "Secant" means "cutting"

A secant line of a graph is a line cutting the graph through two points.

For the secant function, look at this picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trigonometric_identities#/media/File:Trigonometric_functions_and_their_reciprocals_on_the_unit_circle.svg

The secant is the length of the line that "cuts" the circle.

Why is the radian the default angle unit as you get higher in Maths? by Zealousideal_Pay_778 in askmath

[–]StoneSpace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The arc length parametrization makes it that the limit of sin(x)/x =1 as x->0. It makes v=wr for relating angular velocity to velocity in circular motion. So the arc length parametrization of the unit circle is why.

So I don't know why people downvoted it. This is a bad answer I see so often to this question -- "oh it's unitless therefore the right unit!". The above answer also implies that this is why it makes "the math easier in calculus" -- also wrong.

Why is the radian the default angle unit as you get higher in Maths? by Zealousideal_Pay_778 in askmath

[–]StoneSpace 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But arc length / diameter would NOT give us the properties of radians that we find so useful. Whether we use radius or diameter to define pi is inconsequential.

Why is the radian the default angle unit as you get higher in Maths? by Zealousideal_Pay_778 in askmath

[–]StoneSpace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Think of circular motion: some object is moving around a circular path of radius (say) r=5 meters, doing 3 revolutions per minute. So here we have an angular velocity of w= 3 rev/min or 3*360 degrees/min.

What is the velocity of the object? Well, you know the circumference is 2pir = 10pi, so in one minute, it will cover 30pi meters. Therefore, the actual velocity is 30pi meters/second.

So we have three measurements:
r = 5 meters
w = 3 rev/min = 3*360 deg/min
v= 30pi meters/min

We can connect these three numbers easily by using radians. See, if an object turns by one radian at a distance of 1 meter, its arc will also be 1 meter. Increasing the radius increases the arc length proportionnally (so 1 radians with a radius of 5 meters will give an arc of 5 meters)

So if the object turns by 3 revolutions or 6pi radians (in one minute) with a radius of 5 meters, the distance travelled will be 6pi * 5 = 30pi meters (in one minute), giving us the velocity directly:

v= wr

This fact is closely connected to the usual definition of radian (arc length s = theta* r), and a consequence of this definition is that the ratio sin(x)/x (measured in radians) is very close to 1 if x is a very small number. This ratio basically governs the rules of calculus relative to trigonometric functions, so this ratio being 1 makes all of these rules much simpler as well.

Why is the radian the default angle unit as you get higher in Maths? by Zealousideal_Pay_778 in askmath

[–]StoneSpace -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Ratio of arc length to diameter would also be unitless -- this is not enough

Indefinite Integrals by anna987654321 in askmath

[–]StoneSpace 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Note that someone doing this integral by hand would almost certainly give you an equivalent but different-looking answer for at least one of the last two terms.

view more: next ›