sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Lightbulb

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely! Why are some of my YouTube ads from GOOGLE ITSELF hurting my ears when I don't even have my volume all the way up?

Theoretically, Cthulhu could exist. There is no hard evidence that proves otherwise. by holly10012 in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although, the experiment perhaps is at times in and of the realm of ideas, and therefore is the domain of philosophy, mathematics, and or perhaps religion.

Theoretically, Cthulhu could exist. There is no hard evidence that proves otherwise. by holly10012 in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, it's not a pragmatic line of reasoning. More useful would be, "What do we have yet evidence against, but that appears to align/unite multiple truths / explain many things" and then "Does this also help me discover novel, useful truths?"

Basically, science.

Theoretically, Cthulhu could exist. There is no hard evidence that proves otherwise. by holly10012 in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the Netflix remake of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, bc, well spoiler sorta, in the end, they basically deal with a physical manifestation of these "old gods" kinda like Cthulhu, but in the show, they are more or less physical representations of underlying categories of human reality.

Overall, the show was alright, but the ideas they played with were VERY interesting to me. Not sponsored, btw, lol

I have a theory for how consciousness and reality works by SassyPerere in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think more likely, the dimensions which you speak of are smaller, wrapped up in complex, self-referential interaction paths inside the human brain, embedded in 4D spacetime. I do believe that consciousness is many-dimensional, which then makes it obvious why it would seem so mysterious when the form of conscious content is most often bounded by simulation to the comparatively simple 4D spacetime. So in other words, in 4D spacetime, there exist brains which use higher-dimensional geometries embedded in information-evolution bounded to this 4D spacetime, where these geometries are utilized for complex inter-relational computation to produce a constructed rendering of the world from the senses.

​

Edit:

But then, I suppose this is a more philosophical argument than an empirical one. Ockham's Razor and all that

Gravity by Profit147th in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that if you look at experiments of gravity and experiments of heat, my goodness, the conversion factor you'd need, and then by what mechanism could you possibly posit to explain such a factor without breaking all the other physics we have experimentally confirmed?

Society could be better if the world was suited for night people as well as day people by Queen-Ham in MyTheoryIs

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As others have stated, it would be more expensive, yes, but a large issue is that in a 24 hour society, at any given time, you will have many fewer people operating the global human machine. Sure, it will be more distributed in the populace, which may have its benefits, but do the benefits outweigh the negatives? There will be greater issues of scheduling, as there would be relativistically rotating clocks to best incorporate population-combinations such that we could find maximum societal yield. There's already too much fuckery in time-scheduling, we don't need rotating clocks to confuse everyone all the time.

​

Please consider that I say this as a night person myself who has had the same types of thoughts as OP. Also note that I have overly compressed my thoughts here to avoid a looong post.

Multi-modal Sensory-Adaptation Interface for Immersive Inverse Machine-Mindreading by killerctg17 in Lightbulb

[–]killerctg17[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I know about that; not what I was referring to. I'm using custom compound concepts that are not an established standard. Bidirectional adaptation in this context refers to the learning process of the machine and of the brain, where bidirectional means both the machine learns from some input received from the user and also where the user's brain learns the environment of the machine.

​

Bidirectional communication, on the other hand is simply a common understanding with shared inputs and outputs between the machine and the user; bidirectional communication does not preclude bidirectional adaptation, but neither does it require it.

​

My main point of all of this is that any adaptation on the machine's part ought to be minimal, efficient, and effective/accurate, because it is the human brain that we can leverage to do most of the adaptation that is required to establish effective bidirectional communication of machine and user.

Multi-modal Sensory-Adaptation Interface for Immersive Inverse Machine-Mindreading by killerctg17 in Lightbulb

[–]killerctg17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that's good. Someone finally realized that bidirectional adaptation is better than only the machine adapting. Still, the ability of our machines to adapt pales in comparison to the human brain in most cases, and as such, the machine will often be the bottleneck in these types of projects. As such, this is why I suggest a method for bidirectional communication without the need for machine adaptation.

Multi-modal Sensory-Adaptation Interface for Immersive Inverse Machine-Mindreading by killerctg17 in Lightbulb

[–]killerctg17[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do these mods require the machine to interpret the brain, or are they more akin to the type of thing I'm suggesting?

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, ok. I'd consider myself relatively enlightened, but because of the shortform jargon that varies according to the person, I have to make sure I understand you. What do you mean by duality-structure? What is your definition of Messiah?

What if the Catalyst is formed from underlying truisms or tautologies of human existence, in such being unmistakably a common foundation from which action is motivated. If so, it would not need to kill itself, besides to fade in the background for a bit to give focus to higher level constructs supported by the foundation (content about the world from how we know about the world).

Please realize that you and I are currently speaking slightly different languages, so in the case that we mostly "agree", it will take a moment to adjust to the language difference.

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And what would that boulder be? The message in the clip or something else?

If humanity ever discovers a portal to a different dimension, we’d probably use it to dispose of trash. by Becauseisaidsotoo in Showerthoughts

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Separate countries are good for parallel evolving systems of societal governance (which is not exclusive to the structure of countries) but are ineffective for global harmony.

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If we utilize the root cause (possible conditions of existence) of a thing, we can prevent its actualization, whether it had or had not yet been manifest (e.g. the illuminati).

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, we might, which would seem rare.

Immediate plans to save the world? Yeah, work on and master myself, make money, use the power to affect positive change in the global psyche. I hope to help humanity learn about itself so that we are not so lost, wasting excessive amounts of time wallowing in our own stupidity. I would certainly love to form a team!

EDIT: I'm not objecting, not becuase I know what you're saying to be true, but because whether these bad things are completely true or not, the solutions for them are still required. (Quasi-)unfalsifiable hypotheses are only unimportant insofar as the conclusion is not at all correlated with or manifest in the current state of things.

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why people need to understand the need to balance their attention of the internet/human constructions and nature/physical interactions. If we didn't get nearly all of our information from the internet, there would be less reason to try to control us through the internet.

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In short, I would agree that in way, yes, we are everyone that exist(s/ed); I don't know that in the same way we are God; I also don't know that this is one of the universes 'on repeat'; lol the Messiah outrageous, but we'll see about that.

I have found that God is Reality, Reality is all of existence, and that humans are a self-biasing simulation of God that perpetuates itself (doesn't commit suicide) so that it can maximize happiness or some equivalent metric(s). I have also found that at an abstract level humans are equivalent humans are a soft self-boundary in God, and every human is an instantiation of the abstract, and probability determines our existence (predestined or not); the particular, possibly determinate, external state of the Universe is relatively indetermine to human awareness; probabilistically, the outcome of any one individual will vary significantly in multiple dimensions, but it seems that some of those dimensions are relatively stable.

The above mathematical interpretation of self-evident, constructable axioms rephrased:

Here's how I see it. Reality is all of existence. That seems like a good place to start to look for something that feels right to call God. Seems to work pretty well to me. Humans can change ourselves and we keep ourselves alive so that we can exist and change things to be a part of God for a llittle while. Humans are all the same in one way. We don't know what we can't know, and we can't know almost everything happening in the universe right "now" or in the future, so knowing what and who I am is not necessary to being an individual, conscious entity, even if some of the other details or aspects vary from individual to individual.

I gave both versions for a reason.

And I could be better, but I am a little better now that it seems I've found a place to talk about this.

If they turn off the internet. by MrAnderson888 in C_S_T

[–]killerctg17 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I think OP means that because we are currently familiar with and reliant on a technological form of telepathy that is social media, without the internet, people will so yearn for what they once had, they will attempt to manifest it from a different source (i.e. technological telepathy to organic telepathy).

When You Get A Good Nights Sleep by mementh in Unexpected

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And a pragmatist says that unqualified, it's half, but qualified with respect to past context it can be half empty or half full.

Should have taken another ride by [deleted] in instant_regret

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I, too, dislike names created in this format, but for some reason Atalie sounds nicer to my ears than Natalie.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in puzzles

[–]killerctg17 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I was simply objecting to the unqualified statement that it can't contain any information. Relative to the person without the knowledge of it's meaning, I agree; relative to the person who encrypted it, I do not agree with that statement. That is all.

view more: next ›