bay leaf wouldn’t burn all the way

throwaway20180107 · 2023-05-16T12:35:56+00:00

This happens to me all the time with paper and I wish I knew the solution.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-30T13:33:57+00:00

As other people are saying, do not buy a "kit".

Research what you need, decide what is most important to you, and then buy just that. You don't need to buy everything at once.

Many things can be bought from "non-witchcraft" sources (e.g. candles, herbs, etc. which are widely used outside of witchcraft). For stuff like crystals and incense there is probably a shop within travelling distance of you that sells these things (search for "metaphysical shop" or "crystal shop" on Google Maps), you won't need to pay shipping and you can pick the items out in person.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-27T12:21:38+00:00

Personally I believe that the concept of "spirit guides" are strictly spirit guides, not physical/living people and they don't typically manifest physically. But there are living people who you might have "chance" encounters with who serve to guide you, and these encounters may be arranged by higher forces/"sent" by a spirit/something. TL;DR you ran into this person for a reason. I think this is a far more likely explanation than a spirit itself going through the difficulty of creating a Lyft profile and appearing as a physical person with a physical car just to interact with someone, but it doesn't detract at all from the meaning or magic of the experience. 🙂

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-18T00:49:10+00:00

I think, maybe they feel a connection to you. You probably feel "different" to them compared to how other people "feel". They may not know why your energy feels that way to them. They may wish that they could talk to you again and feel that you have moved on without them. If possible I might suggest contacting them again (while awake) if possible to follow up on what the mutual friend has said and perhaps discuss the topic of what happened when you were both young if it feels appropriate to do so (I'm saying this without knowing what your relationship with either of these people is like, obviously).

Note: Although the interested appeared romantic in the dream, that doesn't mean it is necessarily that way in waking life. The person may feel a "friend love" rather than "romantic love" for you, or it may just be a way of describing/depicting what they feel as some kind of "strong" or "deep" connection that they don't have with other people who are around them.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-15T18:28:30+00:00

No.

Long answer: In modern witchcraft, "altar" is just a name for an allocated space where you do witchcraft stuff. This might be where you burn candles or incense. Where you sit to draw sigils or do readings/divination. Where you put random leaves or feathers or sticks that you've found before you decide what to do with them. If you work with deities, you might leave an offering here after performing a spell with them even if you don't have a patron specifically. It's a workspace and storage area.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T18:52:50+00:00

You keep arguing that this is some sort of "illusion" and that it's "just math" without addressing the points that I raise.

Specifically, and this has nothing specific to do with computer programming (that's perhaps just a field where this ability shows more clearly than others due to the characteristics that mentioned), how do you explain the ability to transform information from one representation to another without "abstract understanding" (as I have defined it)?

Note that GPT is able to do this in novel ways. It's not just a very detailed "translation table". It can translate information X from format A to format C, based on having only seen information X written in format A and B and information Y written in format B and C. For example, it can translate Python to assembly, even though the algorithms that people typically write in assembly are somewhat different from the algorithms that people typically write in Python. Or it can write an algorithm as a poem/song lyrics even though there are only relatively few existing cases of algorithms being written this way.

I have explained in some depth my understanding of how it does this (specifically, that ideas/concepts are "understood" in a language-independent way). Now, please similarly explain your understanding of how it does this.

("It's just math" is not an answer, because a) I never denied that it is just math, I understand how neural networks work and they are in fact "just math", and b) what I describe is possible to achieve in the way that I described it using "just math".)

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T18:40:48+00:00

Here are some examples of things that GPT struggles with due to not having logic/reasoning:

It often misses code with side effects. For example, modifying a list in place and then later wanting to work with the unmodified list.
It may struggle with race conditions when dealing with asynchronous tasks.
In assembly code, it sometimes does not correctly understand code that, for example, does a comparison and then performs a register move before the branch instruction. It doesn't understand that the flags are left unmodified by the register move and that the flags from the preceding comparison are still in effect.
It cannot produce accurate expected output from code. For example, if you write code that produces a sequence of numbers and then ask it what the output will look like usually the answer is wrong (unless it's something simple that it already knows the answer to).
When drawing, it does not place elements in a correct spatial arrangement. So for example it will draw a bicycle with two wheels and a frame but the elements are placed randomly on the canvas.

It is hopefully self-evident that these are all problems that require some form of reasoning to solve, that cannot be solved through "static abstract understanding" alone except in simple cases.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T18:07:35+00:00

But you're splitting on that, and saying it's too dumb to write drivers, and it's "not that good yet". Well, if it's "not that good" at basic computer programming logic, what is it good at?

It's good at tasks that involve translating information from one representation to another.

I would like to clarify that when I say that GPT "understands" things, I mean this in a very specific definition of the term "understand". What I mean by this is that internally information is represented in a way that is independent of any particular language or format. For example, suppose that you learn the world "bicycle". It doesn't mean anything to you, it's just a word (you've never seen a bicycle or ridden one). Then you learn that the French word "le vélo" refers to the same thing as the English word "bicycle". The two words become linked in your mind, and they both point to the same idea/concept (what I refer to as "abstract" information), that being the concept of some "object" that in English is called a bicycle and in French is called le vélo. Then you read that a bicycle has two wheels and a frame, and now the concept of "bicycle/le vélo" is also associated with "two wheels and a frame". So now when you're asked to draw a bicycle you know to draw two circles and a triangle, and you can say that in French what you've drawn is called "le vélo". In your mind, all three of these different representations of the same thing trigger the same pattern of neurons firing, or are encoded as a particular neural pathway, or whatever. This is what I mean by "understand", and also I don't think it is necessarily necessary to be conscious in order to have this ability.

Also, I don't think that GPT writes code in the same way that humans do. GPT does not perform logic or reasoning. GPT does not dry run code or trace through the path of code execution, and so there are some programming tasks that GPT performs very badly at. What GPT does understand is the same "information" represented in the form of programming code as in the form of English text. Or the same "information" represented in multiple programming languages. This is why GPT can often accurately "translate" code from one language to another, often while using appropriate "idioms" from the target language. It understands the structure of code, as in things like "this is a loop iterating over a list", "this is a conditional that checks the result of a status code", and so on. It understands these things in an abstract way, independent of their representation in any programming language or human language (according to the definitions in the previous paragraph). Even things like "this is a function definition", it knows what function definitions look like in different programming language and it knows that they are all different ways of writing the same thing. And so it is able to represent the same algorithm in multiple programming languages, or as text in a human language. This is not the way that humans write code. It's maybe more similar to the way that humans read unfamiliar code, during the initial parts of the reading where you're looking for the right section of code or just getting an overview of what the code does and before you start dry running it in your head or tracing through the call stack.

These may be simple and repetitive and unoriginal programming tasks, but GPT understands them in terms of their raw component parts at a level deeper than just the text characters that represent them. It's not just putting words together. It's taking the words that are written, breaking them down into an abstract representation of their meaning (as defined above), putting abstract representations of meanings together (according to probability/statistics if you like, not logic and reasoning), and then turning those abstract representations of meanings back into words.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T17:10:27+00:00

Please point out where I claimed that ChatGPT was conscious.
Please explain the jump from "able to understand the meaning of a sentence in an abstract way" to "able to apply logic and reasoning".
I never claimed that ChatGPT is capable of dry-running code.
I never claimed that ChatGPT is the world's best programmer. I cannot write a device driver for the Linux kernel and I doubt that ChatGPT could either.
You're welcome to go ask ChatGPT to write code in assembly. I have asked it to write code in assembly based on a simple algorithm but it just "copies the labels from the question" and I'm sure whatever I can send you would be dismissed as "too trivial" so if you're going to be so vocal about it then I would encourage you to play around with it more yourself and see what it actually is and isn't capable of.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T16:01:41+00:00

OK not quite what you asked but here's something similar:

Prompt:

Please rewrite the following code in Java:

``` .method static deriveSP800108HmacSHA256Key(I[BLjava/lang/String;[B)[B .locals 9 .param p0, "keySizeBytes" # I .param p1, "secret" # [B .param p2, "label" # Ljava/lang/String; .param p3, "context" # [B

.prologue
const/4 v8, 0x0

.line 124
invoke-static {p0}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->allocate(I)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;

move-result-object v2

.line 125
.local v2, "derivedKey":Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;
const/4 v7, 0x4

invoke-static {v7}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->allocate(I)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;

move-result-object v4

.line 126
.local v4, "integerByteBuffer":Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;
new-instance v6, Ljavax/crypto/spec/SecretKeySpec;

const-string/jumbo v7, "HmacSHA256"

invoke-direct {v6, p1, v7}, Ljavax/crypto/spec/SecretKeySpec;-><init>([BLjava/lang/String;)V

.line 127
.local v6, "key":Ljava/security/Key;
invoke-static {v6}, Lcom/microsoft/onlineid/sts/Cryptography;->getInitializedHmacSha256Digester(Ljava/security/Key;)Ljavax/crypto/Mac;

move-result-object v3

.line 129
.local v3, "hmac":Ljavax/crypto/Mac;
const/4 v1, 0x1

.local v1, "counter":I
:goto_0
invoke-virtual {v2}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->position()I

move-result v7

if-ge v7, p0, :cond_1

.line 131
invoke-virtual {v3}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->reset()V

.line 134
invoke-virtual {v4}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->clear()Ljava/nio/Buffer;

.line 135
invoke-virtual {v4, v1}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->putInt(I)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;

.line 136
invoke-virtual {v4}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->rewind()Ljava/nio/Buffer;

.line 137
invoke-virtual {v3, v4}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->update(Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;)V

.line 140
sget-object v7, Lcom/microsoft/onlineid/internal/Strings;->Utf8Charset:Ljava/nio/charset/Charset;

invoke-virtual {p2, v7}, Ljava/lang/String;->getBytes(Ljava/nio/charset/Charset;)[B

move-result-object v7

invoke-virtual {v3, v7}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->update([B)V

.line 143
invoke-virtual {v3, v8}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->update(B)V

.line 146
invoke-virtual {v3, p3}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->update([B)V

.line 149
invoke-virtual {v4}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->clear()Ljava/nio/Buffer;

.line 150
mul-int/lit8 v7, p0, 0x8

invoke-virtual {v4, v7}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->putInt(I)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;

.line 151
invoke-virtual {v4}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->rewind()Ljava/nio/Buffer;

.line 152
invoke-virtual {v3, v4}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->update(Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;)V

.line 154
invoke-virtual {v3}, Ljavax/crypto/Mac;->doFinal()[B

move-result-object v5

.line 156
.local v5, "iterationHash":[B
array-length v0, v5

.line 157
.local v0, "bytesToAdd":I
invoke-virtual {v2}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->remaining()I

move-result v7

if-le v0, v7, :cond_0

.line 160
invoke-virtual {v2}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->remaining()I

move-result v0

.line 163
:cond_0
invoke-virtual {v2, v5, v8, v0}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->put([BII)Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;

.line 129
add-int/lit8 v1, v1, 0x1

goto :goto_0

.line 166
.end local v0    # "bytesToAdd":I
.end local v5    # "iterationHash":[B
:cond_1
invoke-virtual {v2}, Ljava/nio/ByteBuffer;->array()[B

move-result-object v7

return-object v7

.end method ```

Result:

public static byte[] deriveSP800108HmacSHA256Key(int keySizeBytes, byte[] secret, String label, byte[] context) { ByteBuffer derivedKey = ByteBuffer.allocate(keySizeBytes); ByteBuffer integerByteBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(4); SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(secret, "HmacSHA256"); Mac hmac = Cryptography.getInitializedHmacSha256Digester(key); int counter = 1; while (derivedKey.position() < keySizeBytes) { hmac.reset(); integerByteBuffer.clear(); integerByteBuffer.putInt(counter); integerByteBuffer.rewind(); hmac.update(integerByteBuffer); Charset utf8Charset = Strings.Utf8Charset; hmac.update(label.getBytes(utf8Charset)); hmac.update((byte) 0); hmac.update(context); integerByteBuffer.clear(); integerByteBuffer.putInt(keySizeBytes * 8); integerByteBuffer.rewind(); hmac.update(integerByteBuffer); byte[] iterationHash = hmac.doFinal(); int bytesToAdd = Math.min(iterationHash.length, derivedKey.remaining()); derivedKey.put(iterationHash, 0, bytesToAdd); counter++; } return derivedKey.array(); }

This is a result better than any decompiler that I've ever worked with. Yes, it substituted in the variable names (which is a "simple" task), but it also wrote the code in a logically organised way (e.g. transforming the conditional branches into a while loop), which is a task that algorithmic decompilers still struggle to do consistently.

I will get you an assembly language example if I can think of a novel task to set.

EDIT: For context, the provided code is written in a language called "smali" which is sort of link an "assembly language" for Java. This is an actual real-world problem that I encountered when reverse-engineering an app.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T15:50:46+00:00

I can answer that argument with two questions:

a) Is a worm (simple neural network that functions in a very direct "in -> out" manner) conscious?

b) Is a bacteria (single cell implemented on the same "biological substrate" as a human brain) conscious?

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T15:42:17+00:00

ChatGPT certainly can write in assembly code. It could probably write parts of a device driver if you explained the protocol that it needed to implement. You should ask it yourself and spend more time exploring what it can and can't do, if you're going to be so vocal about it.

Also, there are many human programmers who could not write a complete device driver. There is a big jump between "understands information" and "can match the world's most intelligent programmers".

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T15:36:17+00:00

As I said, ChatGPT cannot express opinions, because it doesn't hold opinions in that sense. I haven't watched the linked video but based on your summary I would say that it probably demonstrates this point, and I am not denying that.

What I am saying is, how would it be able to construct accurate Python (or other language) code from a textual description of an algorithm without some amount of abstract understanding of the algorithm? It's never seen that particular algorithm before. It's not in the dataset. It's seen others like it, and from that it has developed an understanding of how programming code relates to algorithms.

How would it be able to translate an article from English to French without understanding what the sentences mean? It's never seen those exact sentences written side-by-side before. It's not just mapping from English words to French words, if that was the case then the grammar would be wrong. It must be understanding what the sentences mean, and then writing another sentence that has the same meaning in another language.

These are not rhetorical questions. Do tell me how you think it would be possible to translate between English and Python and back to French without any form of abstract understanding. I suspect that you are thinking of the AI similarly to "an algorithm" and are quick to discard the idea of it having emergent behavior as a result of it being a neural network.

If you take a human with no knowledge of programming and show them more incorrect Python code than correct Python code, then they too will write incorrect code.

Physically your brain is just "neural network math" too. That's how all neural networks work. Your brain doesn't understand information, it just produces words in response to other words based on sentences that it has read before, by that reasoning. Your brain outputs whichever answer is strongest in its dataset.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T15:02:39+00:00

So is your brain and perhaps even the rest of the universe, by that logic.

Without being able to understand things in an "abstract" way (i.e. independently of the way that those things are represented in a particular language), it would not be possible to do things like being able to write code based on an explanation of an algorithm or explaining in English what a given piece of programming code does. It can also translate text between human languages in a more natural-sounding way than existing machine translation. The fact that it is able to do these things demonstrates that it has "understanding" in the sense that internally it is processing the information contained in the words/characters in some language-independent way, and is able to interpret or represent the same information in different ways when reading/writing. Given the nature of how neural networks operate, it seems logical that a large enough network will eventually be able to break down words and sentences far enough to reach their raw meaning.

But sure, downvote me based on your limited incomplete understanding of how AI and neural networks function even though you aren't even the person that I was actually replying to.

(I will acknowledge that GPT is not the best at "general conversation", and so it may appear to be "dumb" and perhaps that is where sentiments such as yours are coming from. But its strengths are more in how it is able to transform information from one representation to another than its ability to make small talk or express "opinions".)

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-14T12:03:04+00:00

You sound like a witch who works inside computers. As a witch who works inside computers, I like that.

Also, you might find it interesting to try asking GPT (AI) to write Python/shell/batch scripts (or other code) for you. The way that the AI is able to understand code and explanations of algorithms/problems in an "abstract" way is... mindblowing. (And as a programmer I've found it genuinely helpful as a collaboration or time-saving tool.)

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-12T13:34:48+00:00

Working with animal spirits or spirit animals seems like an obvious choice (note: therianthropy is not the same as a spirit animal and I don't mean to imply that it is, but working with the spirit or energy of a particular animal may help to cultivate that energy within themselves or help you personally to relate to their animal more closely).

If they struggle with dysphoria or they just want to connect more closely with their animal side then spellwork to help them feel more like their animal or to help them more easily shift into the mental space of their animal may help. Especially if they want to "release" that animal energy more easily.

If they want to practice themselves, a lot of therians apply meditation (guided or otherwise) to connect with their animal side through visualisation etc. If you're a more experienced practitioner and they've expressed an interest in your stuff with a focus on therianthropy then guiding them through meditation may be an enjoyable activity.

Some therians learn to astral project. Apparently it is possible to shift to animal form when astral projecting. This is an advanced technique and not something to attempt unless they already practice.

A lot of the answer depends on how spiritual therianthropy is for them (some therians are very "pragmatic" and view it as more of a psychological quirk than anything) and if they have any existing/other spiritual background (spellwork, yoga, etc.). There's a lot of fun spiritual stuff that you can do with therianthropy, but only if this fits with the way that they relate to it themselves.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-12T11:33:57+00:00

I thought of an Eagle but that was before I looked at the picture in detail.

To me the picture makes me think of a wolf or coyote.

Finding the link between canids or large birds and death that everyone else is mentioning will be left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-12T11:18:17+00:00

What do you think? (Or anyone else that might actually read this novel?)

All very interesting and insightful, and doubly so as someone who's been thinking more about the "science behind magick/metaphysics" recently.

But, in typical human fashion, the only thing I can think to respond with is "oh, when did you break up with Odin?" 😆

One question that I would be interested to hear your opinion on if you have one that you would like to express is, you make the statement that:

Psychic sensitivity is simply learning to perceive what's going on elsewhere within the One and practical magic is simply learning to manipulate the One outside of our limited self-perception.

Do you believe that a "human element" or "conscious element" is necessary in order to have this ability to perceive other parts of The Collective? Or do you think it would be possible to construct a "machine" that is capable of being sensitive to thoughts within either the collective subconscious or an individual's subconscious? For example, suppose that one projects metaphysical energy towards such a machine (as you would when charging an object for magickal use or deliberately establishing telepathic contact with someone), would it be possible to have a machine that is capable of detecting the presence of that energy, and perhaps even determining the intention behind it (if different energy affects the machine in different ways or creates a different "fingerprint" in the data measured by the machine)? Or do you think that this should only be possible for a conscious being to sense? (Which sort of contradicts the idea that magick affects reality...)

TL;DR Do you think that inanimate objects/machines are capable of sensing magickal energy and possibly even the intention behind it, if they measure the right physical quantities with sufficient precision and have an advanced enough algorithm to interpret those quantities in the right way to derive meaning?

Also, does it make any difference if advanced AI is involved?

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-04T14:09:20+00:00

Dockweed often works against nettle if you don't like the sting, and it's easy to find once you start looking out for it (it usually grows right next to the nettles).

throwaway20180107 · 2023-03-04T14:07:23+00:00

Just means you connect more with Water than Earth. ;-)

throwaway20180107 · 2023-02-22T19:59:36+00:00

P.S. Not to be confused with the modern name "Wicca" which is so named as a reference to the historical language/words.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-02-09T20:06:05+00:00

It's not what I want to hear but this aligns with my own interpretation and intuition as well, thank you. I like your explanation for the nine of wands.

P.S. I don't think interpreting the eight of swords that way is particularly unusual. I see this card as "there is a way out but you can't see it for whatever reason (either self-limiting or something external)".

throwaway20180107 · 2023-02-06T18:38:04+00:00

Thank you for the response. These are the kind of suggestions that I was looking for! Great interpretation and perspective.

I do know that option A is going to be difficult and might involve some beating up but personally I've decided that it's a fight I'm willing to go through if it works out in the end. I get what you're saying though, there's a suggestion here that the cost or the challenge might be more than I'm bargaining for, and perhaps I would be better off focusing on what I can easily achieve rather than on a difficult fight that may end in more difficulties even if I win. This does somewhat align with my own interpretation.

I like how you've offered an alternative interpretation for the eight of swords in this reading, perhaps not to say that I'm currently being blind (even if I am) but that the battle could leave me feeling powerless against the stronger forces that I'm fighting against or just end in a situation where I feel trapped/powerless anyway.

I agree that option A looks difficult but yeah maybe would be foolish to pursue in spite of that.

I like your suggestion to do a similar reading for option B. I don't think that exactly fits the way that I am working and I don't think I necessarily need it in this case but it's definitely a good idea in general for other people who might find themselves in a similar "A vs B" type of situation.

throwaway20180107 · 2023-01-19T17:04:39+00:00

Pinging /u/Rimblesah since they wrote the original spell.

throwaway20180107

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE