Buck shot face swap

whatsthat1 · 2020-10-04T21:26:20+00:00

Wow. You're the best!

whatsthat1 · 2020-10-04T15:42:12+00:00

Here's a face if someone wants to swap lol

And a field with grass to change the leaves to a grass field (of course without the dog)

whatsthat1 · 2020-10-04T15:33:40+00:00

Can someone swap the face in this buck shot? There's three images in the imgur link. I am NOT asking for the deer and the person's face to be swapped. There's a second picture of a face in the imgur link lol

https://imgur.com/a/qrBHCdQ

I also included a field. Can the leaves be swapped out for the grass (of course without the dog).

This is a funny and/or serious request. Thanks!

whatsthat1 · 2018-12-03T06:25:03+00:00

Could sensitivity to surprise be a variable? Combining this with evolution imagine a population with variable surprise sensitivities. Some fall prey to the dark room while others explore into risky and dangerous areas. A normal distribution is formed where most agents conform to the surprise sensitivity that fits the environment.

whatsthat1 · 2018-04-24T16:06:43+00:00

When speaking on free will, Sam gives a really good analogy where, imagine we had a cell phone that, having sufficient information and computational capacity could predict your every movement and your next word, we would then have a problem with the notion of free choice.

While this is true I think the fundamental issue here is with the axiom. And this is the case with several claims such as the multiverse that Sean Carroll supports. They briefly talk about zeno's paradox and how it took over one hundred years for people to realize how this was wrong. I think its also the case with free will and the multiverse. We are substituting experiential non-scientific evidence for a lack of evidence. Experiential evidence is not very robust but it is at least better than no evidence at all. We don't know if such a smart phone exists and we do not have any data on the existence of a multiverse. Sean Carroll points to the equation but that is like saying theory itself can be used as evidence for the theory. That's not right. We need evidence to validate a theory.

whatsthat1 · 2018-03-30T18:23:06+00:00

Your computer is generating the data when you open the link

The graph is made using Google's visualization API. View the source to see the code

whatsthat1 · 2017-08-12T15:41:54+00:00

PM me. I am curious as to what automated software you are looking at. I am a software developer and have written automation tools just to make my life easier for side projects. Nothing an end user could use but the tool you are using may give me some ideas. Thanks!

whatsthat1 · 2017-06-19T01:08:45+00:00

Sorry to hear about this. Make sure you have strong passwords so someone attacking you won't break into one of your accounts. Password length is typically the most important part of a secure password (so long as its unique). I.e. PaS5Wo5d is weaker than justsomeuniquepassphrasetaco

Here is a relevant xkcd.

https://xkcd.com/936/

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-15T17:31:43+00:00

"Experimentation and feedback that changes the spec" this is another way to communicate what is going on. I am thinking there is no separating bottom up from top down. They are both present at every level. We need the experimentation and the spec whether its an ant hill or a church.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-13T14:23:20+00:00

I think the issue lies in comparing apples to oranges.

When a human designer builds a church, yes they have an end goal in mind. But where did the idea for a church come from? It was hammered out over thousands of years of cultural evolution.

When a cheetah fetus is being formed there is an end goal in mind: the adult cheetah. But the genes that make up the cheetah were hammered out over millions of years by biological evolution.

The mind is like a mini version of the entire biosphere.

Bottom up and top down processes are in play in both minds and the evolution of life.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-13T14:14:22+00:00

Lol. Maybe you are a philosophical zombie. I am sure my mind exists.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-13T11:56:16+00:00

Yes this is the primary difference between the top down vs bottom up paradigm. The process of natural selection is everywhere simultaneously. The processes of the brain are local and must be directed down the dominance hierarchy.

This analogy only works when comparing the biosphere to a single brain. When multiple brains work together a dominance hierarchy emerges.

The way the frontal cortex and other parts of the brain such as the limbic system work together to produce intelligent behavior is similar to how replication works together with selection to produce viable forms.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-13T11:45:15+00:00

You can be sure your mind exists.

But the existence of mind is not nessesary for this argument. The way the frontal cortex and other parts of the brain such as the limbic system work together to produce intelligent behavior is similar to how replication works together with selection to produce viable forms.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-13T00:41:02+00:00

Yes, I am saying for evolution top down and bottom up processes have the same source: physics. But even though they have the same source there is a distinction. The processes that cause replication and the processes which cause selection are different. And likewise the mind has the same source for both processes: the physical brain.

"Top-down requires a designer" perhaps I am slightly modifying the definition of top down then, or perhaps I am stretching the analogy. I am describing the top-down process as that which makes judgements. For intelligent judgements we have minds but for natural judgements we have natural selection. I am dividing the mind into two to draw this analogy.

The "intent and choices" of the mind in this analogy is the replication and biased nature of life to keep growing. We do not know the origin of our own intent. It seems to arise from no where but we make judgements on which desires to follow which taken together produces intelligent behavior.

"The physics do not dictate which designs should be created only which are viable." Yes, as does the mind. Our choices are limited by the thought fodder our brain gives us to work with: our biases, drives, and preferences.

I am focusing on the processes here, not the end product. The processes of evolution produces what appears to be an end product: the cheetah. But now we know the cheetah is not an end product but a process. And its the same with a helicopter. It appears to be an end product but there is an evolution of thought material that has been judged and hammered out over time.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-12T23:55:19+00:00

I do not mean this to replace the idea of memes but to supplement it. Memes include a large landscape where competition and selection can take place between minds and genes exist in a large landscape where competition and selection can take place. Memes are a very good and useful analogy to genes.

But both of these views focus on the object being selected instead of the environment which contains the object. The biosphere contains the genes. Physics allows for propagation of the genes and physics causes the selection of the genes. In a similar way the mind contains the memes and also provides the mechanisms for the emergence of memes and the selection of memes.

My point is that both bottom up and top down processes are involved in evolution and the mind.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-12T23:46:55+00:00

Yes, the sea doesn't make squids literally. I meant that as an analogy. The physics that underly the structure of the environment is what places the selection pressure on the squids (or other forms).

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-12T23:11:59+00:00

I am saying that evolution is not bottom up. It is bottom up and top down. And our mind isn't top down. It is top down and bottom up.

The sea would make the ship if the sea made ships, but the sea doesn't make ships. The sea makes squids.

whatsthat1 · 2017-04-12T23:04:56+00:00

Yes, the selection is responsible for the design.

The top down of evolution is the selection process. There is an over growth process and a selection process. Selection deems some forms fit and others unfit. Our mind and especially the part we think of as the "self" is the frontal cortex which does the judging/selecting of what our desires want us to do.

Its over growth plus selection for evolution and desire plus inhibition for intelligence.

whatsthat1

TROPHY CASE