ive got pins and needles for you.

In general, failure refers to the state or condition of not meeting a desirable or intended objective. It may be viewed as the opposite of success.

if we do happen to create artificial intelligence one day, i would expect it to be somewhat like raising a child. but something you cannot do with humans, that you could do with AI, is transfer years of work from one instance of hardware to another. so if you did happen to train your AI robot to have human like intelligence, you could very easily have a second robot with the same level of training by simply copying the files to the second robot. now this brings up an interesting question to me, lets refer to the AI as an intelligence, instead of a robot or computer, in my opinion, once you can separate the intelligence from the mechanical hardware which drives it, the remaining intelligence is equivalent (roughly) to any other instance, human or 'artificial'. anyway, once the intelligence has been copied, the two instances would begin to experience/think/learn differently, and become essentially two unique intelligences. which leads me to wonder about murder. certainly if we copied my intelligence to a second human, it would appear as if there were two 'cody's'. but after years we would undoubtedly know different things, experience different things. now after years it would certainly seem wrong to kill either of us, as itd be murder. but the instant my intelligence was copied, we would expect one of the instances of cody could be destroyed without too much guilt, as ultimately 'cody' would still remain.

how long do you think it takes for applesauce to go bad?

i think i just want people to be passionate about things. i think thats what people find attractive in me. from my perspective however (although im not positive), i dont believe that is what i find attractive in girls. i think what i find attractive is... thought. girls who think. have ideas. creativity. i think im attracted to girls that understand some of the many things i dont.

if i want to be unique, ill need to follow the diagonal argument; picking up a single trait from every person and flipping it over.

theyre practicing being cruel and unusual.

i didnt mean it that way.
my alarm clock program just told me, "please select a date and time in the future." but i read it as... "please select a date and time... in the future!"
what is the difference between 'knowing' something and 'thinking' you know something?
my two favorite things are commitment, and changing myself.
if you dont like the stations, you can just play with my buttons until you find something we both enjoy.

hey, dont look at me, its not my fault. yes it is.

tell everett: this is how it works, every scientific achievement we make reduces the power of god. first it was, why do the planets revolve the way they do? according to the whims of the great creator. but then it was discovered they revolved in ellipses, and the great creator suddenly had to do it a certain way. then it was discovered that the ellipses could be explained in terms of a more general theory of universal gravitation, which further restricted the 'whims' of the great creator.

ambiguity aversion

with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg
to add to that, i think that most of what people think of as 'evil' is not necessarily so, and certainly to a much lesser degree. i think a lot of people feel guilt over things and assume thats evil, but guilt and evil are learned behaviors. you wouldnt call lions evil, nor would they feel guilty. that doesnt mean we cant or shouldnt have morals, but we certainly should take caution in what we take to be right and wrong, and what we should and should not regret. i want to go on about this actually.

im gonna drink till i reboot

oh man what a mess:
When later challenges to the Bogdanov papers' legitimacy arose, the debate spread to the question of whether the substitution of a "publication requirement" by university professors when they do not understand students' work is a valid means of determining the veracity of a paper. However, the intrinsic complexity of topics like quantum groups and topological field theory (as well as the growth of excessive jargon used by those who study these areas) makes it difficult to avoid such delegation, since often specific expertise is necessary in order to fully understand and evaluate the claims made in papers in these fields. --- we need a better way of organizing this progress, as to prevent such embarrassing events.

i try not to impress

holy fuck, tornados on the sun!?!? how fucking scary an idea is that? keep in mind, those 'tornados' are more on the scale of our planet than the scale of our states/cities/towns.

ive got pins and needles for you.

dear professor miller,
"So, it looks as if there are two possibilities." are you serious? i can think of TONS of other possibilities. perhaps they dont want to contact us (for which many reasons we can imagine exist, such as issues of their own privacy; an uncertainty in us as an emerging species, etc). perhaps they use more efficient means of communication, such as focused laser-like radio signals aimed directly at their receiver rather than the inefficient broadly directional dishes we currently use, making their communications more difficult to find. perhaps their interstellar communications are so advanced in their compression techniques that they appear random to us. perhaps the energy requirements to leave a planet are greater than the past minds have suspected (personally, i think this is a very large part of it). perhaps they are so vastly distant that their signals die off too completely for us to detect. perhaps perhaps perhaps. realize this: no matter how stupid some people might be, no matter how willing they might be to substitute friends with tv, healthy food with fast food, and sex with pornography, there will remain PLENTY of us who are unwilling to make such trades. and if we are the only ones procreating, intentionally, our proportion should not be expected to decrease in any industrialized nation.
"It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in a sacred nursery." also, realize this: people can expand beyond their environments. there are plenty of children who outsmart their parents. i was raised with a small amount of tv, and i happen to hate the thing. many more people were raised right here in modern society by parents that loathe tvs, and didnt allow their children to see it at all. this has worked in some instances, and failed in others. likewise, many couch potato parents led to couch potato children, however, there are plenty of kids who see the couch-ridden world as a boring waste of life, and intentionally leave it. it goes both ways. just because you have a shitty childhood doesnt mean you cant do great things, and just because you are raised with every benefit to your intellectual upbringing possible, doesnt mean you wont find happiness in a video game (though personally the latter possibility saddens me).

i dont want to remember clothing.

the only thing that lie detector will tell you is exactly what i want you to think.

somehow i think this is a very profound idea, but itll be hard to put in words. how can we formalize, with mathematics, the concept that time doesnt just 'move forward' but rather that it fluctuates back and forth very slightly, and over all is 'conserved' in a way that leads to it's 'moving forward'? sort of the way particles in the vacuum fluctuations pop in and out of existence.

call me the yrast
unreliable narrator

to write about: dr. abernathy's mention of physicists getting bored and not finishing the problem
also, wants/needs and other things. very few people know what they want. we all need roughly the same stuff. religion, politics, society, parents, peers, all distort what we want. freedom from the influence of those things could be beneficial to most people. thats not to say no friends/family/social life, but more, not to allow those things to influence decisions.

i think we need new/more experiments, to determine more about gravity. i think also the speed of light implying the fundamental idea is velocity is important.

these horrible decisions we make, are they worse than the sad outcomes we risk by not making them?

behold, the one commandment: god needs booze.
this is the worst crazy sect ive ever been in.

probably some people that know me fairly well will disagree with me on this, but im starting to think i have a very low comprehension ability. and the reason is that i read what i think are supposed to be simple ideas, and it seems i do not understand them, with increasing frequency. i dont seem to understand simple solutions to homework problems or simple proof ideas. instead i just sort of understand what they are supposed to be doing, and then figure out how to make them up myself. i guess it seems as if the 'spectrum' between my understanding something and my ignorance of it is very polarized; i either get it fully, or i do not get it in the least bit.

its so important for people to be around other people that in prison, that is what they take away from you: your privilege to be around other people. dont underestimate the importance of human interaction.

people look at me funny if i say, i dont use deodorant. but how many of them know where that came from? why it exists? how old a tradition it is? humans had no difficulty finding mates long before deodorant and modern showers, why do we have so much trouble now?

So how do we know the monsters ever were there?

dave bacon's test for mathematicians:
I actually have a test for whether you are a mathematician. Place yourself and a large potted plant in a huge room together. If you get tangled up in the plant, you are a mathematician. I draw this test from careful observation of the MSRI in Berkeley.

the downside to our personal judgments of insightfulness, introspection and the like, is that its all extremely subjective. just because you feel something is important doesnt make it important. substituting the word important with profound, wonderful, great, true, right, correct, etc gives the same result.

first megan's party - good time. i liked everything. lots of girls think im attractive i guess. and guys? wait, what?
found two quarters in the phone.
love notes to strangers.

you cannot choose what you want.

the story is told by an omniscient narrator.

emotionally unavailable - am i? i tried looking it up, couldnt find anything good to explain it.

are there economic models to phase out work? it seems essential, as we learn to automate more, how do we expect to continue to working? i hear people's counterargument a lot: but how will we buy the things the machines produce? well, why will the things the machines produce cost money? i want to start a fast food restaurant that is 100% completely automated. everything from ordering/receiving deliveries to money transfers and calling/scheduling repair men to fix/maintain the place. then, as soul owner of the store, i would quit. the store would have a computer that would attempt to maintain enough profit to run the place, and also whatever extra it seemed to make (past some safety buffer) it could donate to good causes, like college scholarships say.

good idea recently: weve spent about 360 billions dollars in iraq so far. iraq's GDP is just under 90 billion dollars. we could have paid the entire population of iraq to go on vacation, for three years straight. which got me thinking, instead of that, why didnt we just buy their army? why dont we buy north korea's? loyalty? yeah, i know, but most people can be bought no matter how loyal they are. and for 360 billions dollars, you can buy a lot of people, even if they are loyal. in fact, buy the leaders. is there anything they could possibly want but not have with that much money?

i was thinking the other day, can i lie to myself? and i dont think i can. here is the reason why: lying involves knowing the truth and presenting something else, or not presenting it correctly/accurately. i do not forsee how i can know the truth yet still convince myself of something else. in fact, id love to be able to do that, but i dont know how to go about doing it. any advice anyone?

ive been in a very creative mood lately.

this weekend i attended birthday parties for two different girls named megan. saturday was in keene, and sunday was in concord. bowling and dancing and sitting and observing and interacting and talking and eating and smiling and laughing and catching up. it was enjoyable.

wearing a unitard or leotard and tights helps to minimize this sensation.

what are you passionate about?

No comments: