#thoughts ofthefog
I suppose if you asked who i was I would say that you are speaking to a rather small, verbal portion of my brain.
But if you were to point to my leg and ask “is this you?” well i reckon I’d say yes.
a pedo just called me a wordcel
now, and this is crucial, were you being a wordcel at the time?
honestly i feel like i was being more of a shape rotator
just took a look - bad news
no kidding
Yeah not only is a fluid computing a thing but it is used at an industrial scale in the internet backbone.
This Wall of Lava Lamps Is Crucial for Encryption
You can make a less than effecient computer out of liquid cells as seen here
Liquid is a medium of high density machine readable data storage in computer science research as well ( though this would better be labeled as molecule data storage ) , based on previous successes of storing data as dna, which i guess parallels the cum example.
I assume you are already familiar with the slime mold used to calculate the travelling salesman problems.
I would say the shape rotator response is building stuff like that insofar as the catagory says anything meaningful at all.
none of this is an argument against anything i said?
Its pretty direct actually. Every physical system can be a computer hence the examples of physical systems being a computer, and in fact it does get used like that on an industrial scale so it makes perfect sense economically and physically etc.
Gesturing at how dumb it sounds when that’s how it actually is just kind of makes it seem like you don’t understand the infrastructure of the internet you’re using right now rather than say something meaningful about the philosophy of computer science.
nah. bro come on. i know what i’m talking about. what do you even mean by “any physical system can be a computer”??
like actually concretely what is a computer for you? define it
A computer is a physical system that can be used to do a series of numerical or logical calculations given input.
A set of dominos can be a computer for example, where the input is pushing over a line of stacked ones, and the output can be which lines are down at the end of the computation.
A single line of dominos is not particularly useful, but the point is that you can do this. You can make a computer in Minecraft. You can use an abacus. You can use your brain.
Whether that is useful or practical depends on things like setup time and speed of calculation, but that is a difference in degree rather than kind.
all differences are differences of degree. kinds do not exist “out there”.
so you define a computer as any symbol manipulation system of any kind? what counts as a symbol? anything that humans apply meaning to?
so a computer is “any sort of system which manipulates anything humans can attach meaning to” which is anything.
so i guess under this definition almost anything would be a “computer”, it’s just that the vast majority of them were not made by humans, have no intention behind them, are not arranged into gates, transistors, etc, do not use ones and zeroes, are not anywhere near logic or arithmetic. nothing that we use to identify a computer is there.
what’s the input and output on a rock? how do you debug a star? can i get down to the assembly code of the atmosphere? can i write a C script on a feather? can you run a multiplication program on a tree, or a sorting algorithm on a forest? Type up a “hello world” program in the dirt and then get back to me.
If you can’t do anything that I listed above on a particular system there’s no real reason to call it a computer.
either a computer is “those electronic things with screens that are made of transistors and wires and do complex calculations for us” or “everything everywhere all the time”. now which one of those makes sense? which one of those actually applies to the word “computer”?
if you ask me to “go get you your computer” and i return with a spoon, you’d rightly say “that isn’t a computer.”
any definition applies to everything if you stretch it enough.
what you need to ask is, what project does it serve to classify everything in the universe as a computer? what kind of worldview is it to look on your fellow humans as arithmetic processing machines designed to be opened up and programmed by someone else?
based on your reasoning i could define all computers as rivers and it would be equally valid. anything you say is a computer i could use your own arguments to call it a river. that hunk of metal is a “computer” because it processes information and symbols? it’s actually a river, because everything flows down its path.
Or a mind! i could do the same thing you’re doing with computers but simply define “mind” as “that which manipulates symbols” (which is honestly more valid because minds came first and then made the computers). Then i could argue that the whole universe is just one giant mind manipulating symbols. now i expect you have some disagreement with this notion but, like, who’s to really say?
do you understand now how this game of stretching definitions works? it’s aesthetic! you’re defending the world-as-computer mindset because it gives you an aesthetically pleasing picture of the world, i imagine.
so, what do you really want to characterize reality as?
Yeah, actually it turns out this is pretty useful to the history of computer science.
Before electronic computers, a calculator was a person. The way that changed was building stuff like mechanical computers. Which comes from this thinking.
See, the difference engine.
I said that any physical system can be a computer. So a rock obviously isn’t something programmable like a pc is, but it can be made into one. Silicon for example, or the metal gears that go into mechanical computers. Then once that physical system is built, you can now use it for numerical and logical calculations. Hence the definition which you seemed to have stretched on your own and proceeded to complain about.
A spoon can be a component in a computer, but in order to get anything meaningful from it there will likely need to be some other components and a system of interpreting it. The objection to someone getting a spoon comes from these grounds.
Like we can say most anything can be used as building materials. Ice, for example. Its not overly expansive to define it this way and people make ice sculptures and hotels and stuff out of it, even if it is impractical. You may as well object to that on the same grounds.
a pedo just called me a wordcel
now, and this is crucial, were you being a wordcel at the time?
honestly i feel like i was being more of a shape rotator
just took a look - bad news
no kidding
Yeah not only is a fluid computing a thing but it is used at an industrial scale in the internet backbone.
This Wall of Lava Lamps Is Crucial for Encryption
You can make a less than effecient computer out of liquid cells as seen here
Liquid is a medium of high density machine readable data storage in computer science research as well ( though this would better be labeled as molecule data storage ) , based on previous successes of storing data as dna, which i guess parallels the cum example.
I assume you are already familiar with the slime mold used to calculate the travelling salesman problems.
I would say the shape rotator response is building stuff like that insofar as the catagory says anything meaningful at all.
obviously my intuitions about the trolley problem and the fat man problem are both correct, and the philosophical problem is what moral principles entail this distinction
obviously my intuition about the fat man problem is correct, and this entails that I should be more cautious about uncritically accepting my intuition about the trolley problem, which may be more complicated than I first thought
obviously my intuition about the trolley problem is correct, and this entails that I should reject my intuition about the fat man problem, which is in fact a non-issue easily resolved by general principles
While much has been said about those who hesitate at the fat man scenario being uncomfortable with more direct attribution, I think that this glosses over way that intuition works, as well as obscures what it is useful for.
On one hand, pulling a lever to kill the one and save five is the utalitarian choice. But it is also one that is quite liable to work without failing. Further, if the lever does fail, this absolves the moral agent of guilt anyway since there was nothing that could be done.
On the other, fat men are actually pretty bad at stopping trolleys. Further, if the body misses the tracks, which is more likely than the lever failing, this puts our moral agent in an awkward situation of explaining to the fellow they just pushed what the big idea is.
When we take self interest into account first, it we have better predictive power for one’s actions, but interestingly, also intuitions even if it personally doesn’t feel like it.
This certainly explains why methods of saving people from the holocaust work - waving the possibility of authoritative retribution to get jews out of camps is exactly because it seems like the nazi bureaucrat will get in trouble if they dont. Simularly, a militia group trying to do a pogram can be stopped by bystanders watching them disapprovingly, not because they are suddenly convinced of the humanity of their potential victim, but that there is now evidence that there will be some kind of court case and potential jail time if they follow through.
In that respect, it is probably a good thing when people balk at the fat man scenario, though it tends not to go over that way.
The inconsistency between most people’s intuitions regarding the trolley problem and the fat man scenario is (one more piece in a whole pile of) evidence that OUR INTUITIONS DON’T FOLLOW LOGICAL PRINCIPLES. And why should they? That’s not their job. Their job is facilitating sociability.
I would argue that socialibility is just such an example of something that promotes self interest. But there are also tendencies to initially distrust unknown people that look different. This is still working on the same principle, though.
But importantly, one’s initial intuition can be changed with experience. This is pretty quick with a traumatic experience ( itself an adaptation, though not necessarily sustainable ), but it can work in a more productive direction. Like a fear of heights comes from the internalised belief that falling hurts and that going up is a situation where that can happen. Self preservation is a pretty deep instinct.
You can be up on a big wind generator’s emergency descent mechanism all strapped up and ready to go down, but still have an internalised fear to use it. Even when you understand safety equipment.
What helps get through this is a process of proving to yourself that it is indeed safe. Going over the assurances, feeling the weight of the safety harness, perhaps recalling previous experiences with climbing equipment and so on, and gradually this intuitive mental block will fade.
Simply saying that what you are feeling is irrational isn’t particularly effective in my experience.
obviously my intuitions about the trolley problem and the fat man problem are both correct, and the philosophical problem is what moral principles entail this distinction
obviously my intuition about the fat man problem is correct, and this entails that I should be more cautious about uncritically accepting my intuition about the trolley problem, which may be more complicated than I first thought
obviously my intuition about the trolley problem is correct, and this entails that I should reject my intuition about the fat man problem, which is in fact a non-issue easily resolved by general principles
While much has been said about those who hesitate at the fat man scenario being uncomfortable with more direct attribution, I think that this glosses over way that intuition works, as well as obscures what it is useful for.
On one hand, pulling a lever to kill the one and save five is the utalitarian choice. But it is also one that is quite liable to work without failing. Further, if the lever does fail, this absolves the moral agent of guilt anyway since there was nothing that could be done.
On the other, fat men are actually pretty bad at stopping trolleys. Further, if the body misses the tracks, which is more likely than the lever failing, this puts our moral agent in an awkward situation of explaining to the fellow they just pushed what the big idea is.
When we take self interest into account first, it we have better predictive power for one’s actions, but interestingly, also intuitions even if it personally doesn’t feel like it.
This certainly explains why methods of saving people from the holocaust work - waving the possibility of authoritative retribution to get jews out of camps is exactly because it seems like the nazi bureaucrat will get in trouble if they dont. Simularly, a militia group trying to do a pogram can be stopped by bystanders watching them disapprovingly, not because they are suddenly convinced of the humanity of their potential victim, but that there is now evidence that there will be some kind of court case and potential jail time if they follow through.
In that respect, it is probably a good thing when people balk at the fat man scenario, though it tends not to go over that way.
what does statistics describe?
Statistics are the numerical concentration of emperical observations that inform probability, which is a declaration about how the world will be given one’s epistemological limits and or intentions.
Every person you’ve ever met or came into contact with irl, all chose to not kill you
Maybe its just me but I figure that most people arent thinking of murder and killing at all when they meet me. In fact, I would say the thought didn’t even occur to them. So much so, that it is scarcely a choice.
There is a village of pacifists in the game lisa the joyful. Every time you pass them you get the prompt to kill them. The reason this is impactful is precisely because it is different than how people normally operate.
A conscious choice takes a lot of energy. Human beings are energy saving machines despite what it may feel like, so it is easy to slip into the default mode where we have generally functional heuristics that are low cost and quick.
So what happens is you make a conscious choice, then this gets reinforced over a long period of time and becomes automatic.
Strangers did not choose not to kill me, they chose not to murder random people long ago and this is the consequence of that.
This has implications for how you can change your own behaviour.
