Music Video maker and self professed "Fashion Victim" who is hoping to apply Rationality to problems and decisions in my life and career probably by reevaluating and likely building a new set of beliefs that underpins them.
No one has refuted it, ever, in my books
Nor can you refute that my qualia experience of green is what you call red, but because every time I see (and subsequently refer to) my red is the same time you see your red, there is no incongruity to suggest any different. However I think entertaining such a theory would be a waste of time.
I see the simulation hypothesis as suffering from the same flaws as the Young Earth Theory: both are incompatible with Occums Razor, or to put it another way, adds unnecessary complexity to a theory of metaphysics without offering additional accuracy or better predicting power. The Young Earth Hypothesis says that fossils and geological phenomena only appear to be older than 6,000 years, but they were intentionally created that way (by the great Simulator in the sky?). This means it also fails to meet the important criteria of modern science: it can't be falsified.
To be able to falsify something means that a theory is valuable, because if it fails, then you've identified a gap between your map of something and the territory that you can correct. A theory becomes even more valuable if it predicts some counter-intuition or result which hereto none of our models or theories predict, yet repeated tests do not falsify it.
Simulation Hypothesis intrinsically means you cannot identify the gap between your map and the territory, since the territory is just another representation. Nor does it explicitly and specifically identify things which we would expect to be true but aren't: again, because everything would continue to appear as it always has been. So it offers not value there.
Simulation Hypothesis isn't taken seriously not because it can't be true - so when you see green I see red - but that you can predict no difference in my or your behavior from knowing this. So what?
Stanley Kubrick is perhaps one of the most influential Sci-Fi filmmakers of the 20th century, therefore I believe he has some authority on this matter. What may answer the need for dystopia can be extend to war and crime films:
...one of the attractions of a war or crime story is that it provides an almost unique opportunity to contrast an individual of our contemporary society with a solid framework of accepted value, which the audience becomes fully aware of, and which can be used as a counterpoint to a human, individual, emotional situation. Further, war acts as a kind of hothouse for forced, quick breeding of attitudes and feelings. Attitudes crystallize and come out into the open. Conflict is natural, when it would in a less critical situation have to be introduced almost as a contrivance, and would thus appear forced, or - even worse - false. Eisenstein, in his theoretical writings about dramatic structure, was often guilty of oversimplification. The black and white contrasts of Alexander Nevsky do not fit all drama. But war does permit this basic kind of contrast - and spectacle. And within these contrasts you can begin to apply some of the possibilities of film - of the sort explored by Eisenstein."
https://www.archiviokubrick.it/english/words/interviews/1959independence.html
More specifically he explains the way he believes Speculative Fictional genres, such as fantasy and Sci-Fi can be effective towards expressing certain ideas which realist drama - the kinds you're advocating albeit within a Sci-Fi environment - may not be. Interviews taken from these transcripts: http://visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
Michel Ciment: You are a person who uses his rationality, who enjoys understanding things, but in2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining you demonstrate the limits of intellectual knowledge. Is this an acknowledgement of what William James called the unexplained residues of human experience?
Stanley Kubrick: Obviously, science-fiction and the supernatural bring you very quickly to the limits of knowledge and rational explanation. But from a dramatic point of view, you must ask yourself: 'If all of this were unquestionably true, how would it really happen?' You can't go much further than that. I like the regions of fantasy where reason is used primarily to undermine incredulity. Reason can take you to the border of these areas, but from there on you can be guided only by your imagination. I think we strain at the limits of reason and enjoy the temporary sense of freedom which we gain by such exercises of our imagination.
Michel Ciment: Don't you think that today it is in this sort of popular literature that you find strong archetypes, symbolic images which have vanished somehow from the more highbrow literary works?
Stanley Kubrick: Yes, I do, and I think that it's part of their often phenomenal success. There is no doubt that a good story has always mattered, and the great novelists have generally built their work around strong plots. But I've never been able to decide whether the plot is just a way of keeping people's attention while you do everything else, or whether the plot is really more important than anything else, perhaps communicating with us on an unconscious level which affects us in the way that myths once did. I think, in some ways, the conventions of realistic fiction and drama may impose serious limitations on a story. For one thing, if you play by the rules and respect the preparation and pace required to establish realism, it takes a lot longer to make a point than it does, say, in fantasy. At the same time, it is possible that this very work that contributes to a story's realism may weaken its grip on the unconscious. Realism is probably the best way to dramatize argument and ideas. Fantasy may deal best with themes which lie primarily in the unconscious. I think the unconscious appeal of a ghost story, for instance, lies in its promise of immortality. If you can be frightened by a ghost story, then you must accept the possibility that supernatural beings exist. If they do, then there is more than just oblivion waiting beyond the grave.
And to finish, I can't the source at the moment (I think it was in "A Life in Pictures"), but it is like Jack Nicholson said of Kubrick "then someone like Stanley comes along and asks: it's realistic, but is it interesting?".
A dystopia provides a background, a framework that allows a highly catalytic environment for dramatizing ideas that cannot be done by means of regular small stakes interpersonal conflict. Even Plato knew this with regards to pedagogy: hence why his Socrates suggested like the way you use big handwriting to make a manuscript more visible, he expanded the vision of justice in one single person to the entire polis.
Are there pivotal ways this is different to the theories of Enactivism?
(" Its authors define cognition as enaction, which they in turn characterize as the ‘bringing forth’ of domains of significance through organismic activity that has been itself conditioned by a history of interactions between an organism and its environment." which at first blush I'd say is a reflectively stable agent modifying or updating believes by means of enaction. Enactivism also rejects mind-body duality in favour of a more 'embodied' cognition approach together with a "deep continuity of the principles of self-organization from the simplest living things to more complex cognitive beings"), particularly autopoeisis.
"An autopoietic system was defined as a network of inter-related component-producing processes such that the components in interaction generate the same network that produced them."
An autopoietic system can be contrasted to an allopoetic system which creates objects different to itself, like a factory. Most living beings are autopoetic in that they either produce themselves, or things like them which seems to be similar to a reflectively stable agent, particularly when we describe the more complicated cognitive beings in autopoetic terms. Luhman argued that social systems too are self-organizing, self-reproducing systems which brought the concepts of enactivism from biology and cognitive science into the social sciences.
What about the incentives? PWC is apparently OpenAI's largest enterprise customer. I don't know how much PWC actually use the tools in-house and how much they use to on-sell "Digital Transformation" onto their own and new customers. How might this be affecting the way that OpenAI develop their products?
I have my own theories about the intentions which I do not feel comfortable discussing, so I'll focus on the practicalities and case studies which show why this complex and difficult to execute:
some hostages have been killed by the IDF during rescue operations, this isn't uncommon, the lone hostage was killed during a French raid in Somalia, consider the Lindt Cafe Siege in Sydney where a pregnant hostage was killed by ricocheting police bullet fire when they finally stormed in, three other hostages and a policeman were injured. This was a lone gunman, I can imagine that the Hamas hostage takers are well organized groups. A hostage during the Gladbeck Crises in Germany were also injured by police fire.
Kidnapping someone who "knows" the location of some hostages I would guess is highly ineffective for many reasons, Torture is a notoriously inaccurate source of information: hence the propensity for false admissions or telling interrogators what they want to hear. That and I suspect that there is a intentional system of moving around hostages from place to place, and never explicitly sharing locations with others to minimize the risk of locations leaking.
If someone who knows the exact location of a hostage has not been heard from for 24 hours, it is probably a good idea to move to a new location anyway.
Finally there is the incredible danger to the IDF soldiers themselves going into a dynamic environment where they don't know how much resistance they will encounter, being expected to minimize the harm to hostages while almost certainly coming under fire. It's probable suicide.
Any good resources which illustrate decision making models for career choices? Particularly ones that help you audit your strengths and weaknesses and therefore potential efficacy in given roles?
I had a look over the E.A. Forum, and there's no decision making models for how to choose a career. There's a lot of "draw the rest of the owl" stuff like - "Get a high paying salary so you can donate". Okay, but how? There's certainly a lot of job openings announced on the forum, but again, how do I know which one's I, me, am best suited to? Which types of positions am I going to be most effective in? Perhaps the real question is - "which roles will I be judged by recruiters and those hiring as being most suitable for? What decision making models are they using?"
If the question was "What are you most passionate about?" then I'd be like "filmmaking or music videos" and I've spent the last 15 and 6 years respectively trying to figure out how to make that work in practice. And that is probably a completely different methodology that involves "build a portfolio" "build a profile" "network". The meta-skill stuff about self-promotion I suck at.
At the root, I think, is the same problem and knowing which roles to apply for - my complete dearth of knowledge about what other people see as valuable.
So where are the resources that help you audit yourself: see where your weaknesses really are, not jut what you think they are, where are the resources that help you align your strengths and knowledge (both theoretical and tacit) with actual job-market positions?
Or alternatively, how can I build better models of what other people find valuable?
I meant a personal assistant type A.I. like Alexa or Siri which is capable of exerting Milieu control like Sir Humphrey does: Meta properties, Tik Tok are not yet integrated with such personal A.I. assistants... yet.
This may be pedantry, but is it correct to say "irrefutable evidence"? I know that in the real world the adjective 'irrefutable' has desirable rhetorical force but evidence is often not what is contended or in need of refuting. "Irrefutable evidence" on the face of it means means "yes, we can all agree it is evidence". A comical example that comes to mind is from Quintilian 's treatise that I'll paraphrase and embellish:
"yes, it is true I killed him with that knife, but it was justified because he was an adulterer and by the laws of Rome Legal"
In (modern) courts of law you have Admissible evidence, which is evidence that, at least in U.S. Federal courts, governed by a length list of rules including relevance, the competency to give testimony of certain witnesses, exceptions to hearsay.
However you also have, among many other types, "insufficient evidence". What is not being refuted is that it is evidence, only that the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof that leads to the conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt".
An item of evidence may be irrefutable, in as much as yes - it is evidence, no one is questioning that it is evidence, and it may be impossible to deny the inference that is being drawn from that evidence. But that it alone meets the burden of proof.
As far as I understand "irrefutable evidence" is not a legal term but one of the court of public opinion: where rhetorical force is preeminent. Perhaps it is useful then to say it in certain cases, but is it rational and correct?
The original refers more to points of argument than evidence:
Take for example the following case. "You killed a man." "Yes, I killed him." 7 Agreed, I pass to the defence, which has to produce the motive for the homicide. "It is lawful," he urges, "to kill an adulterer with his paramour." Another admitted point, for there is no doubt about the law...
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/7A*.html#ref2
I don't want to pretend that I'm someone who is immune to Youtube binges or similar behaviors. However I am not sure why this is a problem and what meaningful work that this behavior was getting in the way of? Speaking for myself, 9/10 if I have a commitment the next morning, I won't stay up late on my computer because... I know I have a commitment at a set time. (If you forced me to hypothesize why that 1/10 times I don't, I'd guess that it is stress related anticipation means I can't sleep even if I did lay down - but that is just a wild guess).
I'm also surprised to see how most of the solutions in the comments involve removing access to anything... doing something more productive. I think there is a difference between the nebulous guilt we feel about Opportunity Cost - "oh geez I could have used that time more effectively" and specific, tangible, realistic things we could have done but didn't. I often find that Youtube Binges are caused by/as-a-result-of not being able to find those activities, they do not frustrate them.
I have perennially found that whatever vice (or as you call it 'hyperstimuli') that I remove, I just replace it with another but it's never a beneficial activity. (The one exception I can think of was when I stopped listening to music when I had a bout of insomnia and instead replaced it with lectures on Wittgenstein or Quantum Physics, because I figured "I might as well learn SOMETHING').
This has caused me an incredible amount of frustration. For all the talk of "social media detox" and even the farcically named "dopamine detox" none seem to actually result in net increases in my well being.
Going back to what I said about specific, tangible, realistic alternatives: I have found that the only way to stop mid-way through a Youtube binge or a Instagram scroll is to be excited about a project that I have a lot of faith in my ability to complete, and a viable first-step which I can do now.
This isn't fail-safe, if I'm writing a journal entry or an essay, and I have to leave in 30 minutes, you bet your bottom dollar I'll be late because I'll be so engrossed in that writing process. But that doesn't sound like a 'hyperstimuli'
But that surely just describes the retina and the way light passes through the lens (which we can measure or at least make informed guesses based on the substances and reflectance/absorbtion involved)? How do you KNOW that my hue isn't rotated completely differently since you can't measure it - my experience of it? The wavelengths don't mean a thing.