|
Pesmerga posted:Academia is one part knowledge, one part skepticism and one part crippling insecurity. Academia is also the biggest career path where being able to generate endless plausible bullshit is a positive trait.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Academia is also the biggest career path where being able to generate endless plausible bullshit is a positive trait. Financial services?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Financial services? Public relations
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Public relations Politics. ETA: Also Tech Visionary. --- Musk: I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with artificial intelligence. I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon. You know those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram, and the holy water, and he’s like — Yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon? Doesn’t work out. [audience laughs] Q: So I’ll take it there’ll be no HAL9000 going to mars? Musk: Heh. HAL 9000 would be easy [to deal with in comparison to the AI he’s talking about]. It’s way more complex… it’d put HAL9000 to shame. That’s like a puppy dog. --- 
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Politics. Oh my god, it's all networked 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Oh my god, it's all networked Hail Eripsa, he was right all along 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Hail Eripsa, he was right all along We have won the victory over ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Financial services? CheesyDog posted:Public relations Absurd Alhazred posted:Politics. Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922. I guess this was what was meant by a circular network.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922. It's called joke recycling, and I'll have you know that not having to invent new quips reduces my carbon footprint tremendously!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922. Natural science 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Financial services? Nah, this actually has real consequences for bullshitters. Eventually someone will notice and get rid of you. And with politics you want terse, easily-understood bullshit, not pages of useless obfuscation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922. We reduced the problem to a previously told joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hold on guys, I'm not quite sure I can handle this many fresh comedic insights from 1922. Marketing
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
So it appears Synereno has taken out advice in not being so loving creepy about the whole 'ex' thing. The downer is that they left in the phrase 'belong to you' which still comes off sort of creepy since my family doesn't belong to me. Baby steps I suppose. Oh, and while I'm at it, you should all take a look at this link. quote:Facebook revealed some big, big stats on big data to a few reporters at its HQ today, including that its system processes 2.5 billion pieces of content and 500+ terabytes of data each day. It’s pulling in 2.7 billion Like actions and 300 million photos per day, and it scans roughly 105 terabytes of data each half hour. Plus it gave the first details on its new “Project Prism”. Bolded my favorite stats. How the gently caress that is supposed to go on a blockchain? Well, the world will never know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh, and while I'm at it, you should all take a look at this link. All that, and uploading a video to Facebook is still a cross-your-fingers situation. Can imagine the mess it would be if you were dealing with either a blockchain or a cloud made up of aging consumer-grade laptops connected to the dorm wifi?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:All that, and uploading a video to Facebook is still a cross-your-fingers situation. Can imagine the mess it would be if you were dealing with either a blockchain or a cloud made up of aging consumer-grade laptops connected to the dorm wifi? Don't worry, the power of Network Theory will solve everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
This is all going to be trivial once self-replicating quantum Turing machines become inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Crossposting with no context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Crossposting with no context. No context needed, this is the second best thing to come out of this thread. The first being the Achewood beat down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Crossposting with no context. What game is that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:So it appears Synereno has taken out advice in not being so loving creepy about the whole 'ex' thing. The downer is that they left in the phrase 'belong to you' which still comes off sort of creepy since my family doesn't belong to me. Baby steps I suppose. Use badges to incentivize people to buy 105 new hard drives each half hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Use badges to incentivize people to buy 105 new hard drives each half hour. it'll be a marble bonanza for NewEgg
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:So it appears Synereno has taken out advice in not being so loving creepy about the whole 'ex' thing. The downer is that they left in the phrase 'belong to you' which still comes off sort of creepy since my family doesn't belong to me. Baby steps I suppose. Obviously a fascist enterprise like facebook would be needlessly inefficient. The Blockchain is Freedom, the Blockchain is Life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
emfive posted:it'll be a marble bonanza for NewEgg NO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rQnSRLc0RU
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What game is that? Bitcoin Billionaire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaavcWIc-ME
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Bitcoin Billionaire  says that app somehow contains a hidden bitcoin mining virus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:
It's not a virus, it's a hidden feature 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
The connection between Baez and Eripsa's use of the word object needs to be pointed out. Part of Eripsa's entire project is that objects can exist as one type of object and be translated via category theory and other mathematics into other objects. This type of ontology can work for certain objects but not all or if it does hold for all objects , it would require a lot of resources to acquire the translation. This also assumes certain things about the world. Eripsa seems to be making a popular assumption amongst certain views of ontological emergentists, objects or actual entities can emerge from lower level forces and that we can interact with these systems via certain power laws. This also involves the ability to translate one object into another without any loss. Part of the connection seems to be Eripsa's claim that certain relationships in social networks were supposed to emerge and they failed to do so. He places the failure for things to emerge on the way the social networks are structured at a digital level and assumes that we can translate this to a direct social relationship. Rather than claiming that there is correspondence between abstract mathematical objects or certain continuums and the social, he blames the way the social networks are developed. This means that he can keep the claim that emergence is possible with those objects and the type of ontology and translation are maintained. In some ways Eripsa's project is an attempt to save the claim of correspondence of certain mathematical objects and the metaphysical view that underlies it, the claim that those abstract mathematic objects can emerge and we can interact with them in the way he finds shown in network theory. Baez provides via category theory and some physics claims an underpinning for other claims that Eripsa's ontology holds. Edit: Fixed Grammar a bit and added detail. Ogodei_Khan fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Ogodei_Khan posted:The connection between Baez and Eripsa's use of the word object needs to be pointed out. Part of Eripsa's entire project is that objects can exist as one type of object and be translated via category theory and other mathematics into other objects. This type of ontology can work for certain objects but not all or if it does hold for all objects , it would require a lot of resources to acquire the translation. This also assumes certain things about the world. Eripsa seems to be making a popular assumption amongst certain views of ontological emergentists, objects or actual entities can emerge from lower level forces and that we can interact with these systems via certain power laws. This also involves the ability to to translate one object into another without any loss. Part of the connection seems to be Eripsa's claim that certain relationships in social networks were supposed to emerge and they failed to do so. He places the failure for things to emerge on the way the social networks are structured at a digital level and assumes that we can translate this to a direct social relationship. In particular that we can have an a certain social relationship emerge. The translation from one ontology , the digital to the actual world has correspondence. In some ways Eripsa's project is an attempt to save the claim of correspondence of certain mathematical objects and the metaphysical view that underlies it, the claim that those abstract mathematic objects can emerge and we can interact with them in that way. Well, duh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Ogodei_Khan posted:The connection between Baez and Eripsa's use of the word object needs to be pointed out. Part of Eripsa's entire project is that objects can exist as one type of object and be translated via category theory and other mathematics into other objects. This type of ontology can work for certain objects but not all or if it does hold for all objects , it would require a lot of resources to acquire the translation. This also assumes certain things about the world. Eripsa seems to be making a popular assumption amongst certain views of ontological emergentists, objects or actual entities can emerge from lower level forces and that we can interact with these systems via certain power laws. This also involves the ability to translate one object into another without any loss. Part of the connection seems to be Eripsa's claim that certain relationships in social networks were supposed to emerge and they failed to do so. He places the failure for things to emerge on the way the social networks are structured at a digital level and assumes that we can translate this to a direct social relationship. Rather than claiming that there is correspondence between abstract mathematical objects or certain continuums and the social, he blames the way the social networks are developed. This means that he can keep the claim that emergence is possible with those objects and the type of ontology and translation are maintained. In some ways Eripsa's project is an attempt to save the claim of correspondence of certain mathematical objects and the metaphysical view that underlies it, the claim that those abstract mathematic objects can emerge and we can interact with them in the way he finds shown in network theory. Baez provides via category theory and some physics claims an underpinning for other claims that Eripsa's ontology holds. My God--it's full of
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:My God--it's full of Isn't God really just a network? Really makes ya think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Ogodei_Khan posted:The connection between Baez and Eripsa's use of the word object needs to be pointed out. Part of Eripsa's entire project is that objects can exist as one type of object and be translated via category theory and other mathematics into other objects. This type of ontology can work for certain objects but not all or if it does hold for all objects , it would require a lot of resources to acquire the translation. This also assumes certain things about the world. Eripsa seems to be making a popular assumption amongst certain views of ontological emergentists, objects or actual entities can emerge from lower level forces and that we can interact with these systems via certain power laws. This also involves the ability to translate one object into another without any loss. Part of the connection seems to be Eripsa's claim that certain relationships in social networks were supposed to emerge and they failed to do so. He places the failure for things to emerge on the way the social networks are structured at a digital level and assumes that we can translate this to a direct social relationship. Rather than claiming that there is correspondence between abstract mathematical objects or certain continuums and the social, he blames the way the social networks are developed. This means that he can keep the claim that emergence is possible with those objects and the type of ontology and translation are maintained. In some ways Eripsa's project is an attempt to save the claim of correspondence of certain mathematical objects and the metaphysical view that underlies it, the claim that those abstract mathematic objects can emerge and we can interact with them in the way he finds shown in network theory. Baez provides via category theory and some physics claims an underpinning for other claims that Eripsa's ontology holds. You could have just said 'Eripsa has mistaken online social networking sites for actual social structures and is upset because they do not produce the same results.' Much easier, and just as batshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You could have just said 'Eripsa has mistaken online social networking sites for actual social structures and is upset because they do not produce the same results.' I thought about something like that actually. I am just unsure whether he has such a high preference order for that ontological emergentist model though or for the claims about digital ontology. The two are not necessarily bound together. I don't want to be vague about why he foregoes actual social structures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You could have just said 'Eripsa has mistaken online social networking sites for actual social structures and is upset because they do not produce the same results.' Also he mistook what he wants social networks to be versus what the average person wants out of it. I don't want to make my tweets into communities where I give people bitcoins when I upboat them, I just want to read funny tweets from a bird fighting for its rights in a world of humans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Ogodei_Khan posted:The connection between Baez and Eripsa's use of the word object needs to be pointed out. Part of Eripsa's entire project is that objects can exist as one type of object and be translated via category theory and other mathematics into other objects. This type of ontology can work for certain objects but not all or if it does hold for all objects , it would require a lot of resources to acquire the translation. This is basically correct. For the record, my question about unification got copied over to Baez's blog, where another reader addressed my claim more directly: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/network-theory-seminar-part-1/#comment-59238 quote:If I were to go out on a limb, I would say there is unlikely to be one overarching theory of networks. Rather will end up with many different theories, which pay attention/model different aspects of networks. For example dynamics of networks (the network is evolving) is quite different from the dynamics on networks (a network models a dynamical system made up of interacting parts) and I have not seen anyone successfully combining these two perspectives. I'm sympathetic to the idea that different network types require different sciences, and that there may not be an overarching theory that unifies all the interesting network types; I wouldn't take that result to be a contradiction of the position I'm defending. It is at least logically possible that category theory does for science what group theory did for math, but it seems far more likely that the particular domains of science emerge from purely practical considerations that are theoretically isolated from the rest of the sciences. So from this perspective network theory does play a purely "formal" (content-neutral) role. Even still, using network theory as the "Esperanto" of science would allow the representation of quite diverse phenomenon under certain canonical forms. And we might take these canonical forms as the "objects" you are talking about. quote:This also assumes certain things about the world. Eripsa seems to be making a popular assumption amongst certain views of ontological emergentists, objects or actual entities can emerge from lower level forces and that we can interact with these systems via certain power laws To put the matter simply: yes I think "objects" are real (I'm not an ontological nihilist, I think the position is stupid). Objects are structured information; objects are "objective" in just the sense that there's a fact of the matter as to whether some object has some structure. We learn about structures not just empirically but cooperatively, by seeing where our perspectives overlap and agree. The explanatory models (networks) that emerge from the social practice of science are typically the ones that have endured the rigorous scrutiny of the best perspectives we can muster; quite often, those are the perspectives of our machines. In any case, you're drawing the right conclusions: I want to represent individuals and communities (at arbitrary levels of analysis) as objects that can be handled explicitly by the social system, the way we use words to handle otherwise ineffable concepts. Perhaps it will turn out that some of our communities are functionally isolated and autonomous; perhaps it will turn out that some sciences are autonomous too. The claim of unification is not driven by a desire to integrate everyone into a homogeneous slurry, but instead merely to make explicit the character of the isolation. quote:This also involves the ability to translate one object into another without any loss. This is incorrect. The object is a particular abstract structure. Any reproduction of that structure is a reproduction of that object; but any common 'object' we might consider will be constituted by many such structures, and reproductions will have to make decisions about which of the structures must be kept and which are don't-cares. If you need a hoola hoop to play with, all that matters is that it is a rigid hoop of the right size; the color of the object doesn't matter for what you want to do with it. If you are using a hoola hoop in a synchronized stage performance with lots of people using pink hoola hoops then the color you want probably does matter to the performance. So whether "pink" is a structural feature of the object we're discussing depends entirely on what we want to do with it. When we want to do the same things, then we want to be talking about the same objects, or at least have standard methods of converting your objects to mine. Network theory provides the resources for being sure that we're talking about the same object, even from different scientific perspectives. quote:Part of the connection seems to be Eripsa's claim that certain relationships in social networks were supposed to emerge and they failed to do so. He places the failure for things to emerge on the way the social networks are structured at a digital level and assumes that we can translate this to a direct social relationship. Rather than claiming that there is correspondence between abstract mathematical objects or certain continuums and the social, he blames the way the social networks are developed. This means that he can keep the claim that emergence is possible with those objects and the type of ontology and translation are maintained. In some ways Eripsa's project is an attempt to save the claim of correspondence of certain mathematical objects and the metaphysical view that underlies it, the claim that those abstract mathematic objects can emerge and we can interact with them in the way he finds shown in network theory. Baez provides via category theory and some physics claims an underpinning for other claims that Eripsa's ontology holds. Liquid Communism posted:You could have just said 'Eripsa has mistaken online social networking sites for actual social structures and is upset because they do not produce the same results.' These criticisms seem off target. The claim isn't that social networks (or social structures in general) should look like anything in particular. Instead, the claim is that we're using them as if we're expecting an effect that doesn't happen. Simply put, we're spinning our wheels in the mud. Laying on the gas usually provides forward acceleration, but when we're in the mud doing that same thing just makes a mess that leaves you worse off than when you started. The thing you usually to do get out of these messes is exactly what keeps you stuck in them. I'm saying that the kind of activities we like to do online (share and comment and like and whatever) are the kinds of things that, in a normal social environment, would be sufficient for building a healthy social community. We like doing these things so much because in any other place they would foster a good social environment, a "home" in my essay. But because of the way the social networks are actually structured, where activity is siphoned off for revenue purposes instead of being used to develop the community structure, we're left with a social order that is both radically out of our control and radically unresponsive to our needs both as individuals and communities. Facebook has become a factory farm for harvesting human attention, instead of a community of human agents cooperating for the sake of shared goods. I am fully aware that digital communities work different from afk communities, that they have different organizing needs and characteristic behaviors. Nevertheless, I think digital communities deserve the same protection as afk communities: the right to assemble and speak openly, the right to organize and conduct themselves according to their own understanding of the good life. Not only do digital communities not have these rights today, but our digital infrastructure is being developed in a way that systematically compromises the ability to realize any of these rights. FB isn't bound by a constitutions, they are bound by TOS agreements that no one reads or has any say in. I'm making my arguments by appeal to an ontological position mostly to situate this discussion within the history of ideas, because I think these issues are of historical importance. But I also think their political purchase is at the mundane level of our everyday interactions; the evil of Facebook is so utterly banal that we're hardly aware of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:I'm sympathetic to the idea that different network types require different sciences, and that there may not be an overarching theory that unifies all the interesting network types; I wouldn't take that result to be a contradiction of the position I'm defending. It is though, it's a very basic and obvious contradiction, the same one that's been pointed out to you repeatedly in plain language. Network theory is away of approaching a problem, it is more or less useful in different domains, it is not unifying any more than the English language is, and significantly less than the entire domain of mathematics is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Eripsa, is there a way for me to be notified when the service that you started this thread about will open?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is though, it's a very basic and obvious contradiction, the same one that's been pointed out to you repeatedly in plain language. Network theory is away of approaching a problem, it is more or less useful in different domains, it is not unifying any more than the English language is, and significantly less than the entire domain of mathematics is. I ask you, is there anyone on these forums more intellectually dishonest? After spending years, literal years, berating us for not understanding his vision about how ~networks~ explain everything and will unify all the sciences, he backpedals to this pathetic face-saving excuse of "well, you know, dif'rent n'tworks for dif'rent folks". Unbelievable! As if interdisciplinary work needed more of a bad name!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is though, it's a very basic and obvious contradiction, the same one that's been pointed out to you repeatedly in plain language. Network theory is away of approaching a problem, it is more or less useful in different domains, it is not unifying any more than the English language is, and significantly less than the entire domain of mathematics is. I've argued at length about how the representational structure of network theory differs dramatically from the representational structure of English as a natural language, and from mathematics considered generally. You've repeatedly failed to understand the structural issues at play. Your one example of a corrupted English sentence mirroring one particular kind of relationship, the one you think undermines my position and echoed without a hint of critical thought for a dozen pages, is telling of how poorly you understand the problem. You might be able to approximate simple networks by straining the syntax of English; as natural languages go, English is quite adaptable to a variety of purposes. But you will not, for instance, be able to characterize the network of protein interactions in a cell with any amount of English sentences. English isn't the right tool for the job. It isn't even a candidate for being the right kind of tool; natural languages serve a whole host of other functions that have nothing to do with capturing the explanatory structures of the world. Network theory is literally built for this task. You've shown not the slightest comprehension of this difference. When I say that network theory unifies the sciences, I mean that network theory is the proper theory for describing the explanatory models in any domain of inquiry. Network theory is the theory for describing the canonical objects of a domain, and for quantifying precisely the extent to which the domains of science overlap or differ. The particular resources needed for filling out the models will vary from domain to domain and will undoubtedly require more specialized tools than network theory provides. Moreover, the overall landscape of science may (as a matter of empirical fact) be disjoint, with some domains we all agree are legitimate operating with vocabularies and dealing with objects that cannot be translated in any way with the objects and vocabularies of other legitimate sciences. Still, using network theory to establish canonical forms for objects does more than just syntactically coordinate the sciences; it also provides a straightforward justification for reorganization. It is likely that certain object types occur at many scales of analysis, and that the many different sciences have developed distinct resources for describing this object for the purposes of their particular domain, overlooking the resources that other domains have mastered for studying the object. Just for instance, biologists have studied and classified a whole host of social and organizational structures that occur regularly in, say, human economic contexts. Sometimes terms cross this divide, but without the explanatory context the message is misunderstood, as when someone calls a welfare recipient a "parasite" without any appreciation of how parasitism functions in an ecological context. Standardizing the vocabulary across these domains can make such analogies politically useful instead of simply being a mode of disinformation. In the sciences, I'm admittedly skeptical of autonomous domains. I think where domain autonomy occurs it is grounds for skepticism and serious critical scrutiny. For instance, if the terms of psychoanalysis (sublimation, denial, projection, etc) are revealed to have no empirical support under the standard methods of empirical psychology, I think this is sufficient grounds for rejecting those terms, or at least for modifying the practice of psychoanalysis to align with the things we know from the other sciences. If science is our best collection of knowledge, then the whole of the sciences should be mutually informative. I'm not sure what it would mean for a domain of science to not benefit from the fruits of everything else we know. In human social networks, I think some extent of domain autonomy is a necessary condition for health. I mean this at all scales, from communities and subcommunities right down to individual people. It is possible that some overarching set of values (like "cooperation") bind the whole of humanity, but it's just as likely that there is no global human community but only fragments pursuing divergent ends. Unlike science, which I think is purely practical, I don't think humanity is to be used for anything in particular, so I don't think divergent communities demands some technological reconciliation. But it might mean we need a coordinated effort to expand off the planet, and to get there I think we need the cooperation of networks at digital scales. Reorganizing the sciences and human social networks to maximize their agency is a necessary part of that project. CheesyDog posted:Eripsa, is there a way for me to be notified when the service that you started this thread about will open? http://www.synereo.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:21
|
|