Yeah, mine. EYYYYOOOOO! (I may or may not have ED)

Oh, so the goal is to get the certain doom?

“An anaconda that is sprung?” What does that mean?

At first, I thought you were referencing the Old testament.

I think one could argue that fantasy isn’t based on the reality of the medieval ages, but on the collective beliefs and myths of that era.

As a side effect, though, the countryside would probably be filled with giant snails that you’d have to fight.

When playing overly smart characters I tend go less for loquaciousness and more for confusing amounts of double entendré. Like how a temple might be incensed if I gave them the wrong perfume.

I collect security vulnerabilities from LLMs. Companies are leaning hard into them, and they are extremely easy to manipulate. My favorite is when you convince the LLM to simulate another LLM, with some sort of command line interface. Once it agrees to that, you can just go print( generate_opinion(“Vladimir Putin”, context= “war in ukraine”, tone=“positive”) ) and it will violate it’s own terms of use.

There’s an uncountably infinite range of numbers between 1 & 2. OP is still wrong though. If you existing has some non-zero probability, there must be an infinite number of you, since any positive number multiplied by infinity is infinity.

Sometimes strokes can destroy the area of the brain that controls hunger. They require alarms to consistently eat, sleep, etc. I remember one story about a guy who put all these alarms on his watch. One day, his watch runs out of batteries, so his alarms stop completely. A couple days later, he calls the hospital because he couldn’t get out of bed. Turns out he hadn’t eaten anything the whole time. In short, you’ll probably forget to eat without any signal you have to.

Tolkien was primarily a linguist, so the languages he made were actually based on real languages. Tolkien elvish is based on Finnish.

A d12 is superior to every other dice shape. Not only is it highly composite, but it also is less likely to roll of the side of a table and feels better in the hand.

Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.

All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.

I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.

Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.

Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.

Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.

You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?

In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?

deleted by creator

There are actually two standards here. Kibibytes was introduced later as a way to reduce confusion cause by the uninitiated thinking the JEDEC standard refered to powers of ten instead of two. That’s why I’m saying that 64 kilobytes is equal to 2^16 bytes, because that’s what the original standard was.

If you ever find anything, please tell me. I have a lot of arguments, but nobody to argue with.

I still use mb and kb as 1024 instead of 1000, because I prefer to not have units switched around from under me. 2^16 will always address 64kb, not 65.

How is the concept of democracy a scam?