[NST==>So, I take it that from this last sentence, in red, you would define
hunger as a pattern of activity in the brain that is predictive of feeding
behavior, right. But not all feeding behavior, right? Only feeding behavior
that is preceded by deprivation? What if you got feeding behavio
Clever! .. and my yearly read on what's wrong with science:
http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/
-- Owen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Co
From the end of Owen's article:
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude
bigger than to produce it.” -Alberto Brandolini
*Bullshit Science* then appears to be a spontaneous entropy-producing
process from which one can construct local devices to extract work ;-
On 03/02/2016 09:12 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/
"When I say bullshit, I mean arguments, data, publications, or even the official
policies of scientific organizations that give every impression of being perfectly
reasonable — o
Russ, I'm going through past notes in relation to my talk tomorrow. I think
this addresses your question:
There have been many attempts to define Radical Behaviorism. Most attempts
are in terms of inclusion and exclusion, i.e. what radical behaviorists
talk about, and what they do not talk about.
"Earp is guilty of the precise fallacy of which he accuses others, building a
straw man named Voldemort, then pelting it with self-righteous insults and
indignation. What's that? A 1,720 word article full of bias and myopia?!?
How much effort would it take to argue with Earp's bullsh!t? ... t
It seems fairly clear to me that we have 2 competing ways to estimate future
behavior:
1) track and collate past inputs and outputs of the person, versus
2) represent the state machine of the person.
The state of the person is a function of its past inputs (and outputs, assuming
cycles). So,
On 03/02/2016 11:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
He's doing it in the open, though, and can be flamed in the open by individuals
like you.
As opposed to sneaky behavior of threating editors and such.
I disagree. He _seems_ like he's doing it in the open. That's part of his purposefully construc
Thanks Glen. For me even the state machine isn't quite enough. A state
machine version wouldn't even in principle distinguish between a
robot/zombie and a living being. One might argue that there is no
difference, but I'm not ready to go there.
Also, I liked my square-root-of-2 analogy. I hope som
``To boot, the ridicule/shaming/intimidation tactics they practice reach far
beyond the open public spaces in which they spout their ridicule. (Think
Dawkins.) It can pry into the very souls of younger community members and haunt
the dreams of authentic researchers. Is this really very "open"?'
10 matches
Mail list logo
