SherlockeHolmes

Allow me to offer some qualities other than competency that are necessary for responsible research.

1. Purpose. what is it that drives one?

2. Integrity. when does one compromise it?

3. Awareness. is one able to disengage when one's ego (fueled by credentials) is activated.

Disclaimer: I don't agree with your conclusions regarding general needs and instincts (of human) and that a human possess abosolute/built-in/DNA-engrained inabilities (therefore, I do believe a human can fly). I also don't agree that Facebook is to share much of the blame for the chaotic human zeitgeist present today. I do believe a human is highly malleable and impressionable, and that these qualities have been exploited historically at various scales for various reasons.

"There is no vaccine yet for this."

There may not be any vaccine, but there may be a cure. If we change the language used to communicate within a setting/platform such as Facebook, possibly by using a subset of the language previously used or by adopting a more Formal construct.

But Facebook is a virtual neighborhood, with greatly increased bandwidth and range. It is difficult or impossible to achieve it in their settings.

One thought is that somewhere I'd need to translate the LISP objects into JS ones before putting them in the DOM. I think I would have to do this both before sending the JSON and after receiving it at the browser.

I came across Sibilant, which can do this for me on either side - I believe. Hoping to find out soon.

The discussion here is a reminder of how sufficiently competent people can defend to death a narrative that is logically consistent enough and has some form of "majority acknowledgment" for the sources of that narrative.

I want to remind us that rarely do enough credible (according to some formal and stringent definition) evidences exist for a given topic for an observer to make a conclusion with the kind of confidence we often display while remonstrating on these issues.

Specifically: it is naive to adopt a conclusive tone involving a person without liberty for over a decade, and possibly undergoing forms of punishment without due trial. I suspect not one of us here is trained enough in Law and have access to enough TRUE information to come to a judgment. If so, we are guilty of engaging in and spreading careless commentaries made about a case that combines possible human rights violation (its abundance in current time does not make this any less serious of a concern) with possible government interference in defining what constitutes journalism.

I want to leave you with this last thought - in majority cases in history, it has been profitable for the public to challenge the government on its policies, rather than to trust in its foresightedness and integrity.

all right. thank you for sharing the resources and information.

I am not invested in this topic, although I should be. In fact, some of the information you shared is valuable to my personal life.

I have a problem with oversimplification of hard problems, then claiming that they are currently understood. Then proceeding to build more extravagant and potentially dangerous solutions on the said platform.

The point you are debating - that of the influence of salts/neurotransmitters/more on brain chemistry, and hence on one’s mental state, can be so profound as to create a world where one experiences a vastly different emotional response to everyday events than what most others anticipate - is understood.

I contested that this is not enough to encourage experimentation with consciousness itself.

edit: the impact of chemistry can render itself in ways where the idea of one’s personality becomes fluid. chemistry can control my reaction to simple things, and render my ability to live my life debilitated. I understand that chemistry can shake at the very sense of having control over my self. I also understand that the external world barely acknowledges the role of chemistry in this, and likes to blame it wholly on the individual.

I am sorry that I was not satisfied.

Mind alterations are induced by drugs. Chemical imbalances influence the same. I just am not convinced that these evidences are enough.

Thank you.

please oblige and expand on this “easy attribution”. To be clear, it bothers me when we wave away the really hard problems - while we become too enchanted with solutions that barely build on current technology. This company injects chemicals near your brain stem and lets your heart pump it into all minuscule parts of your brain. The apparent allure comes from the potential development of a technology some time in the future that will allow a reanimation of the person seated in that saved brain.

the money they’ve raised so far is due to the possible improvements this proposed technology will bring to neuro research.

that is quite a pessimistic view on human capability (justified in current context because of shitbags) while equally bullish on human-developed AI capabilities. Sure, machine learning — blah — self-improving machines — blah - but I say, improving within bounds but cannot provide mathematical proof of the necessity of existence of such bounds blah.

machines have us beat on speed. however, let us not be blinded by this singularly awesome edge machines provide.