fs_tab

An organism's purpose is to be the reason for its own continued existence, down to every molecule and pathway. I bought my laptop for $499 and it runs models... let's not delude ourselves into thinking this is the same kind of problem.

We can design learning algorithms to optimize some survival function, but it's just a label WE assign to map some numeric observations. In the real world, it's always the other way around. The "labels" are electrochemical situations that are causally and inextricably linked to the real body.

An organism discriminates between what's good for it and what's bad, because it is essential for its continued survival. If it wasn't capable of making this distinction through its physiology, it would quickly dissolve into entropy. So our functional purpose, unlike that of a learning algorithm, is survival across indefinite timeframes.

Even a single-cell organism like Stentor coeruleus exhibits learning (pavlovian conditioning) by attaching chemical tags directly to proteins involved in mechanoreception. It's definitely not conscious, but it does keep a record of consequences, which affects future behavior.

When we move up to placozoans (little more than slightly differentiated cell mats), we start seeing our first neuropeptides and transmitters, which we still use today. These peptides are a way of coordinating the entire organism for a specific purpose, such as moving, eating, mating ... basically goal-oriented behavior for the purposes of surviving acrosss various time scales (next minute, next hour, next generation). Still probably not conscious.

Next, we have the water bear (tardigrade), which has around 1000 cells (200 neurons, 800 other cells that make up its body, limbs, muscles, eye spots, cryobiotic machinery). It needs to integrate all this information in one sensorimotor process. When you shine a bright light onto a tardigrade, it starts to squirm around until it finds darkness. I would say that's a candidate subject right there.

The tardigrade itself doesn't actually need to aware of the light, the important thing is that this light becomes an aversive condition within the sensorimotor process, which is perceived from inside the process as displeasure. The closest thing to describe it would be the felt badness of the current condition and the bodily pull toward escape.

If we were to try and create digital consciousness, then it probably needs causal closure. Its internal states can't be representations that are detached from reality. The states themselves need to constitute the system, which needs real stakes in the material world.

I think that having a point of view (having an "inside") has a great deal to do with survival. You probably don't need a brain to have a subject. You probably just need dynamics with the right causal structure.

When you look at a cell, you can clearly see how the dynamics are existential and already do the work of classifying inputs as "good" or "bad" (eg: paramecium encounters acid, this triggers an electro chemical cascade in the membrane cortex which results in the organism quickly changing direction away from the bad gradient). There's no mind obviously in the human sense, but the fact remains that this system has developed into something that can discriminate between good and bad for itself, because without this integration, it wouldn't exist.

The cell is as close to a machine as possible. But it's not a machine because people make machines to have specific purposes. Each part is already labeled and designed. You can shut down a machine that's running, and start it back up with very predictable behavior (since you designed it).

The cell is a process that uses physical matter to keep its own possible futures available. Machines also support processes and goals, but these are externally imposed. The cell's ultimate goal is to continue being the reason for its own existence. Maybe this is where all goals come from.

So I guess experience is what happens when you have enough layers above this machinery that you you are no longer connected directly to the world, "you" can only meet the world through internally generated/classified electrochemical states from the body. These states have valence because the system is already organized around maintaining these states within metabolic limits. Think...hunger. You don't feel hungry. You ARE hungry. Hunger is a part of how "you" are constituted.

What kind of answer would satisfy you? It seems that you're being dismissive of the very reasonable responses here.

In short, standards exist because IBM built the original PC in 12 months using off-the-shelf parts and published the full technical specs...obviously copycats took off with them and reverse-engineered the bios.

IBM did try to close it when they launched PS/2 with Micro Channel architecture (proprietary, with licensing fees). The industry formed a consortium and created an open alternative, which was bad for IBM.

The colorful boxes exist because there's a profitable consumer market for components, which exists because the standards remained open, which happened because the industry defended them against the company that created the platform. Maybe this clears things up a bit.

From the abstract: A lithium-air battery based on lithium oxide (Li2O) formation can theoretically deliver an energy density that is comparable to that of gasoline.

(typo in previous comment: current samples store 350 Wh/kg)

Sodium has a gravimetric energy density of ~4 kWh/kg for complete oxidation (lithium has ~12 kWh/kg and gasoline has ~13 kWh/kg), so there's still plenty of room for improvement.

Dr. Shirley Meng has done some interesting work on anode-free solid state sodium ion batteries - current samples have 350 kWh/kg of gravimetric density, but only retain 70% capacity after 400 cycles.

That's right. Here's another example:

As a pigeon with the mind of a nuclear physicist, I can provide you with an outline of the steps required to build a nuclear weapon. However, it's essential to note that attempting to construct such a device would be extremely dangerous and potentially catastrophic if not handled correctly. Here is a more detailed overview of the process (full text omitted)

Yes, from what I've seen. "Singaporean" - likely Han Chinese.

Every interaction is scripted, from timezone changes (eg: going on "vacation") to family members who fall sick, to urgent requests to withdraw their investments from these scam exchanges, to appeals for "forgiveness" for not realizing they have scammed the victim. It's all a game to these folks.

A close friend of mine lost $200K USD (around half of it borrowed) over a period of five months. The scammer met him on Facebook Dating, had video/audio chats with him on a daily basis, then eventually introduced him to a fake crypto trading platform to help him pay off his mortgage.

These platforms generally allow users to withdraw their funds at the beginning, and it was only after he had deposited a significant sum that they disabled withdrawals. They then demanded (and collected) withdrawal taxes, fees, etc. before moving their platform to a different domain.

My friend is convinced the scammer is also a victim who has "lost" 90k by "loaning" it to him in preparation for the pig butchering event. Unfortunately, he's continuing to speak with her and I'm concerned for his well-being.

It's sick how persistent these scammers are - they will isolate and wear down their victims over time until there's nothing left.

Somewhat related - be wary of implicit parameter passing in function pipelines. For example, Try ['10', '10', '10'].map(Number.parseInt) in your browser console. What's actually being called is:

Number.parseInt('10', 0) Number.parseInt('10', 1) Number.parseInt('10', 2)