stingpie @ stingpie @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

113

Joined

2 yr. ago

Where would you break in? The only thing I can imagine is like a bank vault, but the doors to those things are crazy thick.

Whom is this directed to?

You're right. Troi's and Data's hands are messed up, Data has unreal wrinkles on his forehead, the shadow on Picard's neck seems to be a dent, and of course, Troi's nose has a different camera angle on either side.

Ah yes, rust. The language that somehow manages to manages to as verbose as possible, with as much jargonized shorthand that a computer could handle.

I only vaguely really know what's going on. I did some more research after commenting, and I think I understand a little bit more. The TI bubble memory has two separate layers. On of them, the 'magnetic epitaxial film', basically has a lot of magnetic molecules arranged to point in the same direction. The second layer has circles made of some nickel-iron alloy. What I think is happening is that the actual magnetic bubbles are held on the film, and the iron circles act as tracks the bubbles are pulled along. I don't think electrons in the bubble are actually moving, but I think the electron spin is. That would explain why the loops are capable of moving the bubbles faster than electrons.

Just from a quick Google search, it looks like it's similar to tape memory, except the data moves along the tape, instead of the tape moving over the reading head. According to

So here's how I would go about this: first, I'd wrap some small metal plates in insulated magnet wire, place two permanent magnets on the top and bottom (sandwich style) and stick a read head on the edge of the plate. Then you push AC current through the two coils offset by 90 degrees. This should push the bubble in a circle, and that can be read by the tape head.

Keep in mind though, this is a complete guess based on a simplified diagram from the 70s. I don't actually know if this is how they work.

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?

Okay, but what is sparc and pa-risc?

Sorry, I should've been more thorough. I meant it functionally ignores the concept of unequal power. Any sufficiently large group effort will eventually build a power structure, regardless of whether it's capitalist or communist.

It's less about the fallibility of humans, and more mathematical than that. A person ability to acquire wealth is proportional to the current wealth they have. (And I'm not just talking about money, I'm taking about resources and power) As a result, those with a tendency to act nastier have an advantage in gaining wealth. This same issue is present in a communist economy, because while communism eschues the concept of money, it does not reject the idea of unequal power. Even some super intelligent AI wouldn't be able to fix this, as long as it was forced to give humanity basic freedoms and follow communist ideals.

Honestly, this whole communism vs capitalism debate is beneficial to the powers that be, since neither system actually tries to prevent the acquisition of power or the abuse of it.

Here I thought this was an IT crowd reference.

Please, what is the established theory to create an n-1 dimensional space filling curve on the surface of an n-sphere?! I need to speed up my locality sensitive neural hash!

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function