Weird Science

was hoping this would be a thread about the movie. One of the main stars, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, was one of my professors in grad school. Super cool guy

was hoping this would be a thread about the movie. One of the main stars, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, was one of my professors in grad school. Super cool guy

blurry...

200.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak and CiG
What's even weirder is his post in the hobbies thread
To all casino lovers, hello. Online casino is certainly an attractive business area, a place where you can relax from the daily routine. The main thing for this business area: the popularity and image of a reputable institution, since most people in the world have a clear opinion about casinos as a sphere of fraud and deception. They say that the best way not to fall for scammers is to analyze the https://casinoanalyser.com/baccarat/live casino in which you want to make a deposit. Someone agrees with me or do you think that you should not do this?
It seems like a spam bot post or some shit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak and CiG
It's fairly common for spambots to copy parts of genuine posts to try and look legit these days. They can come up with some hilarious nonsense. Sometimes they pass the sentences through a thesaurus or translators so they're saying the same thing with slightly different words. Or they combine parts of multiple posts that don't make sense together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak and CiG
It's fairly common for spambots to copy parts of genuine posts to try and look legit these days. They can come up with some hilarious nonsense. Sometimes they pass the sentences through a thesaurus or translators so they're saying the same thing with slightly different words. Or they combine parts of multiple posts that don't make sense together.
bots writing stuff = hilarious
 
Some weird science which ties into some weirder argumentative stuff:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191223122837.htm

Using a drug in that part of the brain that mimics the activity of neurotransmitter acetylcholine, the team was able to rouse some of the rats so that they were up and moving around despite the fact that they were receiving continuous anesthesia. Using the same drug in the back of the brain did not awaken the rats. So, both groups of rats had anesthesia in the brain but only one group "woke up."

Then, "we took the EEG data and looked at those factors that have been considered correlates of wakefulness. We figured if the animals were waking up, even while still exposed to anesthesia, then these factors should also come back up. However, despite wakeful behavior, the EEGs were the same in the moving rats and the non-moving anesthetized rats," says Pal.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2019...rventions-gallagher-on-neglect-and-free-will/

As I've posted elsewhere, I think Bakker has a blindspot on this topic, but he's not completely off the rails. There are plenty of contingencies. The above link shows one, and here's another example:

Sun-stroke is but one of countless, potential ‘choice-talk’ breakers.

I think the biggest problem(s) is/are that Bakker seams to be suggesting that free will can't be based on contingencies when why wouldn't it? can't be linked to neuro processes when why wouldn't it? and the standard academic assault on the value of heuristics, somewhat like the middlebrow assault on stereotyping.
 
I read this Bakker piece and thought about posting it. I find his writing on this mostly lucid and compelling.

I think the biggest problem(s) is/are that Bakker seams to be suggesting that free will can't be based on contingencies when why wouldn't it? can't be linked to neuro processes when why wouldn't it? and the standard academic assault on the value of heuristics, somewhat like the middlebrow assault on stereotyping.

I can't follow this clause. You italicize the first "when" and not the second, but I can't decipher the grammar.
 
I can't follow this clause. You italicize the first "when" and not the second, but I can't decipher the grammar.

Meant to italicize both. The italicized portion is my objection to his framing of free will. He has more or less tried to put free will as a concept into a Cartesian box.
 
Scientists use stem cells from frogs to build first living robots: Researchers foresee myriad benefits for humanity, but also acknowledge ethical issue.
Be warned. If the rise of the robots comes to pass, the apocalypse may be a more squelchy affair than science fiction writers have prepared us for.

Researchers in the US have created the first living machines by assembling cells from African clawed frogs into tiny robots that move around under their own steam.

One of the most successful creations has two stumpy legs that propel it along on its “chest”. Another has a hole in the middle that researchers turned into a pouch so it could shimmy around with miniature payloads.

“These are entirely new lifeforms. They have never before existed on Earth,” said Michael Levin, the director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. “They are living, programmable organisms.”

Roboticists tend to favour metal and plastic for their strength and durability, but Levin and his colleagues see benefits in making robots from biological tissues. When damaged, living robots can heal their wounds, and once their task is done they fall apart, just as natural organisms decay when they die.



 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86