986 ideas match your query.:
Search ideas
Superseded by #1489. This comment was generated automatically.
Quantum mechanics has almost no bearing on the operation of the brain, except insofar as it explains the existence of matter. You say that signals are carried by electrons, but this is very imprecise. Rather, they are carried by various kinds of chemical signals, including ions. Those signals are released into a warm environment that they interact with over a very short timescale.
Quantum mechanical processes like interference and entanglement only continue to show effects that differ from classical physics when the relevant information does not leak into the environment. This issue has been explained [in] the context of the brain by Max Tegmark in The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. In the brain, the leaking of information should take place over a time of the order 10−13 − 10−20 s. The timescale over which neurons fire etc. is 0.001 − 0.1s. So your thoughts are not quantum computations or anything like that. The brain is a classical computer.
-
Forrester is a former henchman of the very toxic Elliot Temple. Approach with extreme caution. ↩
Quantum mechanics has almost no bearing on the operation of the brain, except insofar as it explains the existence of matter. You say that signals are carried by electrons, but this is very imprecise. Rather, they are carried by various kinds of chemical signals, including ions. Those signals are released into a warm environment that they interact with over a very short timescale.
Quantum mechanical processes like interference and entanglement only continue to show effects that differ from classical physics when the relevant information does not leak into the environment. This issue has been explained [in] the context of the brain by Max Tegmark in The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. In the brain, the leaking of information should take place over a time of the order 10−13 − 10−20 s. The timescale over which neurons fire etc. is 0.001−0.1s. So your thoughts are not quantum computations or anything like that. The brain is a classical computer.
-
Forrester is a former henchman of the very toxic Elliot Temple. Approach with extreme caution. ↩
If we define a computer as anything that processes information, the brain is at least partly a computer, since it also processes information. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a brain is only a computer. Information processing can be done without subjective experience or qualia.
A brain's properties therefore transcend information processing. It is completely conceivable that you can construct a physical brain with identical information processing without accompanying experience (zoombie argument), unless you wan't to say that this instance of information process is dependent on also having the experience.
‘When I distribute other people’s bicycles for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to bicycles than the stores that sell them, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.’ 🤡
Superseded by #1454. This comment was generated automatically.
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
Correction: In some sense copying information does impose a cost, but I think of that cost more akin to the cost imposed on an incumbent producer by his competing alternatives in a free market.
When I distribute Harry Potter for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to the information than JK Rowling, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.
No I disagree, for all the reasons I already gave in response to #1346.
Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fully processed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fully addressed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
Not circular since #1346 is not a parent of this idea.
I have received a pattern of information. Information cannot be owned as it is non-scarce. JK Rowling is asking me to give her money for something that was never hers to begin with.
You didn’t trade value for value. You traded nothing at all and only received. A free market and justice depend on people interacting as traders, not as leeches (objectivism).
You never agreed to buy the bike either, that’s the point.
But I didn't agree to buy the book. I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't found it on pirate bay, let's say.
Just returning the bike doesn’t necessarily make him whole. Maybe he lost revenues during the time he couldn’t use his bike.
Maybe you could simply pay her the price of the book plus interest plus a fee for the inconvenience. Plus some ‘deterrence fee’ so that most people don’t even think of doing it to begin with.
There, the owner is short of a bike. Returning it to him will make him whole. The situation looks quite different in the case of information, at least in my eyes. What exactly is to be returned?