Says u just look at ur name

He's a goober who cant even roll his Rs. "Im not a goobwah"

In my point of view the only real path toward cultural enlightenment.

But what about _quant_ computers? ;D But for real, the answer is not to reject technology but to use it to study the mind and "the nature of consciousness".

there's two ways to freedom in the 21st century. one is return to nature, what I'd call the "Ted Kazinski" and the other is Julian Assange style, cypher punks. The assange style might work in societies that actually have functioning education systems, the US does not. Only 1/3 of the country has access to actual decent education. 2/3 of the country is functionally illiterate, how are they going to be cypher punks?

The machine maker knows the exact reason and order that machine made its decisions. This man's not correct.

the last few years, I have never felt at home. Miss the old days

the81kid Yes!

Your argument is far too simplisitic, considering that machines make up a large part of the decisionmaking in our lives as we speak. Therefor the question isn't so much about how similar machine intelligence is to human intelligence (the one anthropomorphizing is actually you), but rather the fact that theyre actively delegated the role of coming up with solutions to human problems. It's not about the process but the fact that tech has more control over your life than you.

Brains are also information processors, if you train your software on racist data it becomes racist. Also never is a very strong word, but i think the true destruction of humanity will not come from not understanding neural net works in machines, it will come from understanding our on brains to a degree that we will become machines to each other.

You are assuming that humans are something _special_ lol. We could just as well just be a "giant information processor" and no doubt are in my mind. Consciousness might just be an illusive biproduct of that. To deny intelligence without understanding intelligence in one thing and then to immediately act like another thing is intelligent without understanding what intelligence is in general is foolish. I would also like to point out that human technology is inherently human as it was made by us. It is an extension of ourselves outside of our body.

Red Rascal "we need to change the system", that's what Greta Thunberg, the sweden teenager climate actvist, says and i agree.

onne to thuee for

In the book, Timothy Morton (who is a Heideggerian for what it's worth) is referenced to a good degree and clearly informs a lot of the thinking. So at least indirectly, Bridle's thought is related to Heidegger, though I'd also not be surprised to hear Bridle has read Heidegger themself.

Nine eleven was the first step and laid the frame for COVID-19 which will then lay the details for the new dark ages in my opinion

What to tell my children and younger sister these days

The Simpsons and family guy you darn stinks

At what point is he telling the viewer not to trust models? I think you might be due for a rewatch

@@QuinnArgo go to around 2:40. There are two possibilities: (1) the discussion is a bit beyond you. His whole point is that despite copious amounts of data and models we cannot predict the world. (2) charitably, you rushed through the video and missed the salient points.

​@@algoa456 I don't know how you're reading "don't trust models" into this. "The model is insufficient", sure, but insufficiency does not mean it holds no predictive power, it simply means there is information beyond scientific modeling that is also relevant to understanding a reality. This is not disbelief in the model, it is simply skepticism about a scientific model being able to fully encompass the different qualities created by a reality. Another misconception you are making is that this part isn't about "a model" per se but it is a point specifically about models created through mass aggregation of big data (which is the context given right before your 2:40 timestamp). So yes, James Bridle in this case can perfectly allow themselves to trust in the diverse set of models and theories we talk about as "climate change", because their criticism doesn't concern the totality of models, but specifically the faulty totalization of a specific data-collection oriented kind of model creation.

No. He doesn't believe in Amazon

Doubtful on "many". Shooting in the dark and hitting something every now and then, but also damaging a bunch of other things (institution, societal values, culture, etc) is incredibly crude and stupid. First, at least learn to think and understand the value of evidence before you start going on about how you like conspiracy theories. The video is definitely not saying they are a good thing, he's talking about how society tends to create conspiracy theories due to their need to rationalize or ground a complex world. That doesn't mean they are good, they are awful. What you should do is scientific investigation. Conspiracy theories are mostly just convenient ideas that usually fulfill the creator's or consumer's bias and have large gaps in information needed to support them.

Gotta start somewhere unless you have a recommendation.

I knew I’d find his name somewhere here

It isn't about US falling, but about the hole world falling

prediction is one complex theory, it involves many aspects that need to be once again whittled down to get a solution that isn't set in stone, the time, complexity, how accurately its systems can be measured and the scale of the system. you cant say that a system based on bifurcation is chaos theory, we add the parameters and the computer does the large scale mathematics, it could be localised or world scale, we make the small scale changes and that isn't chaos theory. World scale changes do have some form of chaos, but we can work back and find where the error was and fix the bifurcation.

Such a snowflake. You'll get over it.

Tell me what Baudrillard said that was better? I'm not picking a fight just genuinely curious.

Lol that's what you got out of this? YIKES