ajani
I asked one of the questions from the quiz to chatgpt which the quiz claims GPT can't solve. But it did.
Prompt: Write out the word "hello" as an ascii art drawing with # and _
Output:
_ _ _ _
| | | | | | |
| |_| | ___| | | ___
| _ |/ _ \ | |/ _ \
| | | | __/ | | (_) |
\_| |_/\___|_|_|\___/
Thank you for staying engaged, it's helping me see my position more clearly.
That.
> While there are no specific equations that fully capture the intricacies of the brain's function..
That.
'''
Climate modeling is a multifaceted field rooted in physics that relies on a complex set of equations to describe various atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial processes. Here's an overview of the key equations that form the foundation of climate models:
Navier-Stokes Equations: Governing the flow of fluids like the atmosphere and oceans, these equations capture how the velocity of a fluid changes over time.
Radiative Transfer Equations: Essential for understanding how sunlight and other forms of radiation interact with the atmosphere, including scattering, absorption, and emission.
Energy Balance Models: These equations describe the balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat, fundamental for capturing the planet's energy dynamics.
Equations of State: Linking density, pressure, and temperature, these equations are critical for understanding the behavior of the atmosphere and ocean.
Continuity Equations: Representing the conservation of mass in the atmosphere and oceans.
Moist Processes Equations: Capturing phase changes between water vapor, liquid water, and ice, along with latent heat exchange.
Boundary Layer Equations: Describing the complex dynamics near Earth's surface where the atmosphere interacts with the land or ocean.
Chemical and Aerosol Equations: Governing the reactions and interactions between different chemical species and particles, which can affect both weather and climate.
Sea Ice and Glacial Equations: Modeling the flow and melting of ice, essential for understanding the cryosphere.
These equations are solved numerically using computer algorithms, often over a grid representing the Earth's surface and atmosphere. Together, they form an interconnected system that allows scientists to simulate and analyze the climate system's behavior. This intricate mathematical framework underscores how the study of climate is fundamentally rooted in mathematical and physical principles.
'''
There are no such equations for the brain.
Yes, exactly. The software lies in humanity collectively. Not inside us, but in between us.
Which is why it cannot lie entirely in the brain. At least not entirely in one brain.
A new node born into the network, learns the network. Individual nodes perish, and new ones replace them. But the network doesn't go down. Or it hasn't yet.
Much of conscious experience is the network. Isolation is painful because it deregulates the connection to the network.
But even on the "hardware" side, there must be so many kinds of developments that must occur simultaneously. Some of it is as you say, environment based child development. Others that we may not quite be aware of, say patterns of neural firing, or growth patterns. Such developments probably get passed on in shape (DNA or X) to the next generation.
"The brain" is not physical like columns or iron. Those are simple objects. The kind physics likes to deal with. Things that are easily measured to describe its properties quantitatively and the relations of these properties as a placeholder for qualitative aspects (equations). Physics can't deal with the brain. No equation can be written.
If a bud's seeds were to sprout in place, instead of in the ground, you would have every single ancestor plant in a very long chain. Every brain is the result of this kind of structure. A mother buds and sprouts a new human. If the umbilical cords remain attached, we have a very similar kind of long chain of human brains. Not like any other physical object.
Physics is inadequate at studying "the brain". So, "the brain" is not a physical object.
As an exercise to maybe understand what I’m driving at:
When a vortex forms in a pool of water, it is formed by the complex interplay of water, the pond made up of earth, rock, plants, its undulations perturbing the water, the wind etc.
The vortex appears and vanishes as conditions change. But is the vortex, the water? Is the water no longer water once the vortex dissipates?
Is the vortex the same as any physical object? Or it’s a form taken up by water?
What if the brain is just the form. And what if the water is itself just a river fed by ocean currents millions of miles away?
Standing by the river, you only experience the form, not the formwork, the substrate, or even the shaping force in time.
I may have made this a worse explanation… hard to tell.
I would guess, that the first step would be to establish how the process of production (screenplay, scenes, camera angles, locations etc.) relates to the final product: scene frames. Each scene must have many shared elements as well. That would have to be encoded too.
Almost certainly, "the brain" tunes itself to its environment and inner states from a preformed inner structure through evolution. A lot of what is in the brain, is not actually to be found in the brain, or by studying it materially. The "formwork" that formed it, is lost in evolutionary time.
Unfortunately there is no way to impute the formwork from the form, like say it would be possible to (mostly accurately) impute what formwork created a square column or cast a piece of iron.
"The brain" is not in any way shaped like a physical object, and the formwork that formed it is infinitely complex.
What would be a typical unit? A keyframe? A bucket of frames?
Because the elements are temporal and visual, I think some form of “object in time” relation must be encoded in the description?
Surely oxidation is better than carcinization. And rust evolving to Java would be mineralization? Or maybe germination?
Your work isn't just the product, it is navigating an imperfect structure to achieve what you need to, despite the fact that the imperfect structure is the one contracting the product/service, and is (mostly unwittingly) standing in the way of that.
It's not fair, it's not fun. It is what it is.
You would at most be able to deanonymize a certain percentage within the impostor network itself. Kind of pointless.
Physical access of devices is the only way to have some chance of deanonymizing some of the users (always less than number of devices you have access to).
That’s my understanding, but the maker of this thing is here, and maybe can respond better?
An identifier is something that relates to more than one thing. A connection is its two endpoints. It is those ends.
Who is at each end is unknown and cannot be known without resorting to grabbing all users devices.
In phone A, you will have B's contact stored locally, let's say as "Dan".
B, A, "Pedro"
C, D, "Dan" (yes D is also named "Dan")
D, C, "Olga"
What do you look for?
Simplex does something similar. A connects to B. B connects to C. And A and C connect. They all chat. but there is no way to know A, B, or C, because from the outside, it all looks like: X connects to Y, X connects to Y, X connects to Y. So who spoke to whom?
This is great. Even if "the authorities" demand access to chat logs, first, they won't know what to ask for. Chats between whom? Second, they still won't know who spoke to whom even if they have all the data. It's anonymized chats. They would have to sift through all of it.
It still won't prevent someone invading privacy if they have physical access to your device, since the identities are stored locally for your usage convenience.