I've tried this a couple of times but it doesn't work for me, probably because I'm not willing to let Google follow me everywhere on the web. It looks like YouTube is required for music and won't start without it.
Instead of using giant Opus files that require you to rely on Google to make your site affordably hosted, how about using the "tracker" technology of yore? It let folks enjoy downloaded electronic music back in the dialup era. Formats include MOD, XM, IT and S3M and there are a bunch of semi-abandoned JS implementations.
Why not? It is open-source[0] so this can be added by anyone interested in this.
But IMO a major component of the experience is seeing a DJ playing on the stage, which is why all of the videos are from HÖR Berlin[1] where this is their format.
Which is stupid though because obviously it's just going to be someone that looks like the person they are after. The idea with a lineup is that you have some other sort of evidence, not based on how people look, and then have them identify the person. If you used a tool to find people that look a certain way and then put that person in a line up with other "non-85%" matches it's reasonable the respondent would pick that person.
> The idea with a lineup is that you have some other sort of evidence, not based on how people look, and then have them identify the person
No, that's not the idea with lineups; if that was it, you could just show one photo of a single suspect and ask "Is that them?" Which, as you know, has tremendous problems with accuracy of identifications.
The article says the cops used "AI" to find a suspect then the victim identified them in a photo lineup. That provided the probable cause to get a judge to sign a warrant.
> pause and ask yourself when you last encountered software were you said "how the hell did they do that?"
Like every month for the past 5 years? The progress in machine learning is dizzying. It is astonishing what can be done now with text, images, audio, video, code, etc...
If you don't study it, however, you have no idea how it works or how to do it yourself.
> Much of Western thought traces back to serious work by Church theologians
Western thought traces back to the Greeks. Aquinas refers to Aristotle as "The Philosopher." Aristotle died over 300 years before Jesus was born.
> The Catholic Church, for all its many faults, retains a serious intellectual tradition.
On Aquinas, the Church Doctor, Bertrand Russell had the following to say:
"Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times."
We understand the fundamental laws of physics well enough to say there is not some mysterious soul influencing the brain. Just like we can say that the moon is not made from cheese.
> Modern physics, in other words, provides evidence for what philosophers call “causal closure of the physical”: physical events have purely physical causes (Loewer 1995, Papineau 1995), at least in the regime relevant to human life. Without dramatically upending our understanding of quantum field theory, there is no room for any new influences that could bear on the problem of consciousness.
> We understand the fundamental laws of physics well enough to say there is not some mysterious soul influencing the brain. Just like we can say that the moon is not made from cheese.
I don't see how this relates to the "seat of consciousness" (with)in a human body, or how the biological system works together to "form it". Or where thinking or memory storage or retrieval takes place. At least that was what I was talking about. You're talking about something else.
It is a theory that we think in the brain. As far as I understand it, and please prove me wrong, there are other, valid theories? It's unscientific to discard theories purely based on belief. You seem to be arguing from a certain belief, not from science.
The modern term for "soul" is "psyche".
Remember that the OP was asking: "How do you ensure that you aren’t torturing a brain that can’t see, hear or scream?" -- clearly refering to something... conscious?
> It is a theory that we think in the brain. As far as I understand it, and please prove me wrong, there are other, valid theories? It's unscientific to discard theories purely based on belief. You seem to be arguing from a certain belief, not from science.
The evidence that the brain is where thinking happens is overwhelming, the minor influence of the rest of the body notwithstanding. There are no other theories.
Plenty of examples of theories listed there, no? Picking a random one: "Open individualism states that individual personal identity is an illusion and all individual conscious minds are in reality the same being".
"the extended mind thesis says that the mind does not exclusively reside in the brain or even the body, but extends into the physical world"
To state it explicitly, I am not saying I believe in these alternative theories. I am also not stating anything about their probabilities. I just want to be accurate in my understanding, which is that multiple theories do exist and none of them have been proven or disproven. It is not known whether you only need a brain to think, or how much other regions like the nervous system spread throughout the body play a crucial role for "thoughts" to form.
If you discard a theory just because you judge there not to be sufficient evidence, you're working from a belief, and not from scientific reason.
In this particular thread, we're not even coming from "thinking" or "mind", but from sentience -- the stated idea that the "brain can feel pain", as brain alone (!). Depending on which physical regions and matter you include in "brain", it doesn't even have any structures that according to the current scientific consensus provide or relay perceptive data. Unless you believe in one of the many theories that place the mind outside of the physical structures of the brain.
Instead of using giant Opus files that require you to rely on Google to make your site affordably hosted, how about using the "tracker" technology of yore? It let folks enjoy downloaded electronic music back in the dialup era. Formats include MOD, XM, IT and S3M and there are a bunch of semi-abandoned JS implementations.
reply