Experience is what's hard to square with computability. David Chalmer's calls this the hard problem. As long as you're taking about producing speech or other behaviors, it's easy to see how that might be a computation (and nothing more).
It's harder (for me) to see how it's possible to say that pain is just a way of describing things, i.e. that there's in principle no difference between feeling pain and computing a certain function.
Gödel's theorem attracts these weird misapplications for some reason. It proved that a formal system with enough power will have true statements that cannot be proven within that formal system. The human mind can't circumvent this somehow, we also can't create a formal system within our mind that can prove every true statement.
There's very little to see here with respect to consciousness or the nature of the mind.
Penrose's argument does not require humans to prove every true statement. It is of the form - "Take a program P which can do whatever humans do and lets a generate a single statement which P cannot do, but humans can."
The core issue is that P has to seen to be correct. So, the unassailable part of the conclusion is that knowably correct programs can't simulate humans.
Graduate students are paid to attend - they're more like employees than undergraduate students. Why wouldn't a university faced with funding cuts start by not hiring additional people rather than getting rid of current ones?
Maybe because graduate students directly contribute to the university’s mission by teaching undergrads and “producing” research (both of which bring in $$$), while administrators seem to be purely a cost center, many of whom serve no useful purpose?
I mean, the grants that are being cut is the money that graduate students bring in. Less grant money -> fewer graduate students. In theory maybe it's possible to be more efficient like you're suggesting, but it's hard to see how the immediate response could be any different.
Penn's endowment distributed $1.1 billion last year. Endowments like this are managed to last a long time - indefinitely, even.
Penn itself is older than the United States - they're not going to start blowing through their endowment because of political trends over the last couple months (or next 4 years), even if they legally could.
You cited this reference up thread: "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age". It should give you pause for your definition of heritability that this paper is saying it changes with age. As you point out a couple of comments later, genes don't change with age.
If you're going to cite heritability numbers, you have to use the technical definition of heritability (which is what these papers are using).
(HAYR-ih-tuh-BIH-lih-tee) The proportion of variation in a population trait that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors.
The study title is saying that heritability INCREASES with age: as you age your IQ is more closely correlated to the IQ of your parents from whom you inherited your genes from.
>As you point out a couple of comments later, genes don't change with age.
Your genes dont change but the correlation between you and your parents IQ does.
You're not making sense. If heritability means genetic determination, as you say it does, and genes are fixed at birth, then heritability can't change as you age.
None of what you're being told is first-principles axiomatic reasoning. This is all stuff you can just go look up. You got so close with that Wikipedia definition of heritability! All you need to do now is understand what those words mean.
> whether or not you wear lipstick has high heritability.
Think about this example. The genetic factor here is massive, much higher than anyone is claiming for IQ. Can you imagine how hopelessly lost you would be if your analysis of lipstick distribution in the population focused on its heritability and link to genetics?
An even bigger issue you immediately run into in these conversations: someone will say "I don't mean heritability that way, I mean genetic heritability". Which, whatever, except: now you've discarded all the science. The papers you'd draw these numbers from are referring to heritability in its technical sense, not in some message board sense.
Yes. I mean, either you're talking about statistical properties of a population or you're talking about something else. These discussions usually devolve into "something else" almost immediately.
You can have intuitions about any of these issues, but you can't use heritability research as evidence for them without understanding the technical meaning of "heritability". That's all that's being said here.
Yeah, I re-read the headline a couple times after seeing the comments and can't spot the ambiguity. Also, there's a difference between 'attention grabbing' and 'clickbait'. This headline seems like the first. It's literally highlighting one of the most interesting parts of the story and precisely describing it.
(Yes, I know the doctor in the article already believed he knew the answer)
"then you go on to describe things that are not exclusive to Capitalism AT ALL."
Why are they required to be exclusive? If I said that uncontrolled train crossings lead to more train crashes, would you retort that train crashes aren't exclusive to uncontrolled crossings?
They are not required to be exclusive, but it would require that we can establish cause and effect.
If you tell me that your "issue with Capitalism" is that "we have people driven by profit/greed and wealth is unevenly distributed", but a quick look through history tells you we can always find "people driven by personal gain and wealth inequality", then what does "Capitalism" has to do with it?
"A quick look through history" is what I'd expect from someone who skims over a book and completely misses the point because they think they know it all.
Indeed I gave you three constraints but you're only looking at one independently.
When else in history were markets global? Why am I arguing with someone who can't even read?
Right, so the fundamental issue is that we are living in a globalized world, which reduces any room for nuance and imposes an uniform and homogenized culture, top-down policy-making, and a totalitarian approach by the ruling class.
Thing is, this would still be our reality regardless of the economic system. Globalism would be a problem even if the Soviet Union had won the cold war.
We would still be subjected to uniform culture, top-down policy-making and totalitarianism.
The people would still be acting by their own personal interests.
People would still favor short term benefits over long term prosperity.
So, again: what does Capitalism has to do with it?
I think you're right, but also this doesn't contradict the article. Google reset to a cleaner state (leaving behind the advertising choked portals of the late 90s). Over time both internal and external forces have chipped aways at Google's original model.
It's harder (for me) to see how it's possible to say that pain is just a way of describing things, i.e. that there's in principle no difference between feeling pain and computing a certain function.