Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bobson381's commentslogin

I'm with Alan Watts. It's consciousness all the way down, in a unified, Spinozan, sense. A rock feels rock like you feel you, just in rock ways. Tat Tvam Asi, in a way.

It's useful for us to have the concept of separateness, like it's useful for us to have the concept of names, or a foot, or dollars, etc. But it doesn't mean things really are separate.


You know what it would be like for you to imagine being a bat, but you don't know how it feels for a bat to be a bat, as "you" aren't.

I dont think you can know that unless you know what it's like to be me.

in that case, hello, bat!

Hi, finally someone believes me! :)

I have always liked the way that this paper frames the distinction and tension between the feeling of subjective experience and the "detached" rational scientific descriptive perspective that purports to be outside of that experience.

What is Real by Adam Becker was a fun foray into why this is so in (some) modern science philosophy as well - there's some desire to say that there isn't a "there" there when we talk about the world, just stuff. I'm probably with Alan Watts on the whole thing, that we are in some sense local aspects of a larger consciousness pretending it isn't so, and the hard work done by detached, disembodied perspectives like the scientific descriptive one are more and more steps to an unfolding game.


Science is incredibly good at producing descriptions that are shareable between observers, but subjective experience is not obviously shareable in that same way

We are going to find out. See Limits to Growth.

Could you get a kvm connected to a networked PDU with per-outlet control? Then a power cycle on the plug for the mac would accomplish the same thing. Or just use the network port on the PDU directly w/o kvm.

The annoying thing with Macs is they don't have the ability to 'Power on after clean shutdown and power cycle'. They can power on after a power fail, but that's not the same thing.

I want to be able to have power toggle on my Mac remotely, but without soldering in a jumper on the power button, AFAIK there's no way to do it :(


I just found out newer desktop Macs now have a setting as of 26.5 that allows power on after power restore even without an unsafe shutdown. I'll have to test this.

They mentioned Gil’s Fingerbot. It’s literally a remote controlled “finger” that can be commanded to press your power button. Obviously, if your MacBook goes with you everyday rather than living on a rack, this isn’t a practical solution.

Worst case scenario, physically press the button: https://www.switch-bot.com/products/switchbot-bot

That is frustrating. Sounds like no way forward w/o basically forcing a crash via hard shutdown from a PDU.

You're right. I just need to upgrade my PDU. But as you can imagine, I'm hesitating because I don't want to power down the rest of the hardware either.


It's essentially the TVtropes Fascist but Inefficient, but it takes out the grunt work.[1]

The other thing that comes to mind here is Brazil, the movie directed by Terry Gilliam - the inefficiency of the state is part of what makes it evil because it mostly doesn't care if it gets stuff wrong - I wonder how machine intelligence may change that.

[1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FascistButIneffi...


Advaita Vedanta or Alan Watts style looking - essentially the idea that there are no separate things or events, sort of like Whitehead's process philosophy. Trippy stuff and a little bit out there, but consistent with some other ways of looking at things. What is real by Adam Becker goes into some underpinnings here too.


I read and enjoyed the book " what is real" by Adam Becker that talks about this intersection between the philosophy of the day and its impact on what more considered valid interpretations of QM at the time and into the future. The logical positivists had a lot of impact on popular conception of quantum stuff, even to this day. Great read


Hence the title and its hearkening back to seeing like a state - I would guess one of the author's related views is that a rigid, high-modern codification scheme will always miss the magic stuff that fills in the cracks. And you can't go without that without eventual unforeseeable consequences. It's a techne versus metis distinction I think


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: