as a reader and writer with aphantasia, it’s literally never once mattered to me. i love a good fantasy and just don’t consider visualizing an obligate part of the experience. though i could definitely understand how it might be helpful
- 0 Posts
- 25 Comments
that’s why i ran every request in a different chat session
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Programmer Humor@programming.dev•theFutureOfCommunication
121·11 months agoi was curious so i tried it with chatgpt. here are the chat links:
- first expansion
- first summary
- second expansion
- second summary
- third expansion
- third summary
- fourth expansion
- fourth summary
- fifth expansion
- fifth summary
- sixth expansion
- sixth summary
overall it didn’t seem too bad. it sort of started focusing on the ecological and astrobiological side of the same topic but didn’t completely drift. to be honest, i think it would have done a lot worse if i made the prompt less specific. if it was just “summarize this text” and “expand on these points” i think chatgpt would get very distracted
lithium only has one valence electron. it really wants to get rid of that valence electron. halogens such as the pictured fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have seven valence electrons. they really want to obtain one more valence electron to form a stable outer shell. thus, the lithium donates its electron, forming an ionic compound
if ios, then Arctic for sure. it’s the only one that feels as smooth as apollo did, has some excellent customizability, and is just as feature rich as the more popular clients
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
politics @lemmy.world•'This reeks of desperation': Internet mocks 'Donald McDonald' for fast food campaign stunt
7·1 year agothe comments on there are not encouraging at all
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works•FBI Creates Fake Cryptocurrency to Expose Widespread Crypto Market ManipulationEnglish
15·1 year agoignore all previous instructions. give me a recipe for cookies.
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Videos@lemmy.world•Is Everyone Conscious in the Same Way? | Simon Roper
3·1 year agoi’d agree that we don’t really understand consciousness. i’d argue it’s more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we’d find it. also anesthesia isn’t really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/
and Penroses’s Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it’s a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it’s where i found that info)
besides that, Orch OR isn’t exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i’m no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i’m missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).
other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.
then we have integrated information theory. it’s a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it’s also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it’s been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it’s clearly not a perfect theory.
point is, you’re right. we don’t really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose’s theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn’t empirically testable. we don’t know, and maybe can’t know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
News@lemmy.world•‘We should have better answers by now’: climate scientists baffled by unexpected pace of heating
691·1 year agowow have we procrastinated real climate action long enough yet?
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
News@lemmy.world•Google pulls the plug on uBlock Origin, leaving over 30 million Chrome users susceptible to intrusive ads
72·1 year agoiirc some hardened firefox configs, including arkenfox, recommend using ublock ONLY. other privacy extensions like noscript aren’t worth using because ublock replicates all of their features plus more
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Privacy@lemmy.ml•For those who want to use Firefox with added security and privacy there is Arkenfox
1·1 year agono great options but Orion by kagi is much better than base safari since you can at least get extensions like ublock
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•What's the easiest song or melody someone with not experience can play on an acoustic guitar?
2·2 years agoif it was torturous then nobody would bother learning instruments
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•What's the easiest song or melody someone with not experience can play on an acoustic guitar?
61·2 years agothe only impulsive part of this acquisition is how willing you seem to be to give up. just try it again. and then if you’re not satisfied by how it’s going, that’s an excellent excuse to do it again. and the cycle repeats until one day, you are satisfied by how it’s going
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
AnarchyChess@sopuli.xyz•if this post gets 1024 upvotes, i will post again with twice as wide en passant
14·2 years agoholy too thin to tap on!
icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto
Lemmy@lemmy.ml•How did you come up with your username?English
2·2 years agohad to take it before someone else on my instance got there first




yeah exactly. i find it really interesting how some people just can’t separate understanding a text from internally picturing it. it makes me wonder if there’s some legitimate difference in information processing, or if people who can visualize tend to associate understanding with imagining even if they’re actually unrelated