Thank you for sharing. It does seem like you havenāt read about epistemology. I promise I donāt mean that in a condescending way, my experience has been that very few people have even heard the word before. Iām just trying to figure out whether my hypothesis is correct or not - that people on āthis channelā are always folks who havenāt dealt with the issues that epistemology raises in their personal journey.
If true Iād highly recommend reading about it. Though itās a bitā¦ challenging. It took me quite a bit of deconstructing of my own previous ways of thinking. Iād love to see how what I understand of your epistemic approach changes or doesnāt through the process of reading about the historical evolution of epistemic approaches.
What do I know though.
Totally agree. This one was great. Endurance. #bookstr
Looks like he was a bit secretive about his methods. Maybe if he wouldnāt have led people astray about how he made his lenses they would have recognized him as correct and not been so delayed in learning too.
Open-mindedness is required. But there is also only one true interpretation of a non-subjective event. We must somehow discover that interpretation or risk being led on strange paths.
What would you say about epistemology?
Iām always curious reading what folks on this channel say. Iād love to know what they think about the subject of #epistemology , usually guessing that they havenāt studied it. I would tend to agree with nostr:npub1wpu33h35ufrnxdhwmy82s3l3nk682xm3whvfxepxsjn24t6dnn8q0hku55 - but does spirituality require believing that a photon can think? Or is that somehow the wrong question entirely and why?
Itās been a while, I should have recorded them while listening. Iāll try to remember to update this here if I listen to another one of his things. I just remember a bunch of times in the couple of hours long podcast that while his words seemed give the impression of expertise, he was talking beyond his actual grasp of physics.
Annoyingly people do that all the time. I donāt know why. Iām sure I do too. I figure it happens when you learn enough to explain x % of the world well enough that people agree with you, extend that knowledge from interpolation to extrapolation while creating a model for the world, and then fail to notice that the dots youāre connecting donāt actually connect. This results in creating noise rather than signal.
This wasnāt exactly one of those moments, but i remember having the specific question of why he is so worried about GHz radiation but not worried about the much more energetic THz radiation that every molecules in our bodies continuously emit.
I did almost that. So funny. I think the way it interacts with a tokenized version of each word instead of the actual word causes it to fail at this task. 
I think itās impractical and unaffordable because A: anyone who wants to (and has enough money) can write to your āsecuredā database (lol) and B: even authorized users cannot reuse the PoW.
Initially I thought his idea would make sense with reusable PoW:
Status quo: prove ownership of secret key to change controlled value
Lowery: provide prove ownership of secret to move bitcoin to change controlled value
But then I realized thatās the same thing with more steps.
So if there are no control values that make sense to put behind PoW, then the āpissing contestā argument doesnāt make sense to me either, because having nukes is very much a real threat. Hashing 95% of the network hashes and censoring might be a *slight* inconvenience to the opponent (expected block inclusion in 200 minutes). The dynamics of the game arenāt attractive at all when compared to the incentive to develop a nuclear capability.
Other than his understanding of that process being undeveloped.
Iāve read a part of it after listening to him speak for a few hours (3-6) I was disappointed by the lack of technical depth in the section I read. I currently think his idea sounds better than it really is. I have no idea why he thinks nation states would use bitcoin or similar to secure stuff
š«
Exhalations was excellent. #bookstr
Yeah I think we have free will. Definitely not 100%. But at least a little more than 0%. Not totally sure of course, but I think we do. Itās worth behaving as if we do even if it doesnāt end up being true like the story points out.
But I think itās also worth the resulting cognitive dissonance to suspend that belief when looking at other people, at least in part. Doing that provides such an easy way to find more patience and love for them. Especially when they are causing you problems. They are largely acting out programming that they did not choose š«
Exactly why Iām anti-AI but not overly hopeful.