throwupper247

For a game you could precalc the collision boxes as polygons or whatever your models use.

More like, it is open source, but it's not free open source?

I was trying to tell you that there is a difference between what someone thinks about something's value and the actual value of that thing. It's called subjectivity and objectivity and I feel like your first comment in this thread sounds like you imply that there was no objectivity. The absolut is a special case of relativity: coffee is absolutely disgusting, even if it subjectively seems to taste relatively fine to some, they all agree that it was disgusting at first, hence it's called an aquired taste.

What? Justin Webb granted the licence, NaturalMotion Limited explicitly didn't. NaturalMotion has a licence and that probably includes their veto on any following licence given by Justin.

I'm not a lawyer or particularly strong with English, but at least it makes sense in this interpretation.

You keep speaking of "the outside", implying that there is any outside that's inaccessable to us. This's not scientific. It's not mumbojumbo either, but it's just not provable. It's glaringly obvious, too. It's tedious to still try to derive any insight from that. What you want maybe is an outlook, so to speak, to expand your horizont.

Consciousness is binary in my mind. To say that there is an understanding of consciousness sounds redundant to me, although understanding carries a notion of direction.

No, I don't know.

If 99% water solution just has to satisfy thirst, then a 1% zyankali solution doesn't kill, is it? It's a bad comparison, because I really don't know what else coffee brew consists of exactly, but you probably don't either, so ... that pretty much wraps it up.

>My comment had nothing to do with advocating coffee

My comment did. You can't just reply to the whole comment without considering that part.

>for the sake of the argument

That's begging the question. There's researchers writing a 18 page report about a 100 manyears of development and you stumble in here without really reading it, saying it's wrong on account of it not being right. Well, your circular logic leaves me unimpressed.

I think the uncertainty principle makes pretty clear, assuming for the sake of the argument that it is correct, that we can't observe matter without interfering. Ofc that's a matter of believe

The whole presumption of the article is that consciousness is related to matter. You are, if anything, changing the subject. You probably don't have a clue what consciousness is, no offense, I really don't. Sadly the quoted papers are not open access and I can't figure out sci-hub. Also, they are from a philosophical faculty, while I tend to the hard sciences.

Where would the inability to figure out conscioussness leave us, anyhow, do you just give up?

No, hedonism is not true. It's a deceptive misconception of what values are a good guideline for a sustainable life. I was getting at the common notion that hedonists don't want to work, because it's no fun, which is obviously incompatible.

>any system that defines value in a way that doesn't allow for these people

wat

Hedonism defines pleasure as the primary and most intrinsic good so any system allowing it is just hedonism. WTF? How would any system acommodate competing theories? Fun thought experiment, sure.

>Economically

Usually it would go the other way, if coffee is worth something to me, I will be willing to pay that. You mess up simple logic, get your head straight.

It's disgustingly bitter, so much most can only bare it with milk and sugar.

Your subjective evidence is not convincing, even less as I was implying coffee had an addictive and hence behavioral conditioning effect, part of which comes from advertisement like yours, so stop it, will ya.

That's just sad how much you are missing my point, all the while defending the coffee that your text kind of reads like you had too much before reading.

Hedonism is your ultimate phylosophical truth, is it? Strawberries are hardly as heavily industrialised as coffee, calling your relationship with a hot bevarage a romantic one is doubtful. I am as pessimistic as your logic is flawed. There are few things in live the brain is prewired to feel a need for. Coffee supplis the illusion of fullfilling two or three enssential ones of these, hunger and thirst and sleep, but it doesn't actually provide the associated value.

E_CONTEXT: Please elaborate, I don't understand where the question is coming from.

Selling something that people want isn't equal to providing value. Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal. Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual. The car definitely is an economic nessecity in some parts. I don't know what refridgerator oligarchy you are refering to and it specifically doesn't matter. I'm sure the term oligarchy relates negatively to democratic societies.

The discussed paper is http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18112 "The global landscape of cognition: hierarchical aggregation as an organizational principle of human cortical networks and functions"

Consciousness is mentioned only once:

>Our current data-driven results holistically demonstrated expanding amalgamation of function [sic!] over structural depth [...]

>Fascinatingly, results suggest why the insular and opercular regions are some of the best candidates for awareness or consciousness [62] [63] or why parts of frontal cortex are involved in higher cognition.

Wait, why is function uncountable?

>These conclusions are elaborated here:

>Sensory regions closest to inputs (bin1) in our hierarchy [include Insula and opercular]

>[...] hypothesized to play a role in multi-sensory integration and interoceptive awareness,

>[...] since it is the hub of the senses

>[...] the coordinating role awareness plays in cognition

>Further, middle regions, intermediate in distance from all sensory inputs (bin5) included hippocampus and MTL known for memory and celebrity neurons

>Deep regions less connected to and farthest from inputs (bin10) [...] may support more abstract cognitive functions.

Aren't the first two quotes contradicting? Surely, awareness or consciousness is an amalgamation of function and distributed.

I'd rather thought the hippocampus was deemed central to cognition, as memory seems essential for re-cognition. Self-awareness is deemd a function of higher cognition and therefore an abstract concept. Why is it close to the concrete input stage? They talk about recurrent networks, does the hippocampus give feedback to the "input stage", maybe slowly as in conditioning? They "simplified recurrence into a continuum of statistical connectivity to sensory inputs" to probalisticly show a directional hierarchy.

Their methods are interesting, but far beyond me. They seem to build a model of the brain into a NN and test that, where a modified NN is the control group.

Is it also impossible to research matter, because we can't seperate the matter we study ... ? Am I missing the analogy?