hamburglin

hamburglin t1_jax5sz0 wrote

Reply to comment by RadioForest14 in Our emotional experiences reveal facts about the world in the same way our sensory experiences do. Trusting in either requires a leap of faith to some degree. by IAI_Admin

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion in your second sentence. It's simply illogical outside of major assumptions, in a vacuum.

Your second paragraph also does nothing to support it. In fact, it borders on countering your initial conclusion.

Maybe you're getting tripped up on the word "controls" though. Reality is a set of various systems that come together to produce something. What I'm saying is that hormones, which are known to be tightly controlled to emotions, have an equal or sometimes greater input than raw, real-time senses.

Now, if you want to call memories "senses", or learned behaviors "senses" (not sure why you would), then there might be some play there. But the way the words were stated that I initially responded to, I fully disagree that sensory input is the lone, key driver of how we interpret reality in the moment, and react the next.

Even our human-built computer systems are not that naive.

1

hamburglin t1_jathy0s wrote

Reply to comment by KlM-J0NG-UN in Our emotional experiences reveal facts about the world in the same way our sensory experiences do. Trusting in either requires a leap of faith to some degree. by IAI_Admin

It's just not that simple.

Eating something that destroys my guts reduces my serotonin levels to depression levels. The serotonin levels control my emotions.

This in turn changes how I experience the same exact sensory input.

So, it's both. Not one or the other. There's no theory here. There's only pretending to interpret reality through one of the inputs that lets us experience life.

1

hamburglin t1_j4jmx0p wrote

Reply to comment by abitrolly in Zero Days (2016) - Stuxnet, a piece of self-replicating computer malware that the U.S. and Israel unleashed to destroy a key part of an Iranian nuclear facility, and which ultimately spread beyond its intended target. [01:53:51] by Missing_Trillions

... autorun... exploits? (I'm going to pretend that's a term in the cyber security and forensics industry that actually makes sense to continue on here). In any context that has anything to do with being relevant about getting into air gapped networks? You sure you know what you're talking about?

You then reference the use of a fuzzer in a highly targeted attack? Wth? You think they're going in there and potentially bluescreening machines and trying "best guesses" at what they need to do to perform command and control operations? That would have already been known before deploying their malware and tools.

Safe to say even if you worked there then you still don't know what you're talking about.

1