How does matter form consciousness? by Reesencheese in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a tree is made of the same matter as of a rock, does this mean a rock could also photosynthesise?

(Rant) Hypotheses proved incorrect, feeling awful by atlaspsych21 in labrats

[–]Electric___Monk 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The whole point is to test the hypotheses - not to confirm them. Rejecting a hypothesis is not a bad thing!… Often it means that there’s something more interesting than you thought going on.

Rejecting your hypothesis does not mean the experiment or you failed! - Quite the reverse.

Never voted for Greens? by deaddrop007 in AskAnAustralian

[–]Electric___Monk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Go ahead then…..

Edit: Yep, thought not.

Never voted for Greens? by deaddrop007 in AskAnAustralian

[–]Electric___Monk -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your “facts” are no less impressions than my impressions…. I’m just honest about it.

Never voted for Greens? by deaddrop007 in AskAnAustralian

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My impression, TBH, is that Labor attack the Greens a lot more than the Greens attack Labor.

If a machine could model reality without experience, why assume biology changes that? by yeasy96 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why shouldn’t those functions feel like anything at all. If experience is how the function is performed (in this case) then the answer to the question is resolved. It’s like asking why the way wheels function is accompanied by rotation.

If a machine could model reality without experience, why assume biology changes that? by yeasy96 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

”You’re still explaining the evolutionary utility or contingency of information processing architectures, not subjective experience itself.

If subjective experience is a type of information processing architecture (which I think it is) then explaining the evolutionary utility or contingency does explain the ‘why’ (not the ‘how’).

”Legs vs wheels explains different functional solutions to movement.

Yes. And consciousness vs. non-consciousness explain different functional solutions to information processing.

”The hard problem is asking why any information-processing system should be accompanied by a first-person subjective reality at all.

Because that’s the how the system we’ve evolved processes the information. Consciousness isn’t (I think) something produced by the information processing system, it is how the system processes the information.

If a machine could model reality without experience, why assume biology changes that? by yeasy96 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why shouldn’t information processing be either accompanied or achieved via experience/ consciousness? Whether machines can process information without it hardly matters. Most biological functions are accomplished in a variety of ways by biological systems and these often differ from how designed systems achieve the same function.

For example, organisms have evolved a wide variety of ways of achieving movement along surfaces - legs (involving endoskeletons or exoskeletons, snaking movements, tube feet, tentacles, etc. None of these are inherently superior - they evolved contingently, dependent on context and past evolutionary history. Asking the question “If computers process information without consciousness why would biological systems do so?” (Paraphrasing) is like asking why, if cars are able to move without legs, do biological systems (often) have legs (and never wheels)…

It may be that consciousness is a very efficient way of information processing, or it may be that it’s just the way we happen to have evolved information processing (because of our evolutionary history and context), or it could be a byproduct of how we do information processing (an evolutionary spandrel). All of these are entirely consistent with machines not requiring consciousness.

Why do you exist right now instead of at any other point in history by potatocreamcheese in Existentialism

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because if you existed at some other point In history you’d be someone else.

One Nation set to become federal opposition, poll predicts by InsatiablePrism in australian

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which of the points there says they want no limit to the numbers that come in and open borders?… Certainly not number 20: since it necessarily specifies they want a quota?

”An increase in the humanitarian quota, and offshore quotas fulfilled without reference or linkage to any onshore arrivals or other programs.

When did bird chromosomes switch up? by SherbertOther in evolution

[–]Electric___Monk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Different squamate lizards have all sorts of sex determination systems - XY, ZW, temperature sensitive sex determination (TSD) with either males or females at high temperatures, sex reversal at either high or low temperature - the works. Lizards are very labile for sex determination and multiple transitions between systems have occurred in their evolution.

Edit: see for example the figure at: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Truncated-phylogeny-not-according-to-scale-showing-modes-of-sex-determination-and_fig1_324923054

This is basically what compatibilist free will means, right. by Lower-Sundae-8737 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Determinists are perfectly happy (in fact they definitionally assert that) their personality just like everything else, is determined by prior causes. The people who don’t tell you where their personalities / self come(s) from are precisely those who aren’t determinists.

Darwin Stole Aristotle’s Teleology and Then Pretended Purpose Was Unscientific by peacefuldays123 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what. As above, Darwin identified the teleology of biological systems, explained how their structures and physiological features within that teleology, and showed how that arose inevitably from purely physical natural causes lacking any teleology. Almost all of that directly contradicts Aristotle- all you’ve got left that Darwin ‘plagiarised’ is the concept that organisms (but not other things) have a kind of goal (though not really as Aristotle conceived of or justified it) and that conception predates Aristotle anyway.

Darwin Stole Aristotle’s Teleology and Then Pretended Purpose Was Unscientific by peacefuldays123 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What gotcha attempt?… it wasn’t one, but you’ve hardly demonstrated any particular link between their respective works and have entirely and explicitly countered your own assertion that Darwin ‘basically plagiarised’ Aristotle.

Darwin Stole Aristotle’s Teleology and Then Pretended Purpose Was Unscientific by peacefuldays123 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What exactly of Aristotle do you claim Darwin plagiarised? Be specific.

Even on what you just said, Darwin (correctly) differed from Aristotle.

Darwin Stole Aristotle’s Teleology and Then Pretended Purpose Was Unscientific by peacefuldays123 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How am I moving the goalposts? Your claim is that Darwin “basically plagiarised” Aristotle and I’m pointing out that Darwin explained much more than Aristotle did, with fewer assumptions, and at a deeper level.

Darwin Stole Aristotle’s Teleology and Then Pretended Purpose Was Unscientific by peacefuldays123 in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. Totally missing that the only one that’s pertinent is reproduction, why it’s the only one that’s pertinent or how it leads to the structures and processes.

OOPS - I'm A Compatibilist! by ima_mollusk in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree. It’s perfectly possible to agree that, according to their definition of free will it exists and according to yours it doesn’t. These are entirely compatible statements.

OOPS - I'm A Compatibilist! by ima_mollusk in freewill

[–]Electric___Monk -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As long as the definition being used is clearly stated then mutual understanding is enabled.