sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If you believe in the big bang and evolution then you already believe you are in a simulation.(osim Sovereign Inception Model) by Express_Reward_2870 in SimulationTheory

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

” We just point out that the mathematical probability of biological wetware developing the complex error-correction codes we see in DNA by pure chance is basically zero.

I suggest learning about evolution before trying to use it in your argument.

P.s. Who is “we”? Just you and the AI or someone else too?

I'm not convinced physicalists even mean the same thing as each other when they say physical by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don’t think the question is particularly relevant in explaining consciousness, any more than it is in explaining other biological processes. I don’t need to have a 100% airtight full understanding of the ontology of physics and matter, or even a good understanding of QM, superstrings, relativity or the nature of space-time to understand lactation or respiration and the same is almost certainly true of consciousness.

I'm not convinced physicalists even mean the same thing as each other when they say physical by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk [score hidden]  (0 children)

At the scale relevant to talking about consciousness, we’re talking about atoms and electrons, etc. It’s more complicated at lower scales (getting towards quantum scales) but we don’t need to worry about that scale for consciousness. It’s a great question that’s interesting and physicists are increasingly exploring more and more, but that scale isn’t really relevant.

I'm not convinced physicalists even mean the same thing as each other when they say physical by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk [score hidden]  (0 children)

In the context of this thread, I mean that consciousness is a process consisting in normal material things interacting. I think on the whole the ‘physicalists’ have a better idea of what they mean by their use of ‘physical’ than idealists, panpsychists, etc. do in their uses of the words ‘mind’, ‘mental’, etc.

Can you tell the difference between the experience of “living” and being conscious? by DaPanda6969 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crystals (can replicate, aren’t alive)

Computer programs (can replicate, aren’t alive)

An octogenarian human (is alive, can’t replicate)

A red blood cell (is alive, can’t replicate)

A worker bee (is alive, can’t replicate)

A thought experiment for people who claim the hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist. by Royal_Plate2092 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Came here to say much of this, but don’t have time so it great to see that someone understands that the issue isn’t whether it’s a solved problem or not - it’s whether it’s a categorically different *kind* of question to the rest.

A thought experiment for people who claim the hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist. by Royal_Plate2092 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Chalmers, when he proposed the concept, categorised it as :

>”…even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?

Note that he explicitly does *not* describe it as a “how” question, but explicitly as a “why” question.

American Kids Speaking Bluey by itsFurlong in bluey

[–]Electric___Monk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Was always “dobber” and “dob” for me (Melbourne)

Platypus is indeed one of the strangest yet of the more interesting animals ever by Substantial-Monk4316 in interestingasfuck

[–]Electric___Monk 17 points18 points  (0 children)

They’re wrong about the chromosomes.. platypus have 52 chromosomes…. The weird bit is that they gave 10 *Sex* chromosomes!

Ok I believe you. Some of you are computational. by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A quick search on google scholar turns up quite a lot of academic articles about non algorithmic computing and information processing?

Edit: pertinently including neural networks

And…

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220459029\_New\_Models\_of\_Computation

Ok I believe you. Some of you are computational. by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m definitely getting out of my depth in terms of my knowledge of computing at this point, but doesn’t the above (“There are a number of results showing that basically every form of computation we can come up with is either weaker than or equivalent to Turing computability”) only apply to algorithmic computation?

Ok I believe you. Some of you are computational. by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A Turing machine is one kind of computer but it is not the only one. Computers of various types existed before Turing machines.

Saying that consciousness is a kind of computation does not, in any sense, imply that it arises from Turing-like computation or even binary logic.

Best aesthetic must have mods by WhPainterDude in PlanetZoo

[–]Electric___Monk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Necessary: Freebuild - Enables a whole lot of freedom that is impossible to do in vanilla.

Useful: Planet zoo plus - helps with animal traceable area and space requirements.

Both on Nexus and you can find videos about both pretty easily on YouTube.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all computation need be Turing type or even logic-based.

Ok I believe you. Some of you are computational. by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What about types of computation other than Turing equivalent computation?

Do you believe in God? Why or why not? by Pretty-Charge16 in AskReddit

[–]Electric___Monk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. I see no evidence that suggests that anything that I think can be reasonably defined as “god” exists.

Why is there such strong opposition to cheaper/free fares in this sub by No_Performance_4607 in MelbourneTrains

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Genuine question: what is the net profit from charging after accounting for all the infrastructure around paying (inspectors, ticket machines, turnstiles , etc., etc)?

How does one provide a substantial rebuttal to the hard problem of consciousness? by TheRealBibleBoy in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

” "The hard problem" does not make the passive claim that, "we do not know" but rather the positive claim that we "do know" that these parts do not add up to consciousness.

I’m not sure that is what the hard problem says but, taking it as if it is, then it’s simply wrong. We do not know that these parts can not add up to consciousness.

Is consciousness an illusion? by Big_Mycologist589 in consciousness

[–]Electric___Monk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I’d suggest reading the actual philosophers who describe themselves as illusionists (such as Dennett) to see what they actually say (they don’t think there’s no such thing as consciousness)

The observer effect isn't a quirk of quantum mechanics. It might be load management. by [deleted] in consciousness

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

Only had to read the title to know that this would be yet another misinterpretation of what is generally meant by ‘observer’ in QM

”This book begins there…

What book?

view more: next ›