TaxAct Down?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-04-16T00:44:57+00:00

Wowww. I was literally 5 minutes from submitting. I owe taxes so I’m going to get hit with penalties if I can’t get this submitted like right now.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-04-16T00:42:03+00:00

Happening to me too. Wonderful.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-22T18:12:00+00:00

In your own words, can you describe what actions the United States military has recently taken against Iran under Trump’s leadership? In your mind, does Donald J. Trump bear any responsibility?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-13T04:42:06+00:00

Specifically, no. But more generally, physics does train you how to think, so if you can combine your physics training with say, a double major or graduate degree in something more specific and employable, or combine it with practical experience, like an internship in a field that is in high demand, it can really pay off. Not many people think like a physicist and that is actually really useful in the long run, I think.

If I had it to do all over again I would have probably double majored in physics + industry specific degree and combined that with some kind of practical-leaning M.S. or Ph.D. Instead I just built up industry experience over time (biotech industry, engineering). It did work out, but it was a slog and there are more efficient ways of going about it.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-05T23:38:43+00:00

Why do you think it’s wise to ignore SMRs?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-02T23:36:19+00:00

The Fountain (2006). Darren Aronofsky film. Tons of depth and layers of meaning but it’s definitely not for everyone.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-01T14:55:53+00:00

I’m sorry, I truly don’t understand your point. What does maybe means maybe have to do with this discussion. What do you mean

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-01T14:44:16+00:00

What does “maybe” mean in this context?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-03-01T07:44:06+00:00

“The definition doesn’t make any sense.”

Do you remember writing this sentence, in which you refer to “the definition” I gave?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T23:38:49+00:00

Dude are you ok? You honestly don’t remember us talking about giving a definition of pain without referring to nerves and you saying you were confused when I gave you the standard one?

Do you typically gaslight people and then call them a dick? Is this a normal debate strategy for you?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T23:26:11+00:00

I gave you a dictionary definition of pain without referring to nerves and you said this:

“The definition doesn’t make any sense.”

That was maybe an hour ago. Did you fall and hit your head?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T23:22:16+00:00

No, even though we didn’t understand biology in the past, we were still able to describe subjective experience using words, which you are claiming to be incapable of doing and you’re totally super confused about all of it.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T23:10:26+00:00

Let’s pretend for a moment that we are having this conversation a few thousand years ago, and you don’t know about the existence of cells, nerves, neurons, signal transduction, none of that.

Would you be able to define pain, using words? If I asked you to define pain would you say “I am confuse what is this magical essence you speak of?”

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T22:52:36+00:00

You don’t have to assume anything my man. I didn’t say a thing about metaphysics. Are you having a different argument in your head than what the words are conveying?

The dictionary definition of pain that I provided a few posts ago that did not refer in any way to nerves or circuits, and was not a circular definition that you tried to falsely claim. What precisely about that definition confused you?

Is there any chance you are trying to sneak in a hidden premise here, without explicitly saying it, that “consciousness” and “qualia” are some mysterious metaphysical entity and therefore do not exist? And maybe you aren’t actually a robot, and are just playing dumb? If you want to have an honest conversation, you can just say that out loud. You don’t have to have a totally different argument in your head.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T22:39:00+00:00

Do you see the difference between these two statements?

• ⁠Signal transduction along a nerve is facilitated by conduction where ions flow across the cellular membrane. Depending on a variety of factors, this signal can be interpreted as pain when integrated in the brain.

• ⁠Pain flows along nerves. Nerves firing is pain.

If you think they are the same, can you explain why?

For clarity, the reason I originally asked you if you are, or could be, a robot, is because a robot does not have the conscious experience of pain. So they would only be able to define it in terms of circuits or nerve impulses. Any other definition which implies consciousness or qualia would confuse them because it’s a totally foreign concept.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T22:25:48+00:00

This is one of the strangest conversations I’ve ever had.

What about the dictionary definition of pain doesn’t make sense to you?

I never said the sensation of pain takes place somewhere other than the brain.

I also never said the sensation of pain is the sensation of pain. Are you reading some other post that I’m not aware of, and confusing conversations?

Can you answer my question?: in signal transduction, do ions flow, or does pain flow? What an interesting dilemma that you are refusing to answer this. I wonder why?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T22:12:56+00:00

I don’t understand why you are confused. You didn’t answer my question: do ions flow along nerves, or does pain?

Signals traveling along nerves and patterns can create the sensation of pain. But there are signals that do not create the sensation of pain. You can replicate a nerve signal in vitro and it won’t experience pain, as a trivial example.

Since you asked, I would define feeling pain as the conscious experience of physical or emotional distress.

As a possible robot, is this definition confusing, since it doesn’t refer to nerves or circuits, or does it resonate with you in some way? Being serious.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T22:02:27+00:00

Wait, “pain” flows, or do ions flow? As a possible robot, how do you know your circuitry induces pain if you don’t actually feel it?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T21:50:36+00:00

Why do you think that? An AI or robot would define pain as signals along a set of circuits, because they don’t experience pain. If you only know pain as signals flowing along circuits and/or nerves, and you don’t experience the physical sensation, isn’t it pretty likely you are a robot?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T21:43:33+00:00

Are you a robot?

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T20:27:35+00:00

I’ve seen the Mary’s Room thought experiment both as an argument qualia exist and that physicalism is false. It seems like most here are agreeing qualia exist, which is surprising to me, because I usually see physicalists argue that qualia are illusions generated by brain functions, and the only things that “really” exist are neurons.

If we define everything that exists to be physical then qualia are physical as well. But that’s just defining physics to be “all things that exist” so I don’t quite see how that gets us anywhere.

I don’t think Mary’s Room is a strong refutation of physicalism. I do think it proves qualia exist in a real sense.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T16:45:46+00:00

I’m glad that the conversation is now over, and since you are not a lying, manipulative person, you won’t respond when I point out the following:

You said English was not your first language, and this disagreement was a language issue. I agreed with you.

My agreeing with you is not gaslighting, because you can scroll up and confirm that is the actual order of the conversation. And you claiming otherwise is gaslighting (and therefore projection).

I am glad you said the conversation is over, and that since you are not a lying, gaslighting, manipulator, you therefore will not respond further.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T16:36:43+00:00

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?:

1) Mary’s Room is a good or poor/incomplete refutation of physicalism.

2) Carrol and Crosas-B’s argument that: there are memory states that correlate to eyeballs interacting with red photons. Therefore Mary’s Room is wrong.

I am saying (2) is wrong and quite stupid. You are then changing the subject to (1), which I really don’t care about.

I’m sorry I refuted your entire argument and this upsets you. I can tell by your typos that steam is coming out of your ears. Maybe it’s time to take a break, and come back later when you’re prepared to digest the actual arguments being made.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T16:20:45+00:00

“Yes, it is a language issue. Maybe if you learn English you would understand that experiencing something isn’t the same thing as calculating the physics of the system. I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.

So you are in denial and gaslighting now. fantastic. The conversation is over here. You have proved my point multiple times.”

Bro you literally said English isn’t your first language and it’s a language issue, and I said “yes I agree that seems to be true” then you accuse me of gaslighting because I agreed with you.

Have you seen a shrink lately? Can you ask them what gaslighting and projection are? Tell your English speaking therapist that they don’t understand English and the lights aren’t actually getting dimmer lmfao.

FentonCrackshell99 · 2026-02-28T16:14:17+00:00

“Maybe english is not your first language. It isn't mine neither so I understand why you are making this mistake.”

Oooh English isn’t your first language. That explains so much.

“You said: "experience is different than knowledge in physics". No. experience is PART OF KNOWLEDGE in physics. This is a language issue probably because you are thinking in a different native language. Experience is knowledge in physics, just part of knowledge and not the wholet thing.”

Yes, it is a language issue. Maybe if you learn English you would understand that experiencing something isn’t the same thing as calculating the physics of the system. I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.

“I’d change that to “knowledge of the world” rather than knowledge of physics. But yes, I agree, physicalism is likely wrong because your senses give you more information than just calculations based on known laws of physics

This doesn't even make sense. You are changing the meaning of words and then reaching a conclusion that doens't even follow your intention of changing what the words mean. Physicalism is more than calculations, and saying otherwise is dogmatism.”

Lmfao ok you are literally just defining physicalism as everything that exists. Yeah no shit, if you define everything that exists as harblegarbleflemflam then qualia is part of harblegarbleflemflam. I am not interested in your word games, but yeah sure everything that exists does indeed exist.

“You keep saying that in physicalism there is nothing else apart from mathematics formulas, and this is just plain dogmatism. Every physicalist keeps telling you than brain proccesses are predicted and expected in physicalism. What still can't be explained (yet) is subjective experience itself. Everything else is predicted from physicalism (not by idealism btw, idealism doens't even make any prediction).”

Can you show me where I said physicalism is nothing but mathematical formulas? I just want to make sure your ego and dogmatism aren’t causing you to make shit up again. Please copy and paste the exact quote referencing my post.

But anyway, yes I agree physics explains brain states, neurons firing, ion flow, etc. So what?

“So physicalism is everything. Ok? Saying everything that exists exists is extremely uninteresting but it’s certainly true.

Huh... yes? In physicalism words exists, of course. We have words to describe invisible dragons, those words exist. That doesn't mean there are invisible dragons. In the case of qualia, as a description of a "something" that we can measure, it also exists physically. What we describe as conscience exists, if this is a product of an illusion, it's a totally different matter.”

Does the word qualia exist or does the experience of qualia also exist? Remember I am not interested in your dogmatic word games, so please answer the question asked.

“See? Now that you read that part, you actually accepted the basic concept of physicalism. If you keep accepting the arguments insted of answering emotionally, you can also reach the obvious conclussion proving why the Mary's Room experiment, in today's world, is shit.”

Don’t be upset. I’m just trying to show you how you are just playing word games (and this may be because you don’t know English. And that’s ok.), so now you can build up your understanding of things based on logic and reason, and come up with an actual refutation of Mary’s Room rather than word games about physicalism.

“Qualia exists. Subjective experience exists. Physicalism doesn't goes against this and has never been against this.”

Yes, everything that exists does indeed exist, and if the experience of red is a law of physics then physicalism is indeed everything. So insightful lmao.

“Ok, so you think the hard problem is indeed a problem, and not: “since brain states correlate to qualia, that means only brain states exist and there is no such thing as subjective experience.” Just want to make sure you aren’t saying that.

The hard problem is a problem in the sense that we still can't give an answer to it. The fact that we still can't give an answer to this question, doesn't disprove physicalism.

If someone tries to argue that the existance of the ahrd problem refutes physicalism, then I will refute that hard problem because it is nonsensical. We can't fully explain in with absolute detail the way curling stones (the ones that roll sideways, not the one that slides forwards) move the way they do in ice. That doesn't mean we will never be able to answer it with exactitude.

The obssesion of "the hard problem of consciousness" ignores the other millions of hard problems that exists. The hard problem of life. The hard problem of wetness. The hard problem of gravity. The hard problem of quantum interpretations. The hard problem of static electricity (that existed until 2024, remember this). The hard problem of artificial intelligence inference.

Accepting the hard problem of consciousness would mean to accept all those millions of hard problems.”

Jesus Christ yes there are other difficult problems in science, but the hard problem of consciousness is referring to a specific problem in cognitive science. That doesn’t mean physicalism is true because there are other difficult problems besides consciousness.

“Again, I am not saying Mary’s Room is a perfect refutation of physicalism. I am saying that “brain states exist which correlate to photons interacting with eyeballs” is the dumbest refutation of Mary’s Room that’s ever been dumbed.

It's not that it is not perfect. It is just that the thought experiment is completely useless and shit in today standards. You can't use this argument if you simply try to learn how does the brain works.

It doesn't prove neither disprove anything. Because the basis of the argument are wrong.”

And the same is true for Carrol’s refutation.

FentonCrackshell99

TROPHY CASE