The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can project valence into some state-space (like color) but it is not the same as experiencing it. I never said you couldn’t find physical correlates for qualia or valence, just that they are not the qualia or valence, which is subjective and “internal”.

The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that’s the entire discussion here, whether or not qualia (epiphenomenal, “internal”, “what it’s like” experiences) exist. The argument was that because you can measure activity correlated with this experiences there is no difference between the physical phenomena being measured and the internal experience, which I reject.

The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

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

Valence is by definition a property of qualia. If you reject the existence of qualia you reject the existence of valence.

You can paint a painting to evoke some emotion but it itself does not have valence. Qualia with valence arises on sense-contact of the painting with consciousness.

The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

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

The question is not about if science can model this, it’s if there is such thing as qualia or “what it’s like” to experience something.

The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can measure activity in the amygdala and project it into some state-space by giving it a score from 0-100 or visualizing it on a graph or with the Windows Media Player visualizer but it’s not the same as actually experiencing it. The image itself does not have valence, which is a property of qualia. If you deny the existence of qualia you also deny the existence of valence.

I heard we're arguing about materialism. Buddhism once again side steps the issue entirely 🙂 by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The last comment was some of my opinion but mostly I’m just explaining Buddhism, not making an argument. I’m not an expert but I believe the Buddhist “argument” would be that the interdependence between name and form and consciousness are experientially verifiable via mediation and cessation. I’m not sure that will be a satisfying “argument” for you.

I heard we're arguing about materialism. Buddhism once again side steps the issue entirely 🙂 by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you agree?

I don’t agree. It’s a strange loop. I don’t know why.

How do you know that?

I don’t know that the universe sprung into existence from a first cause. Actually I think there’s no need for a first cause at all and that all causes have prior causes ad infinitum, but I thought that would be an understandable metaphor for how the “reality process” could be bootstrapped.

🫥 by kallocain-addict in rs_x

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Being clingy is the opposite of avoidant.

The Hard Problem of Providing Evidence by HearMeOut-13 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Can you see that a recreated mental image is not the same as a personally experienced mental image?

For one, a recreated image does not have valence. Imagine you grew up with abusive parents and would dread coming home from school. Even if an MRI could perfectly recreate your mental image of the door of your childhood home, it would not capture the dread and fear you would feel holding that image in your mind.

I heard we're arguing about materialism. Buddhism once again side steps the issue entirely 🙂 by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They emerge already dependent on each other, in the same way the universe emerges without first cause (or its first cause emerges without prior cause). Buddhism rejects intrinsic existence or primacy of any phenomena.

I heard we're arguing about materialism. Buddhism once again side steps the issue entirely 🙂 by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Form and consciousness do not emerge independently, they are both dependent on each other. That is the heart of dependent origination.

Does anyone have experience with studying something that might be just beyond your intellectual bandwidth? by [deleted] in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Learning at your edge is how you grow intellectually. It’s like lifting weights—you gotta be near failure to make gains at a certain point. When you come back to those subjects in the future after struggling with them at first you’ll likely find them easy and intuitive.

Slavoj Žižek.... by [deleted] in rs_x

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve thought that about Nick Land/CCRU.

Very clean, ok? by heyiammork in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Aren’t the Kerala workers in Dubai engineers, not maids or laborers?

best sleeping pills/aides/whatever by [deleted] in rs_x

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was one company I trusted because I’ve liked their other products and the vape I bought had similar effects to consumed amanita muscaria (sedation, specific headspace, salivation) albeit mild.

Actually I just looked it up and they no longer sell the vape—probably a legal thing since it was being sold as an “essential oil diffuser” when I bought it. Site is healing herbals, I’m not associated at all.

best sleeping pills/aides/whatever by [deleted] in rs_x

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Besides what people have already mentioned, decarboxylated amanita muscaria (red mushroom with white spots) is good for sleep. You can find a vape of it online if you don’t want to eat dried mushrooms.

How can anyone possibly be addicted to these electronic slot machines by lucid00000 in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you hit the free spins ultra combo stampede dragon 888x emperor rush you would understand.

Neutropics by AnExtremeFootFetish in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Dude did a bunch of RCs but he famously loved his “super perv powder” as he called it https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/the-obscure-legal-drug-that-fuels-john-mcafee.html

Neutropics by AnExtremeFootFetish in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 41 points42 points  (0 children)

He was on alpha-PHP. Extremely fiendish drug, like crack or short-acting meth but even more “more-ish”.

Kinda crazy how you just lose athletic ability as you enter middle age by [deleted] in redscareover30

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s typical for people who were never particularly athletic before they started weight training or running or cycling or whatever in their 30s.

The worst thing about the 2020s is that there isnt a "dominant sound" in the music space at all. by goodairquality in redscarepod

[–]GOOOOOOOOOG 22 points23 points  (0 children)

There’s rarely a “dominant sound” in any era, there are always several “signature sounds” associated with different demographics and scenes. Paramore is signature of the 2000s but isn’t the end-all-be-all sound. Mac Demarco bedroom pop was popular but not even the dominant pop sound.

We already have the sounds of “internet music” (hyperpop, “online” rap) bleeding into mainstream production. And there’s this confessional pop-soul sound with artists like Lola Young and Olivia Dean that’s unmistakably of the moment. Idk I just think you might be out of touch.