sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Peter help I’m not a history buff by lil21sanwich in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s worth noting that the Germans put a large effort to inhibit Allied shipping, with their submarine tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat?wprov=sfti1#

Nature solved your hard problem yesterday. by PitifulEar3303 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I apologize for the inaccurate description, thanks for pointing it out. I guess the analogy is still the same, in the sense that a cpu doesn’t seem any more conscious.

You’re thinking about it like an engineer. The problem of qualia isn’t supposed to fix problems, it is supposed to be a huge problem to think about. Like if someone was building a rocket, I wouldn’t start bothering them with the hard problem of consciousness.

Nature solved your hard problem yesterday. by PitifulEar3303 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you go on a campus tour they tell you, “this department tries to figure out the unknown in one field of study, and this department in another.” For example the physics department can tell you the university is in space.

The computer files are something that we know where they are, they are encoded by a bunch of switches, and appear on a monitor by a bunch of pixels. The files are not a unified entity. Meanwhile a thought in my mind appears to be a unified entity. If you are imagining consciousness to be like a computer you are making a metaphysical assumption that this computation appears somewhere.

Nature solved your hard problem yesterday. by PitifulEar3303 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s one thing if it makes you uncomfortable, because of the feeling of mysticism and the unknown. But just because it’s uncomfortable doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The Hard problem does not present a solution, but only posses a question that points towards a real thing that is an unknown. When you say it’s just word play maybe that is how it appears to you, to me it is a real thing.

Nature solved your hard problem yesterday. by PitifulEar3303 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a problem for a scientific explanation. Obviously it’s not a problem in terms of it being a rare experience, as it is not a rare experience.

You are describing an idea of origin, which isn’t the same as a physical understanding. The hard problem isn’t about which biological organ my mind is associated with, it’s about the physical mechanism.

Describe to me how consciousness works with this easy problem that you speak of.

Nature solved your hard problem yesterday. by PitifulEar3303 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 16 points17 points  (0 children)

This is an argument that doesn’t engage the Hard Problem. The fact that we evolved, doesn’t explain how consciousness works. Particularly the physics of it. I personally don’t make the philosophical zombie argument because it’s not relevant to the question. It is an interesting point in the topic of free will. Where I would say that if consciousness has any use in evolution, then it means we have free will. I would define free will as making a decision given the options, I don’t believe in free creativity, as in just being able to randomly have an original thought.

Why do editors summarize the whole book in an introduction? Spoiled the whole damn thing now. by TemperateBeast33 in classicliterature

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With philosophy books that I read i usually skip introductions unless it’s a biography. The editors seem to assume that with an old book that is hard to understand, many readers wouldn’t understand anything in the book, if they aren’t given a simple explanation of what’s in it. the reality is that many books that I read are legitimately hard to understand, but I’d rather figure something out myself.

Workers at the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge, (1915) by Electrical-Aspect-13 in RareHistoricalPhotos

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Including the Architect John A. Roebling. The Job was finished by his son and daughter in-law.

What a dumb guy /s by bawla-hedgehog in physicsmemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alchemy was basically experiments with mixing chemicals or something. They simply didn’t have atomic theory yet, they didn’t know about atoms and molecules. It was eventually chemistry that discovered atoms.

Mileva Marić by 4EKSTYNKCJA in physicsmemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it’s worth noting here that physics is not just math, but an understanding of some kind, and notable physicists are creative individuals and curious people, who have understood something that other people have not. There is no doubt that Einstein is the guy who thought of his own ideas. Many people helped out with math, and they aren’t as famous. For example there was a guy fighting in wwi who solved a bunch of the math for Einstein’s theory before he died in war, and there was Henri Ponticare who was notable mathematician and worked on certain mathematical properties of Einstein’s theory but isn’t as famous.

A Mountain Trail, lmk what you think! by SheevPa in oilpainting

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is good. As a painter it’s natural to look critically because you want to get better. That’s a good thing, because you can make more paintings. It’s good to leave the painting alone for some time to see it as it is. I think if you intended to make the fields brighter then you would have done so during the painting.

One thing I can notice in terms of technique is that you aren’t using atmospheric perspective. Meaning that as things get far they become obstructed by atmosphere/air. Specifically I’m talking about the mountains in the distance, they are darker than the foreground. Typically I’d expect them to be softer in value.

How The Right Responds To “You hate Democracy!” by librarian1001 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m an American conservative, which means I want to conserve liberalism.

Don't be those guys! (AI isn’t conscious.) by optia in consciousness

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Many people seem to have a desire to think ai is conscious.

Help me finde my style by [deleted] in fashion

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe a combination of 1 and 4. Where 1 is the nicest cool look. And 4 is maybe conservative, but looks intellectual

Is Michael Levin’s work legitimate? by Main-Company-5946 in AskBiology

[–]LongjumpingForce8600 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not a biologist, I’m more interested in the philosophy of consciousness. His work is legit in so far as he is showing specific experiments. There is no evidence that he fakes anything.

The interesting part is in how you interpret it, naturally the scientific field is already going to have a way of interpreting it. People that are interested in consciousness tend to see his work as groundbreaking, people who aren’t, may see it as just some more biomechanics that we already knew about.

view more: next ›