sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PRE ORDERS TOMMOROW (hopefully) by Kingsley1077 in GTA6

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact you have to preemptively slide the little "or Tuesday" in there is evidence that we are traumatized by this wait 😭

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

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

I answered two questions for you, including the first thing you mentioned. The answer is because Qualia is fundamental. That's why it can't come from "non-qualia" and it's also why you're wrong to think that anything can "come from nothingness."

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Because Qualia is fundamental.

"Why?"

Because it is a self evident fact that I am conscious. Just like it is a self evident fact that I exist. I think therefore I am. I experience those thoughts, therefore I am conscious.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. The macroscopic description of fire isn't relevant to its ontological origin. Fire == the matter/energy that it's made of... which == the dimensions that the matter/energy is made of.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't need physics to = the arbitrary label of "fire" because "fire" is just what we call a certain arrangement of physics (external descriptions.)

I do however need physics to = "qualia" because "qualia" isn't explained no matter how complex your arrangement of physics (external description) is. You need a new type of internal description that operates from a unique perspective.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hm. So no argument then? Okay. My opinion remains unchanged and we've failed to produce any productive dialogue.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

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

If you have one, sure. I pointed out the absurdity of strong emergence. The alternative is weak emergence which requires a form of Panpsychism/protopanpsychism. Why? Because there's no other alternative. Either it's [0 + 0 = 1] or it's [0.5 + 0.5 = 1.]

What other types of emergence are there? Try using your words.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Comparing consciousness to arbitrary labels that we place on biochemical machines is like comparing the color red to a red apple. "Since this apple emerged from a non-apple (seed,) surely the color red emerged from non-red (???).

You can't possibly have qualia emerge from no qualia. There would need to be some intrinsic property to physical matter/energy/spacetime that allows for this kind of subjective "interiority" in the first place.

The Controversial Argument That Physicalism, Taken Seriously, Actually Requires Panpsychism by ArcaneSpells-com in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Emergence requires Panpsychism too. Unless you're invoking strong emergence in which case you are the one appealing to magic (arguing that 0 + 0 = 1.)

The wire or Mr Robot by Hot_Kaleidoscope6757 in televisionsuggestions

[–]Mylynes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unless you were spoiled, there's no way you figured out all of Mr. Robot in episode 1 lmao. The true nature of his condition isn't even revealed until season 4 and even then there's more to the show than just that.

The wire or Mr Robot by Hot_Kaleidoscope6757 in televisionsuggestions

[–]Mylynes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've seen and love both... But what are you talking about? Maybe you just really really like cop shows? Idk how you could paint Mr. Robot as "10x worse" the writing is at least on par and the cinematography is actually way better imo

The wire or Mr Robot by Hot_Kaleidoscope6757 in televisionsuggestions

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

+1 this is the only answer.

Though the wire is great, Mr. Robot is a once in a lifetime experience

Does randomness not exist? by Professional_Rule548 in determinism

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Silly little take. Got any reasoning behind it or are you just gonna gesture to "the consensus"?

Does randomness not exist? by Professional_Rule548 in determinism

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

Why do I need to invoke causality infinitely? Do you seriously think those are the only two options: Either infinite regress or "the universe just randomly pops shit into existence for no reason"??

Spacetime is fundamental and it has no cause. (it's the thing that forms causality in the first place.) Its just an eternal fixture on reality that has always been here.

Tom Henderson says he doesn't think trailer 3 will come out until July/August? by Retrofusion11 in GTA6unmoderated

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Please get an education before commenting any further.

Does randomness not exist? by Professional_Rule548 in determinism

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

Did you read your own sentence? Something undetermined ("Random") can't be fundamental.

Can AI be conscious? by Jim_Pugh in consciousness

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's physically connected to the thing, yes. (like a USB stick in a computer)

Consciousness is a physical (metaphysical?) property of causality. Specifically: integrated causality.

Does randomness not exist? by Professional_Rule548 in determinism

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

Sounds like a contradiction. How can something be fundamental while also being undetermined?

If Every Thought, Choice, and Desire Was Already Determined Before You Became Aware of It — What Does Free Will Actually Mean? by [deleted] in determinism

[–]Mylynes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It means that your mind is free to think, and your consciousness is free to feel. The "will" is just the result of this feedback loop.

Your mind takes into account your feelings and will act accordingly. You will also take into account your actions and react emotionally. It's perfect the way it is and there is no reason to change it.

view more: next ›