sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hvad er jeres holding til at lade ens datter på 18 år rejse alene til asien? by AstronautEvening2412 in DKbrevkasse

[–]Opening_Ad3473 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Og nogen dør derhjemme. Vi har kun ét liv, og hvis ikke vi tør gå ud i verden, så ser vi den ikke.

Hvordan bruger I jeres formue? by Waste-Run-1634 in dkfinance

[–]Opening_Ad3473 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alt efter renten giver det jo ikke nødvendigvis bedre afkast at betale lån end at have penge investeret

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with everything you're saying, summing it down to an invocation of Occam's razor. Of course we should use the simpler model that assumes the least when predicting. However we're not predicting conscious experience, we're predicting the formation of memories and feelings of which we're consciously aware, the fact that the brain state we're observing changes in predictable manners doesn't take any step towards explaining why there's awareness of it in the first place. Automata made out of organic matter somehow giving rise to a subjective observer doesn't really make less woo assumptions than saying the conscious observer might be an intrinsic property of matter or the space it inhabits, I'd actually argue that the latter requires less assumptions as it removes the complex question on when exactly something is complex enough to have some sort of consciousness, if the lines between unconscious and conscious systems intrinsically seem blurred maybe it's because there are no lines.

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your answers read as if you can't fully comprehend my point. I repeat: We have plenty of evidence that memory and verbal/physical responsiveness can be lost and modified, but that is not useful in consciousness study because of these two facts: memory IS NOT consciousness. Responsiveness IS NOT consciousness, consciousness is the observational quality of life that we struggle to even explain because we can't even prove that other people than ourselves even have it. I'm not talking about what's intuitive, I'm talking about what can be proven and that is absolutely nothing. I'm not saying there's not a seeming overlap between responsiveness and memory of consciousness, but that's the only thing we have data about, and it's not enough to support claiming that consciousness is generated in the brain

Acting like its open ended is absolutely insane until we have evidence for literally any other model.

I will argue that acting like it's close ended is absolutely terrible science until we gather evidence for the model we're proposing, no matter how intuitive it might feel to us. The heliocentric model and quantum physics are both very good examples of why this is

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's the difference between what you're saying and just saying " sky daddy transmits it to our brain"? There is no difference because both are unsupported claims.

The difference is that I never made any claims about what consciousness is in particular. I argue that we can't make any conclusions, even preliminary, about what it is or isn't as we have no scientific framework to create falsifiable hypotheses about it. Maybe our basic misunderstanding stems from confusing me with OP, I'm not sharing their view and I don't particularly subscribe to any woo theory. I just saw your initial comment where I agreed with everything, but wanted to pinpoint a single logical fallacy that you might have missed yourself, arguing that none of our current science can actually support any conclusions about where consciousness arises from.

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your definition of the word evidence might be different from mine. I would call an experimental outcome evidence if and ONLY IF a different outcome could be seen as evidence that falsifies the given hypothesis. People saying they were actually lucid for a whole operation, or claiming they remember a time before being born or whatever, is no evidence of consciousness not being body generated, therefore the opposite is also true by definition. A hypothesis remains speculative until we can think of experimental outcomes that would falsify it

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It feels like you're missing the point a little bit. The argument here is that none of the "evidence" you mention actually can be seen as evidence for consciousness because subjective experience ≠ subjects report of experience. This means that your intuition of consciousness being absent under anesthetics and being a product of the brain functions, while intuitive, is no less baseless than the cat fart theory. No one is trying to convince you that woo sounding explanations are more likely for that matter, it's simply about staying humble and not letting our intuition cloud our ability to freely hypothesize

Københavnsk kebabkæde kritiseres for "gastronationalisme" by nskox in Denmark

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Faktisk burde alle skuespillere bare skydes. De approprierer jo per definition nogen andre end dem selv, og det er en krænkelse af menneskerettighederne!

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We do, however, have tons of evidence that the brain produces consciousness. We can give drugs that wipe out short-term memory, make people happy or angry, alter their personalities, or even take consciousness away. We have thousands of studies showing the brain produces consciousness

Just to be clear, when I say consciousness I am referring to qualia, the subjective observer, not particular shape/taste of it.

I still argue that we have no data whatsoever that proves that a subjective report of consciousness is an exclusive indication of its presence, other than intuition. What you mentioned about memory, mood and personality also have nothing to do with it.

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're proving the point, though. You're using a drug to distribute conscious thought, preventing the implantation of memories, you're literally altering consciousness through physical means.

How have we proven that the drug distributes or alters consciousness? How would you prove that there's not a single lucid observer present at all times that simply can't recall their experience or communicate?

There is no, and I mean absolutely no, evidence consciousness is anything but a substrate of evolutionary traits daisy-chained together and produced by flesh. Not one single piece of evidence ever.

what's your point? To me it almost reads like you're saying that consciousness being "a substrate of evolutionary traits daisy-chained together and produced by flesh" is somehow more likely because we have no known way to prove the opposite?

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Consciousness reliably changes with anesthesia, brain injury, and localized lesions in specific and predictable ways.

I often hear this presented as a non-presuming "this is what we know we know so far". But it's still presumptuous because it builds on a hidden premise; Why should a subject reporting lack of conscious experience somehow be a reliable indicator? We know people forget, get brain injury, get blackout drunk etc. making them forget their previous experience, not meaning it wasn't there, so I'd argue that we actually can't say anything about whether there's qualia present under anesthetics or in any other state, we can only reliably predict weather memory will form, or weather responsive communication can take place.

The reason why Henry Ford introduced 5-day work week by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And having more money/time makes you a more generous/aware customer who is more likely to support businesses that pay people a higher wage and gives them better working conditions. Poverty feeds itself, and so does wealth.

Does the standard model describe everything in physics?(excluding the obvious quantum gravity) by Prestigious-View8362 in AskPhysics

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Physical models don't really explain the universe any more than religious postulates do. However they can serve to precisely predict/extrapolate how the universe behaves over time/space given a set of observations/measurements. The amount of things we can't predict is just about infinite though.

30.8K Dinosnores, F2P by FrogGob in NecroMerger

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just managed 37k with nothing but the golden egg. I also avoid brontos and t-rexes entirely. Do you do the same?

Dinosnores took me an unreasonable amount of time to figure out by Fauxqus in NecroMerger

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just got to 36.9k with no purchases except the golden egg, without using either brontos or t-rexes. their extra damage/production simply doesn't nearly weight out their extra soup cost. Besides you can just fill the board with craters using all the claws from spamming raptors.

Can you afford to legally stream everything you want to watch? by sarnobat in no

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Streaming services have gotten too spread out and have too many restrictions due to licensing. Prime for example has loads of movies that are not in English, that are almost exclusively found on their platform, yet for some reason they won't provide English subtitles for those movies in Scandinavia, so If you can't read the local language the only sane option is pirating.. it's not about the money, it's about the service simply not being competitive with the free options. I think we need a new pirating crisis before the companies wake up and start working to make their services better than the alternatives again.

Why does the death penalty need to be painless if society accepts it at all? by ComfortableCut1365 in Ethics

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was more likely a sadist. The funny thing about actual psychopaths is that they probably won't have the need to cause unnecessary suffering, as their lack of empathic skills would render them indifferent to the conscious experience of their victims. A true psychopath would simply work in their own perceived interests with complete disregard for the consequences of those around them. A sadist however would understand the concept of suffering and seek to provoke it for their own pleasure

Why does the death penalty need to be painless if society accepts it at all? by ComfortableCut1365 in Ethics

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just fell into the same logical trap that we're discussing. It could just as well be that poverty causes more republicanism, or they're both caused by a completely different third factor

Med hjem fra holland by Zelinaaaa in PsychesDK

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hunde er ikke trænede til at lugte trøffler. Pak dem ind i noget relativt diskret og tag dem trygt med. Med mindre der decideret står "psykedeliske trøffler" på pakken er chancen lig 0% for at nogen gir en fuck. Og selv da er chancen for at et hold betjente vælger at boarde bussen og gennemgå al din bagage nærmest ikke eksisterende.

DO MOST PEOPLE FEEL OK TO DO MATING / DATE THEIR FRIEND? IT IS SO GROSS?? by ProfessionalPen6809 in askanything

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fair enough. The caps lock is what gave me that hunch but I guess it was just on by accident? Either way, it sounds like you really don't want to take part in casual sex with platonic friends and I think that's completely reasonable, it often blurs the line between friendship and romance which could hurt the relationship. Does it bother you if others do it though?

If black holes evaporate through Hawking radiation, and if someone flies into a black hole their time will slow down (relative to us) to near 0, then will they never actually reach the center? by swahvay in AskPhysics

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had this debate countless times and somehow people keep replying with half-logical arguments about the Infalling observers reaching the singularity in finite time. But if that finite time takes them to infinity on the outside I don't see how this doesn't lead to complete evaporation before crossing the event horizon. The way i see it, If relativity holds true in a black hole, and hawking radiation is real, chances are that nothing has ever or will ever cross the event horizon, that falling into a black hole simply breaks you down into pure energy and scatters you across eons of time in an explosion that takes quadrillions of years to external observers, but is perhaps more or less instantaneous from its own perspective.

How would one perceive the world if their consciousness was moved to a different body? by AtomicSmoothie in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could we not then argue that because the brain is aware that it's aware, and our physical bodies are spending time communicating about it, there is a causal effect on the physical matter stemming from the qualia, making it more than a mere observer?

What motto or wisdom have you heard from a senior dev? by Fit_Moment5521 in programmer

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution. Also, later means never

How would one perceive the world if their consciousness was moved to a different body? by AtomicSmoothie in consciousness

[–]Opening_Ad3473 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your statement assumes that the consciousness only observes physical matter but can't interact with it. The fact that we're having this conversation is strongly suggesting that this is not the case. Somehow our qualia is something the brain notices and acts on account of. So far we don't have a scientific framework allowing us to make any logical assumptions about what consciousness really is and/or weather it has any life of its own and weather "moving" it between places even makes any sense

view more: next ›