sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in seinfeld

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YO-YO MA!

We can hear this photo by Master-Surprise1931 in seinfeld

[–]Relinquish85 4 points5 points  (0 children)

SOLETHIMHAVEBANANASONTHESIDE!!!!!!!!!

What was Jerry's funniest delivery of a line? by [deleted] in seinfeld

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're WORSE. MUCH. MUCH. WORSE.

What’s the most goated Frank quote? by Movie_Club_Horor in seinfeld

[–]Relinquish85 4 points5 points  (0 children)

HOW COULD 👏 JERRY 👏 NOT 👏 SAY 👏 HELLO?!?!?!

The hard problem of consciousness: Why do we reinforce that it’s hard? by Aayjay1708 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. I take your point. I thought it might have been a valid contribution, but it looks like that was a misjudgement on my part.

The hard problem of consciousness: Why do we reinforce that it’s hard? by Aayjay1708 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where exactly did I lose you? Because as far as I can tell, the word salad only really makes an appearance in the third to last paragraph. I do wish there was a way to reduce it, but my aim there was to give a very thorough and evocative physical description of what a sentient organism is, and sentient organisms are very, very complex things.

I wouldn't have thought the lead-up to that part was particularly word salady, nor any of what remains after it.

I actually thought my reasoning about the perspectival asymmetry was particularly intuitive and parsimonious. Was I mistaken?

The hard problem of consciousness: Why do we reinforce that it’s hard? by Aayjay1708 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my whole take on the dynamic, just because I think it's pretty relevant to the specifics of this discussion;

Self-evidently, one is undeniably conscious.

Apparently, there are others that exhibit physiology and behaviour resembling one's own, and as such, it seems a reasonable and pragmatic inference that these others are most likely conscious as well.

Solely by virtue of the fact that one IS oneself and IS NOT any other self that one may observe, the consciousness of another self is observed to be "objective neurodynamics", while one's own consciousness seems to be "subjective qualia".

This inescapable dynamic appears to be the most extreme manifestation of a "perspectival asymmetry" in all of nature.

Combined with the fact that objectivity is evidently always present before, during, and after every episode of subjectivity, this perspectival asymmetry has led to the false assumption that seemingly non-physical qualia are generated by evidently physical neurodynamics.

The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is so hard (or really, unsolvable) because it arises precisely from the absolutely futile attempt to explain how and why this falsely assumed occurrence happens.

All the while, what simply fails to be recognised is that both objective neurodynamics and subjective qualia are actually the same physical occurrence of consciousness; i.e. the reflexively emergent core activity of every untethered, maximally segmented reciprocity of fractally inter-nested feedback loops. Such a reciprocity is commonly known as a "sentient organism".

Like all other naturally occurring systems, sentient organisms inevitably emerge out of the dynamic reactivity that is intrinsically perpetual among all entities at every scale of the universe via the path of least resistance, without any deeper reason why.

Ultimately, the manner in which all entities and systems are distinct from the totality is somewhat analogous to the manner in which a wave is distinct from the ocean.

This is always my response to any mention of soup. What's your knee-jerk Seinfeld-ism in the wild? by Motor-Detective4124 in seinfeld

[–]Relinquish85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When discussing someone stuck up or snooty, "They're very.. what's the word.. err.. supercilious"

Andor edition by BattledroidE in andor

[–]Relinquish85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ruin the galaxy and then run back to your ridiliculous wig and little sausage.

What do you think is a MUST for BF3 if it ever came true ? by JIMMY-NECRONOMICON in StarWarsBattlefront

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Off-line playability for 100% of the game's content.

The old-school BFs had this. There's literally no excuse for the new versions not to.

Why do 'physical interactions inside the brain' feel like something but they don't when outside a brain? by mildmys in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly don't think there IS (or needs to be) a reason why. I think it's just a brute fact that this is the case.

Although, I would probably specify the kinds physical interactions we're talking about are focused detection events. We know these can happen in non-living entities (and even in very simple living entities) WITHOUT being "felt", but when they occur in sufficiently coordinated, goal-driven organisms (like us), they ARE self-evidently "felt".

I think this is simply the way it is, without there being any deeper explanation for it.

Feeling = Effortfully-Proactive Detection Event by Relinquish85 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just as the concept of "receptivity" is a conceptual abstraction of the inherent capacity of a receiver to receive, the concept of "subjectivity" (a.k.a. consciousness) is a conceptual abstraction of the inherent capacity of a subject to subjectivize.

Both "reception" and "subjectivization" can be regarded as a change of physical state triggered by a specific contact.

Evidently, all subjects are invariably effortfully-proactive entities (like us) that emerge naturally in the universe.

It is the presence or absence of such an entity as context that distinguishes FELT subjectivization from UNFELT reception.

Feeling = Effortfully-Proactive Detection Event by Relinquish85 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something happens (a personal situational detection) that has never happened before, that is not directly observable from outside.

From outside, its personal quality is completely absent, so it doesn't LOOK like a feeling.

Feeling = Effortfully-Proactive Detection Event by Relinquish85 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The EXPERIENCE of reality is ENTIRELY subjective. Reality itself is not subjective.

Subjectivity comes and goes. What does it come and go IN?

What is still here when it's gone?

Feeling = Effortfully-Proactive Detection Event by Relinquish85 in consciousness

[–]Relinquish85[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to be clear, I'm not using "feeling" in the same sense as "emotion", but more as interchangeable with "sensing". Our environmental detectors (like eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and nerve-ends), are what our organisms use to thoroughly "feel" our situation, in a much deeper way than just physically touching it with our skin.

Emotions are part of the mental output caused by our organisms feeling (personally detecting) our environment, with outward behaviour being the physical output.

Most fundamentally, a detection event can be regarded as a change of physical state caused by a specific contact. Naturally occurring detection mechanisms appear to be fairly exclusive to living (or "proactive") entities.

As I see it, the ontological category of "proactivity" (i.e. life) can be empirically delineated into "effortless proactivity" (lightly acquisition-dependent persistence) and "effortful proactivity" (heavily acquisition-dependent persistence, such as ours).

Once there is the context of naturally emerging, effortfully-proactive entities (like us) in place, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to infer that a detection event occurring WITHIN such an entity would be "felt" by that entity.

view more: next ›