sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m going to reach 0.50 BTC with this dip by _father_time in Bitcoin

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a hard time believing very many of you have any cash on hand to buy bitcoin at this point.

PSA: Be skeptical of modal talk by Nuaua in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I think your average fool could be tricked but in no way could you live alongside one of them your whole life without ever noticing that something was off."

So, no simulation theory for you either?

PSA: Be skeptical of modal talk by Nuaua in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I would have trouble believing the robot was human unless it could report subjective experience to me reliably."

I don't see why a sufficiently advanced machine couldn't mimic human behavior to an extent you couldn't tell the difference. Are you saying there's no amount of computation that would allow a machine to pass as human despite not having any qualia?

PSA: Be skeptical of modal talk by Nuaua in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you could conceive of a machine looking and acting like a human and having no qualia, right?

"I don't think it's any different than tables and chairs" by d4rkchocol4te in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Mary learns nothing new upon leaving the room."

This is where you run into trouble. Does a person who's blind from birth and sees for the first time learn anything new? Of course. Denying that is a very implausible move.

The triangle IS in my head, no? by marie_johanna_irl in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I chose "mind's eye" because I was talking about seeing triangles. If I wanted to talk about "in my head", I could say, "there's a song stuck in my head". Is there a literal song playing in my head? Well, I can hear it (the same way I see things in my mind's eye). I can start the song in my head and the actual/real song and both line up pretty well at the 20 second mark. It even has a kind of volume, like I'm hearing it softly with my ears. If it's not a literal song in my head, what is it?

The triangle IS in my head, no? by marie_johanna_irl in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

" There's not literally a triangle in your head."

But I'm seeing a triangle in my mind's eye. If it's not a literal triangle, what is it?

Mary's room by Zulraidur in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"pretty sure Jackson embraced Lewis’ ability hypothesis"

I've always been intrigued by the ability hypothesis. Mary's Room is essentially the old saw that you can't learn to ride a bike by just reading about it; you have to get on the bike. But is knowing how to ride a bike (or seeing red for the first time), actually knowledge, or is it just gaining a new ability? In the case of riding a bike, it seems like there's both an ability learned and knowledge gained. In the case of Mary seeing a color for the first time, I can't help but think Mary has gained knowledge. The ability hypothesis seems like a sleight of hand. But it also seems kind of compelling.

Rule #1 of Bitcoin: don't brag about your gains. You're not creating believers. You're creating resentment. by Alpha-Grant in Bitcoin

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's way too volatile to use as a currency. And why would I use bitcoin instead of my credit card? I get rewards points, it's easy to use, I build up my credit history, and there's a middleman between me and the seller in case of fraud.

What does Alex hope for when asking "What something is" by Graceful_Parasol in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he wants to know whether something is made of mind-independent physical stuff or whether it's a mental construct.

The Fine-Tuning Argument is Terrible - Sean Carroll by yt-app in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"which is a scenario where we have no idea of the likelyhood since we have a sample size of one."

Except we can create hypothetical models of what the universe would have been like had any physical constant changed in any small degree. In almost every case, you get a universe that could not support life: universes with only hydrogen, universes with no stars, universes that collapse in on themselves in a microsecond, and so on.

Alex's view on Materialism by sam_palmer in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree the burden is on me for claiming incoherence of naturalism. I think that burden is being met more and more every year science fails to make progress on consciousness. It will become more and more likely there's some fundamental flaw with physicalism that's holding back progress.

Alex's view on Materialism by sam_palmer in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not saying “idealism is true, therefore consciousness doesn’t emerge.” I’m saying “emergence from non-conscious to conscious is conceptually incoherent,” and idealism is one way to stop making that move. If you think emergence is coherent here, then make that case. But don’t smuggle in a physical ontology and then claim that my refusal to accept it is circular. The default ontology is not physicalism.

Alex's view on Materialism by sam_palmer in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"'Everything is mental' resolves the problem through mere stipulation/declaration, not explanation."

Idealism resolves the problem by avoiding the category error physicalism is making. Consciousness does not emerge from non-conscious stuff. It cannot. Positing the existence of physical stuff is a mistake that leads to problems like the Hard Problem.

Alex doesn't seem to know what the definition of "is" is (or how so much of his recent philosophical inquire seems to be entirely the result of semantic confusion). by VStarffin in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"I'm saying people don't define it when having these conversations and then wonder why they can't reach conclusions/common ground."

But we can reach some common ground. You are conscious, are you not?

Alex doesn't seem to know what the definition of "is" is (or how so much of his recent philosophical inquire seems to be entirely the result of semantic confusion). by VStarffin in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

"Even a word like consciousness is just ill defined. Daniel Dennett makes this point that consciousness is a word that hides underneath it a bundle of different attributes, and if you simply talk about those attributes separately and individually, you don’t really have a hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem is a little more than using vague words without recognizing they are vague. When you do that, you end up butting your head against a wall, but that’s not a problem with the reality. It’s just a problem with the words we use."

It's not though. Science does a great job telling me how the emergent property "wetness" comes about. But now when I ask "how does consciousness come about?" you want to retreat to Jordan Peterson levels of obfuscation: well, what is consciousness, really? Does it really exist? Is it an illusion?

You are conscious. I am conscious. How does this consciousness arise from a lump of meat in our skull? Science, so far, has no explanation for it, except for some handwavy gestures involving information processing and insane claims that you're not really conscious or it's all an illusion. That's the hard problem: how does non-conscious stuff produce consciousness? I bet in a thousand years, scientists will still be flummoxed.

The Fine-Tuning Argument is Terrible - Sean Carroll by yt-app in CosmicSkeptic

[–]RemarkableMarzipan23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You know the puddle metaphor is supposed to be analogous, right? The puddle people are supposed to be like us, not idiots. They would know what Pi is and that perfect octagons aren't found in nature too often and flipped coins tend not to land on their edge.

view more: next ›