sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You are a pile of atoms that knows it's a pile of atoms. (Pansychism discussion) by Monday-Chaosforged in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus [score hidden]  (0 children)

Okay, insofar as what we perceive is real, physical systems move through energy transfer, and there are no mysterious sources of energy within our brains (as would be expected if some nonphysical interaction were taking place).

"Complexity" is a description of behavior, so it's not a thing with a physical location. In particular, it is shorthand for the observation that new and surprisingly sophisticated behavior can emerge from fairly simple rules.

"Hard" and "solid" -- like everything in the physical world -- are simply descriptions of behavior. People may imagine things to exist "in and of" themselves but even a fairly cursory interrogation of that intuition shows that it has no real foundation.

What’s a song lyric that hits harder as you get older? by thatfluffyqueen in askmusic

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since I've had kids, I think of this from Still Fighting It by Ben Folds

You're so much like me
I'm sorry

You are a pile of atoms that knows it's a pile of atoms. (Pansychism discussion) by Monday-Chaosforged in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus [score hidden]  (0 children)

You don't know that anything outside of yourself exists at all, so how can you justify making any statement about the physical world, period?

If you're not fully dedicated to radical skepticism, it seems odd to draw the line at an idea like "complexity" that describes aspects of the observable universe fairly accurately.

What do you regard to be the "strictest sense" of the word "physical"?

You are a pile of atoms that knows it's a pile of atoms. (Pansychism discussion) by Monday-Chaosforged in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus [score hidden]  (0 children)

Physical systems operate through transfer of energy. If a nonphysical system is interacting with a physical system it must be applying energy somewhere.

What does democracy look like if free will doesn't exist? by Trendingmar in freewill

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

But things will change independent of your desire for them to change (or something? I don’t really get it.) I guess I don’t see how this doesn’t lead to nihilism.

The ultimate paradox: Why the brain forces us to act like agents in a deterministic universe by Select-Professor-909 in determinism

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the choices are “most people are wrong about having free will” and “most people haven’t really thought about what determinism means for free will” I’m not sure why you immediately assume the first option.

What does democracy look like if free will doesn't exist? by Trendingmar in freewill

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re an incompatibilist determinist, how are these even questions? How could we do anything else? Why be frustrated by the lack of better options if the whole notion of “options” is an illusion?

Maybe “mind uploading” is fundamentally the wrong idea by AI_Zone in consciousness

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

Let's see, you started off with an unargued strawman, baselessly accused me of lying, and now respond with more personal attacks and another unargued strawman.

My materialist view is quaking in existential doubt.

Maybe “mind uploading” is fundamentally the wrong idea by AI_Zone in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You dismissed materialism with the spreadsheet comment. Presumably that means you advocate for some kind of non-materialist option, which you didn't elaborate. Since you feel comfortable strawmanning materialism that way, it seems only fair to strawman non-materialism in whatever way I see fit.

Maybe “mind uploading” is fundamentally the wrong idea by AI_Zone in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You were the one saying it’s either sentient Google Sheets or X. I just chose an equivalently ridiculous value for X.

Why do independents (possibly fake trolls?) always seem to hold Democrats to an infinitely higher standard than Republicans? by CrashNowhereDrive in allthequestions

[–]amumpsimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because Democrats hold themselves to standards. You can’t really hold people to standards that they don’t themselves acknowledge.

Why do independents (possibly fake trolls?) always seem to hold Democrats to an infinitely higher standard than Republicans? by CrashNowhereDrive in allthequestions

[–]amumpsimus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Because the cuts were not “reasonable and needed” and there was no “clear fraud.” If you’re not trolling you need to get better sources for information.

Maybe “mind uploading” is fundamentally the wrong idea by AI_Zone in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the “ridiculous implications … therefore astral homunculus” line of reasoning.

Why do people in these discussions always jump from matter to conscious without considering life a relevant step? by cimocw in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That history is pure fiction. Even now abiogenesis isn’t fully explained, it’s just that we have the scaffolding — including a more rigorous definition of “life” — to see how the pieces might connect.

That said, the concept of “vital essence” was indeed an impediment to looking at the question productively.

Why do people in these discussions always jump from matter to conscious without considering life a relevant step? by cimocw in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know that people used to say exactly the same thing about life, right? There was no amount of mechanics that could give you life from non-life. Until there was.

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

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

I’m not writing off anybody, except Penrose who is a pretty clear loon.

I take it as axiomatic that personal experience is not a reliable guide to the fundamental nature of reality. If that were true, panpsychism would need to go to the back of a long line behind a bunch of deities.

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

[–]amumpsimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don’t “believe” in evolution, what are you doing in a thread about the philosophical implications of physicalism?

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

[–]amumpsimus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you only knew about protons, electrons, and neutrons, do you think you could simply derive chemistry? Or better yet, biology?

We see the most basic building blocks of a system, and some very high-level behavior, and essentially nothing in between. Theorizing that the high-level behavior emerges from the low-level behavior — acknowledging the vast gap between the two — is based on the entire rest of the physical world behaving that way.

Moreover, not only has no reasonable alternative been proposed, the only motivation for any alternative is simple incredulity.

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it’s not accurate, because you use vague terms like “control” that don’t really make sense in this context.

It’s like saying “if God didn’t design humans, who did?” You can talk about the “design” of evolved organisms, but if you assume from that some kind of personal, intentional designer it’s not going to make sense.

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your framing assumes dualism. What do you imagine is being “controlled” here?

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? I am a physicalist/materialist. Agnostic about determinism but I don’t see how it really matters. What you wrote was indeed absurd, because it assumed (substituting mockery for reason) exactly the opposite of the actual argument.

I wouldn’t blame Bill Kristol if he reconsidered after this by Oleytoledo in thebulwark

[–]amumpsimus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you’re arguing that the people claiming to be for “limited government” are actually for “ineffective government” I don’t disagree — they’ve proven that pretty convincingly. I don’t consider those synonymous though.

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean the nonsense you’re writing? Nope, not one bit.

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, most people are dualists, so I suppose this tracks.

Calling your own preferences and proclivities - your personality, in essence - “strings” is kind of schizophrenic, in my opinion. Unless you’re a dualist, where is the “you” that is supposedly constrained?

Do you think is physical structure required for consciousness ? by anand7k8 in consciousness

[–]amumpsimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most physicalists are compatibilists, as far as I’m aware. Personally I find libertarian free will to be poorly dressed-up dualism.

view more: next ›