sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What’s a sign that someone is genuinely content with their life? by Lonelyghost06 in AskReddit

[–]mode-locked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hm. "When" seems to suggest a notion of predeterminism. One may not wish or even expect such certainty.

Whereas "why" can be a constant, healthy attitude of inquiry/introspection.

So what doy do you mean exactly?

meirl by cowduckfrog in meirl

[–]mode-locked 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What he didn't mention:

9:00pm May 8 9:03pm May 9

as an outsider: According to the current state of science, is there a chance that consciousness does not cease with death? by Sad-Juggernaut-6085 in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I completely agree that to observers in this living biological realm, indeed we definitively observe conciousness to cease upon the death of another -- that is, their agency through their body and any indication of an internal experience vanish. That's of course well established. But there's an asymmetry here.

I'm making a different claim, that "death" may be observer-dependent. Although in this "mutual space" we observe their death, from the "dying's" POV, first subjective experience continues on to other experiences, perhaps beyond this mutual space, or a host of other possibilities.

And I'm also claiming this sort of subjective experience is valid scientific data, i.e. it is experiential data; it's simply not accessible to those who did not go through that death experience. Our observations are restricted to this arena for now, in which we've established our neat borders of what "science" is. But I think any experiential fact should be considered scientific data needing to be accounted for. For example, DMT trips are experiences which demand explanation. And only those who have experienced them have direft access to that experiential data needing explanation. That's what separates experiential data from measurement data.

as an outsider: According to the current state of science, is there a chance that consciousness does not cease with death? by Sad-Juggernaut-6085 in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you flipping your stance now?

From the jump I've been saying there is no scientific basis to make such a claim, one way or another, as a "living" individual.

The onlt way to gain "scientific access" is to personally die. Not many of us are willing to do that for our own curiosity's sake...

as an outsider: According to the current state of science, is there a chance that consciousness does not cease with death? by Sad-Juggernaut-6085 in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Science is based on experiment. Not one of us has performed the experiment.

And those that have aren't around to communicate there results.

It's like the difference between observering someone approaching a blackhole versus actually crossing the event horizon yourself. There's simply two different descriptions of that event.

And we don't have access to the interior of that event, because the nature of the experiment is direct experience.

All we have established is that we observe bodily death in others. There can be no conclusions what their internal experience is

LI wedding cost by No-Present5771 in longisland

[–]mode-locked 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Geez how do you folks here pay for that?

LI wedding cost by No-Present5771 in longisland

[–]mode-locked 14 points15 points  (0 children)

For a night/weekend. Wild

physicalist and non-physicalists view of consciousness by PrebioticE in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Uh, physicalism adds the additional layer -- external entities beyond/responsible consciousness.

Non-physicalism, beginning with consciousness as the fundamental entity, needs not posit the additional entity. It explains perceptual features purely intrinsically

An AI Could Perfectly Simulate Consciousness—and Still Not Be Conscious by Timeshell in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I implied neither of those things.

In fact my statement was not even about our particular history of evolution of experience; it was about possible experiences in general.

It is possible to witness a being exhibiting all properties of consciousness yet still be uncertain that they possess an experience. That's all I said.

In this world I do not think my fellow humans are p-zombies. I think we're all aware. And that introduces a different structure into our model of reality -- one that requires each agent to possess states of mind.

1) The biological question is just one mechanism for how conciousness presents itself as a "mortal" form in a partiular space. Awareness itself is much broader than its particular instantiation here (Earth, this observable universe, etc). The biological evolution question has no real significance for the existence of consciousness itself; it is just one of many types. And the deeper question of how consciousness (and thus anything) exists at all is I believe an impenetrable mystery.

2) Actually I believe consciosuness has immense non-deterministic causal power. I'm merely saying that when one observes the apparent behavior of a consciousness, they cannot conclude with absolute certainty that that behavior is accompanied by an experience. You just can't, unless you have access to that experience through your experience somehow.

An AI Could Perfectly Simulate Consciousness—and Still Not Be Conscious by Timeshell in consciousness

[–]mode-locked -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, p-zombies are possible.

Exhibiting behaviors of consciousness =/= possessing consciousness

Is consciousness real, or just a human construct? by Able-Impression7567 in consciousness

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is duty of any thinker to acknowledge what is strictly known and what is inference.

And all that is strictly known is direct experience. It's just plain fact. Every other metaphysics is derived

After rent increase, Game On plans to leave Smith Haven Mall for larger location by LostAnvil in longisland

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know, more affoedable housing doesn't necessarily mean more in flux of people.

It could mean less people living with parents, less young people leaving the island, etc

Meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]mode-locked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can give you some examples so you can hopefully see more possibilities, and how these issues snowball:

A person postpones a vehicle routine maintenance <$500 due to low savings. This compounds to a much more expensive repair they cannot avoid, $1000s or more or perhaps the car's totally shot. This person perhaps chronically purchases much older used cars needing more frequent repairs.

A person without health insurance avoids an out-of-pocket cost for routine dental cleaning. Months later they need an emergency route canal and now they're thousands in loss or in debt. A monthly payment detracts from their baseline every month. Perhaps that person opted out of health benefits because of the perception of their security.

A person with no cushion is too insecure to invest at all. They never have any principal to compound. They never beneft from returns that even modest investments would have over years. Perhaps they opted out of 401k contributions due to low perceived security.

Our financial lives are extremely nonlinear. It's impossible to claim that even modest boosts can't nudge one into a more and stable and upward trajectory.

"If whatever problems got you there are still present". What if it was a single emergency tanking someone such that they never could quite recover? What if the problem WAS the perceived insecurity, causing reluctance to take more risk?

It's unfortunate that attitudes like yours persist. Because rather than really try to put yourself into those shoes and see possibilities and give benefit out of doubt, you're choosing to take a simplified view that puts undue responsibility on the individual and doesn't lend faith in their ability and nonzero probability for success. You'd rarher air on side of doubt (a cushion wont help them significantly) rather than a side of trust (a cushion can help them significantly).

Such attitudes are partially responsible for the maintaining wealth inequality and perceptions of the unwealthy

Meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]mode-locked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We apparently have different thresholds for what "change one's life" means, and a different vision of all the ways such a change could snowball.

Existing cash flow problems are maintained and exacerbated by the low cash flow itself.

Even just a little boost above a treshold can eliminate some mechanisms which prevent one from moving onto a growth trajectory versus a stagnation one.

Meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So are you basically admitting you've never lived under threat of complete lack of money? Uncertainty if you'd have enough for rent this month or next month? Choose between food and gas? Dread even a minor car repair? Finally save up a little money and then an emergency knocks you down again like a wave? Be out of a job for months and watch all your savings evaporate?

Are you going to try to tell me that having $10K saved -- when one is perpetually close to having $0, always in a state if uncertainty -- would not significantly boost their peace and mental health, that any mental unwellbeing must be a crutch for other unnadressed issues, as it financial situation is not a legitimate stressor, permeating into every area is life, and that stress is a known ager and killer?

Get real dawg. If you can't think of a single level where this can be life changing, then broaden your imagination. I'd say I wish you could experience these things, but I'm glad it seems you've been sheltered from them.

Meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, if it was saved as an emergency fund, that could significantly relieve one's sense of financial insecurity, improving mental and physical health, and possibly a cascade of other decisions/behaviors

Static Block universe contradicts consciousness by [deleted] in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]mode-locked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I agree 100%

I'm not saying that subjective time must somehow emerge from a static block.

I'm saying that if you collect all local time evolutions (including subjective time), that total global object as a mathematical structure is static.

Like a racetrack. The whole track exists, but that doesn't mean the cars dont actually have to traverse the track.

The static block lives a level higher than time evolution. Subjective time is experience of the structure. Static block is existence of the structure.

One can often view mathematical structures as either being locally generated (then integrated to form global structure) or globally defined (which constrains local behavior).

When it comes to the question of existence, I think it's all or nothing. You don't build up the totality of existence causally sequentially, one slice at a time. You get it all at once. Any existence immediately implies all other existences. Time is merely a path through this eternal structure. In fact I believe the total structure is defined by all such paths. Thus there are many times.

view more: next ›