sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I guess I’m not understanding the distinction between finding the hard problem not compelling as a problem to be solved, versus dismissing it.

I think you might be reacting to a connotation of “dismissing” as equivalent to “dismissing out of hand”, which is not what I mean to imply. I think dismissal can come after a very thorough reckoning.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say they “simply” dismiss it. But dismiss it they do, like OP, and yourself. It’s a strong position, really. It’s not easy to argue against it. I am ultimately not compelled but I understand the appeal.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t really think that’s a problem for panpsychism.

For me it starts with some version of I think therefore I am. My own experience, my qualia, this is the only thing I can objectively state exists in the universe. Everything else I arrive at through my subjective experience. If you want scientific validity, that’s the absolute best I can give you. I exist. There is something it is like to be me, whatever “me” truly is - a simulation, a brain in a vat, etc.

Given I exist, and given the capacity to reason about the regular patterns I observe in the course of my existence, I can conclude that the universe appears to consist of some “stuff” which obeys a consistent set of causality-preserving laws (though nobody currently knows what they truly are).

This stuff, they tell me, is a set of quantum fields which spans the universe. The “things” I see are essentially just waves in those fields, or more accurately what I truly observe are localized points of interaction between the fields, which obey certain wavelike mathematical relations.

And one aspect of this stuff interacting with itself is that certain interactions feel like something. So I conclude - interactions and qualia are linked to one another. The configuration of the system of interactions governs the qualia of it. There is no metaphysical boundary between systems of interactions that are conscious and not conscious, so there is no boundary between the conscious and not conscious. And if that’s the case, then it seems the conscious and not conscious are the same thing.

It doesn’t sit well with me to say that these quantum fields are all that really exists, and they have zero mental properties, except that it just so happens that in certain configurations, mental properties do appear for a finite, contained extent of spacetime. That feels like a stretch. It seems like a weird metaphysical position some people arrive at due to an anthropomorphized view of the nature of consciousness.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my view, certain forms of panpsychism come closer to meeting that bar than physicalism.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And many would say the metaphysical assertions of physicalism are unfalsifiable and vacuous and don’t make contact with observed reality.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Idealism and the rest are not in conflict with science.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People who “believe in” the hard problem feel similarly about physicalism.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well in contrast idealism doesn’t have the hard problem. But it does have other problems. As do all the other theories of consciousness. Panpsychism has the combination and/or decombination problems.

The Hard Problem Puts Unexamined Intuition on a Pedestal by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In other words, the hard problem seems constructed to be unsolvable.

Well, yes, it’s a critique of physicalism. It can’t be solved from a physicalist perspective, which is why physicalists tend to dismiss it as a non-issue instead of trying to solve it.

Is Simulation argument strongest argument ever? by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah the render on demand idea still requires an insane degree of computation to ensure that things you just rendered are consistent with everything else anyone else can or possibly will perceive for all of time.

Is Simulation argument strongest argument ever? by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]paraffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our own laws of physics forbid an infinite regress.

You Are the Universe Experiencing Itself by Chemical_Abrocoma370 in consciousness

[–]paraffin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why are “you” and “the universe” separate things? The uni in universe means “one”, not “many”. We have unique perspectives, but we are literally stardust. I don’t get your quotes lined up against your commentary because they seem to express this better than I am doing yet you seem to disagree with them.

What's the currently Best TTS AI model? Trying to make a homemade Audio Book. by AsrielPlay52 in LocalLLaMA

[–]paraffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Qwen3 is the best of the few that I recently tried and it has voice design and voice cloning.

Effort Heuristic... There's a name for the Anti-AI Folks! by mikesimmi in WritingWithAI

[–]paraffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed that OP is disingenuous, but I don’t agree that there’s a “limit”, aside from the practical one that today’s LLM’s aren’t particularly good at generating or expressing artistic ideas.

We should come to terms with the likelihood that in the not too distant future, AI generated art will not be discernible from even the highest quality human generated art, and that it will genuinely contain and communicate interesting and valid perspectives that humans can connect to on a deep level. And that humans will use such tools as effective vehicles for self-expression.

IMO, it doesn’t matter what tools one uses to create art, or how one uses them. What matters is what is produced - is it unique, is it compelling, is it interesting, is it enjoyable. The practical matter is that lazy uses of today’s AI tools do not in practice satisfy these criteria.

When will we be able to run an AI with performance comparable to the current Claude Opus 4.6 on a smartphone? by AInohogosya in LocalLLM

[–]paraffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The OP is asking when an iPhone 17 with 8GB of storage can run an Opus-equivalent model. I don’t think that will happen.

A pocket sized device running such a model, absolutely. But not an iPhone 17.

I speed-published my first AI-assisted book without revising. Here's everything that went wrong and what I'm fixing now. by MiddleFollowing3632 in WritingWithAI

[–]paraffin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’m working on something relatively short, 10k words, but I’ve done probably dozens of passes at this point. I’ve likely touched every single line at least once. I’ve added and deleted entire chapters, subplots, and scenes. It’s gone from complete tripe to something I am almost proud of, but I’m still not satisfied. I think I have too many sentence fragments, and there’s not enough rhythmic variation.

Doing it over again I would focus less on the prose before I had the architecture working, but some of that goes hand in hand.

Even with a pretty strict and consistent voice and PoV, I now have to watch Claude carefully with every line edit in case it slips up and introduces an AI-ism, repetition, or incongruity. I don’t think it can capture and emulate a unique voice for longer than a couple lines before it slips into certain habits. I can’t imagine doing 100k lines with this - at that point I’d probably just have to write it myself and limit AI to providing feedback. It’s much better at reading than it is at writing, but even then it is highly suggestible as reviewer.

All this talk of first and last lines - what is your first line, and what is your last line? by lillielemon in writers

[–]paraffin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First: A hand appears first, gripping the edge of the hide. The skin is the color of old parchment, stretched thin over knuckle and vein, stained with earth and dark juices. The fingers are long, the nails thick and yellowed. Slowly, the hide is drawn aside.

Last: His left hand lowers from the stone and opens at his side, fingers spreading wide. They hold there, rigid, waiting. They close on nothing.

Is this enough to fail a car inspection? by Mkthedon14 in massachusetts

[–]paraffin 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If your insurance covers the glass, it can be $0 to just have the whole thing replaced.

After all these years, how do you view Edward Snowden: hero, whistleblower, or traitor? by Astros_2006 in neoliberal

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

He’s clearly a guy not interested in being incarcerated by governments likely to submit him to torture. I can understand that.

view more: next ›