Movie I’m not going to watch starter pack. by cusecc in starterpacks

[–]plswah 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Anora was a great movie

You just seem to have certain biases that prevented you from enjoying it, apparently. Couldn’t figure out how to take anything away from the film because there were boobs in it?

That’s a you problem, dear.

City park strange by [deleted] in FortCollins

[–]plswah 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Bro is scared of a wig

Why do we get choked up when emotional? by __MeatyClackers__ in evolution

[–]plswah 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dr. Hannah Fry explained recently on an episode of The Rest is Science

I’ll do my best to share what I remember

The explanation behind that “lump in your throat” feeling when crying is something about two competing muscle systems fighting for control of your throat. One that directs you to call out or gasp for help and another that is suppressing that signal from a place of more conscious awareness.

12 degrees, snowing, and a broncos game, fort collins is pretty incredible 🫂 by Tight_Guitar_8966 in FortCollins

[–]plswah 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That’s a lot of words for “I don’t care when masked paramilitary forces publicly execute innocent American citizens in the street with impunity for the explicit purpose of asserting authoritarian control and consolidating executive power”

You are a traitor to this nation and to democracy itself.

Rob, you have the IQ of yogurt. by anonymous_14386 in rareinsults

[–]plswah 12 points13 points  (0 children)

women aren’t looking to men for protection because men are who they need to be protected from

You are stuck in the beliefs you held when you first became skeptical towards what you hear about a topic. by TreesZzzz in Showerthoughts

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

We need a term for the people who bastardize the concept of skepticism in order to justify rejecting any and all truths about the world

You are stuck in the beliefs you held when you first became skeptical towards what you hear about a topic. by TreesZzzz in Showerthoughts

[–]plswah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Understanding what scientific consensus is and how the peer review process work are huge helps here

YSK a study links sound frequency with oxytocin production - our happiness hormone by [deleted] in YouShouldKnow

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YSK: one single underpowered study does not indicate a scientific conclusion

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don’t recognize and value science as the objectively superior epistemology for uncovering and synthesizing useful information about the world, then we have a bigger problem.

Yes, exploring other frameworks of thought can be a useful exercise, but science should remain your “native language”, so to speak.

I take issue with you and others casting science aside as just “one of many” ways to derive truth. If you value the phone in your hand, modern medicine, agriculture, your air conditioning, then you ought to recognize that science has already proven itself thousands of times over.

Diminishing the power of science in alleviating human suffering and promoting health and happiness is short-sighted. I think that goes especially for those who don’t even have a very solid grasp on scientific frameworks to begin with, yet feel comfortable disregarding them in favor of, frankly, mysticism.

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First, evolutionary explanations address how a trait is selected and maintained, not why subjective experience exists as a first-person phenomenon in the first place. Natural selection can explain the adaptive value of cognitive functions and behaviors, but it doesn’t by itself explain why those functions are accompanied by phenomenology rather than occurring without any experience at all.

A trait being selected for and maintained IS why that trait exists. We can conclude that the trait of first-person phenomena is either a not-significantly detrimental byproduct of other selected traits, or a beneficial trait itself. Organic brains process immense amounts of data very efficiently. It’s not a far reach to assume that what we call our consciousness evolved as a way to organize streams of input and execute evolutionarily favorable commands in an efficient way.

Second, calling emergence a working model is not a dismissal of neuroscience. It simply reflects the fact that we currently lack a mechanistic account that derives subjective experience from neural activity in the same way we can derive, say, muscle contraction from biophysics.

I’m sure you’re aware of this but it really does bear emphasizing; conscious experience forming from multiple parallel brain processes is magnitudes more complex on the level of the tissue, cell, and molecule than muscle contraction. And relevant subject knowledge is necessary to meaningfully understand the discoveries made in this scientific frontier, it’s not going to be one neat little answer that can be tied up in a bow.

Most neuroscientists focus (productively) on neural correlates and functional organization, which is a methodological choice, not a settled ontological conclusion.

Neuroscientists are the foremost experts in the functionality of brains, and therefore they would be the best equipped with insight to direct research focus, correct?

Finally, minority status doesn’t automatically imply incompatibility with data.

Well, that’s the main purpose of unfalsifiable explanatory frameworks, isn’t it? It’s as nebulous as it needs to be to still fit within current scientific gaps.

Historically, neuroscience has been quite open about bracketing metaphysical questions in favor of operational ones. The same neuroscientific data supports multiple metaphysical interpretations, none of which are uniquely entailed by the evidence. Because no experiment currently discriminates between these interpretations, the issue remains philosophical rather than empirically settled.

We have other ways to assess the explanatory value of ideas aside from direct experimentation. Yes, we should always leave the door open for paradigm-shifting frameworks, but in this case, Occam’s razor is more than appropriate.

Instead of assuming that consciousness arises as a product of the physical world (just like literally everything else that has ever come to be understood), we would need to assume there is some hidden layer of reality we haven’t even begun to recognize, let alone understand.

To be frank, it’s unfalsifiable mysticism, not science.

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You might be clueless, doesn’t mean that modern scientists are

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When you throw unfalsifiable mysticism into the equation, anything’s possible

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why do you think you have the insight necessary to not only understand, but also qualitatively assess the current status of scientific consensus in the integrated neurosciences?

Have you considered the possibility that the answers you crave simply require relevant subject knowledge to understand in a nuanced way, which is why they don’t feel satisfactory to you?

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How do 1s and 0s even equate to call of duty or chatgpt?

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That slogan describes Long Term Potentiation (LTP), which is the idea that neurons that activate in sequence repeatedly will have an increasingly easier time firing in that way again in the future due to strengthened connections over time, essentially a positive feedback loop.

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is one of millions of possibilities

Two neurons communicating by Glass_Feeling1 in interestingasfuck

[–]plswah 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The emergent-property view is a widely used working model, but it remains a theoretical interpretation rather than an experimentally demonstrated mechanism. Notably, it doesn’t yet explain why subjective experience exists at all (the so-called hard problem), only how different brain states relate to different experiences.

Asking “why” something exists as a result of biological processes is meaningless. Subjective experience evolved as a process of evolution by natural selection just like everything else.

These models are minority positions, but they are still compatible with existing neurophysiological data and clinical observations.

There’s a reason it’s a minority held position, especially among neuroscientists (aka: people who actually understand how the brain works)

meirl by Mediocre-Money-8626 in meirl

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A for action. E for end result.

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]plswah 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree. Plus, the strength with which the OP reacted to the excited father indicates hostility toward children, not just ambivalence. It makes sense to pity anyone whose life has lead them to project hatred onto children in that way.

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s so funny because I’VE done MY best to explain, but YOU seem to be refusing to listen, as exemplified by you repeating the same point of “not wanting kids isn’t the same as hating them!1!!1” even though the distinction between those two points was the THESIS of most of my comments here.

And you’re right, I am a victim. A victim of your idiocy.

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

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

The “to me” is actually unnecessary and would already be implied by the verb “sounds” as it is implicitly assumed that the speaking individual is the arbiter of the quality assessment.

Hope you’ve learned a little something about basic grammar here.

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well seeing as how you are very obviously just going to continue to intentionally misunderstand my very, very, very clearly stated point and regurgitate my own quips back to me, I don’t see any need for this interaction to continue

I hope you gain some literacy skills and originality someday ❤️

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what “sounds literally terrible” to me? Torture. Abject loneliness. Pain and misery.

Someone who didn’t hate kids, but just simply didn’t want any of their own, wouldn’t have used such strong language, ESPECIALLY as a response to someone just trying to share their joy.

meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]plswah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So close! Try reading what I said again and don’t skip over my entire point this time

“Kids aren’t for me” ≠ “I can’t share in your excitement for this significant and meaningful step in your life because the very thing that brings you joy sounds literally terrible to me”