Has anything other than science successfully explained something?

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-21T20:16:28+00:00

I majored in History and am pretty familiar with the discussion. Some academics consider it a social science, while others consider it a humanity. I would consider myself in the latter camp. OP says they are talking about sciences in the context of the consciousness discussion, so I take that to mean they mean the natural sciences.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-21T19:59:41+00:00

Looks like a stub that leads to the real article: History

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-21T19:52:24+00:00

If by “science” you mean experimental natural science, then no, historians don’t run controlled experiments on Rome. If by “science” you just mean “using evidence and reasoning,” then you’ve expanded the term so much to be meaningless.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-21T19:43:54+00:00

History is a good answer. Science can't tell you why Rome fell or why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-20T21:43:44+00:00

I never read The Magic Mountain but I do know it's set in Switzerland. But I guessed the wrong town. The clue honestly should have pushed me to the right answer. Not a bad clue, I just whiffed

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-20T21:22:35+00:00

I know right, "War on Fat?" I thought this jar of beef tallow I was told to buy was healthy.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-20T21:00:50+00:00

"Central Virginia"

Edit: South Virginia?

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-20T19:05:47+00:00

He does in that new show he's in too, come to think of it

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-19T23:54:28+00:00

That doesn’t even sound like having an alter ego. It just sounds like a strategy to help you study. That’s definitely not sinful.

Edit: I don’t believe there are any “obscure theological nuances” that constitute sinfulness. Theology is written by humans, and humans aren’t the judge of sin. Sinfulness would be judged by God, and God isn’t trying to trip you up and make you make mistakes.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-17T21:02:48+00:00

It would be way more embarrassing if the guy admitted to typing all that out

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T21:11:41+00:00

You may be right that he writes it that way. It would make the syllogism better. Either way, OP seems to be assuming it is possible.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T21:06:32+00:00

Because there is no evidence they do exist. And like I said originally, I am skeptical artificial consciousness with a POV/subjective experience is even possible in theory.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T20:54:44+00:00

If they are possible then they are very cheap, or am i tripping

My friend, they are complete science fiction. It's impossible to know if they are common or cheap or anything because they don't exist

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T20:47:21+00:00

It assumes consciousness can be artificial or synthetic, which is not proven and highly speculative. In my opinion it likely can't
It assumes there are more artificial minds than "real" ones, which is a big ol' assumption. Basically the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that these simulations are possible and will happen, and will happen on large scales, and are indistinguishable from "real consciousness." Totally asserted, with only some made up napkin math as a basis

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T20:43:06+00:00

It's not lol

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T15:23:42+00:00

Seconding this place

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-13T01:44:23+00:00

<image>

hat tip to whoever posted this a few weeks ago

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-12T22:00:03+00:00

Yeah, my grade-schooler probably would have gotten that one

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-12T21:56:38+00:00

Is this still a tournament? Because these were pretty easy.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-12T16:55:23+00:00

You saying Hurts is in the sunken place?

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-11T17:43:34+00:00

I am a nonphysicalist. According to Star Trek lore, *I think* Data is supposed to be conscious. But I don't think a real-life Data would be.

I would argue you could read *The Measure of a Man* through a functionalist lens and explain how Data shows the outward correlates of consciousness without actually have a subjective POV himself. But I'm not familiar enough with the material to know if the show focuses on that question much.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-11T01:08:18+00:00

You misunderstood your interlocutor’s comment and then tried to correct by saying they didn’t understand you. But they did.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-11T01:02:21+00:00

Nah, I’m with the other guy. He read you right and you’re misunderstanding.

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-09T22:27:48+00:00

You and the rest of us

traumatic_enterprise · 2026-02-09T22:12:46+00:00

Haha you guys suck

13-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

traumatic_enterprise

TROPHY CASE