4 ms·

That's a nice reductionist way to look at it. Given deeper thought, one will find that it's a much more complicated problem to model for. Intuition starts to g

That's a nice reductionist way to look at it. Given deeper thought, one will find that it's a much more complicated problem to model for. Intuition starts to get fuzzy and practicality goes out the window when factoring in physical constraints. It's quite an interesting interaction and there's much to look into the mind-body "problem" and causality. There's a few different models from various bodies of thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Mind%E2%80%93body_interaction_and_mental_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Mind...

ncmncm 6y ago
The problem is not about minds connecting to bodies. The problem is all, 100%, about the minds of the people asking the question: fatally confused minds. How does the driver software in the printer make the paper move? The software is a pattern of 1s and 0s the microcontroller is following, that directs when various signals turn on and off. Some of those signals are involved in making the program work, copying bits here and there inside it. Others turn motors on and off. But the signals are all exactly the same—just electric currents in transistors. Literally, literally the only difference is whether they connect back into the microcontroller, or out to the motor. How come you imagine blue when you read "blue", but downvote me when you read this? Some nerves connect back to other nerves, some connect to muscles. It is all just nerves pinging. Absolutely nothing except nerves pinging, modulated this way and that in a bath of hormones. Anything else is failed imagination. But you can understand it if you don't deliberately confuse yourself.
- mckirk 6y ago
  It might be easier to understand what you're actually saying if it didn't seem like you were being deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Anyone who could read the above and think it is vague will be fatally confused about every subject.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    > It might be easier to understand what you're actually saying if it didn't seem like you were being deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated. And, yet, your refutation is: >Given deeper thought, one will find that it's a much more complicated problem to model for. Intuition starts to get fuzzy and practicality goes out the window when factoring in physical constraints. I think one of these is deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated. The one that's arguing for some mystical mind-body duality and "deeper thought".
    - mckirk 6y ago
      It might be worth pointing out that I'm not the author of that refutation. But I agree that that refutation was itself pretty vague. I was still more irked by the guy being going full Zen-master in the level of clarity of his posts, calling people fatally confused for even thinking about the question and then wondering about being downvoted.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        The degree of confusion that could lead one to conclude from what I wrote that I was "wondering about being downvoted", is positively dizzying. Anyone so confused would certainly starve to death absent continual provision by others.

ncmncm 6y ago

The problem is not about minds connecting to bodies. The problem is all, 100%, about the minds of the people asking the question: fatally confused minds. How does the driver software in the printer make the paper move? The software is a pattern of 1s and 0s the microcontroller is following, that directs when various signals turn on and off. Some of those signals are involved in making the program work, copying bits here and there inside it. Others turn motors on and off. But the signals are all exactly the same—just electric currents in transistors. Literally, literally the only difference is whether they connect back into the microcontroller, or out to the motor. How come you imagine blue when you read "blue", but downvote me when you read this? Some nerves connect back to other nerves, some connect to muscles. It is all just nerves pinging. Absolutely nothing except nerves pinging, modulated this way and that in a bath of hormones. Anything else is failed imagination. But you can understand it if you don't deliberately confuse yourself.

mckirk 6y ago
It might be easier to understand what you're actually saying if it didn't seem like you were being deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Anyone who could read the above and think it is vague will be fatally confused about every subject.
- jhayward 6y ago
  > It might be easier to understand what you're actually saying if it didn't seem like you were being deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated. And, yet, your refutation is: >Given deeper thought, one will find that it's a much more complicated problem to model for. Intuition starts to get fuzzy and practicality goes out the window when factoring in physical constraints. I think one of these is deliberately vague and hand-wavish just to sound sophisticated. The one that's arguing for some mystical mind-body duality and "deeper thought".
  - mckirk 6y ago
    It might be worth pointing out that I'm not the author of that refutation. But I agree that that refutation was itself pretty vague. I was still more irked by the guy being going full Zen-master in the level of clarity of his posts, calling people fatally confused for even thinking about the question and then wondering about being downvoted.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      The degree of confusion that could lead one to conclude from what I wrote that I was "wondering about being downvoted", is positively dizzying. Anyone so confused would certainly starve to death absent continual provision by others.