4 ms·

It might be a piss-poor explanation, because it doesn't explain anything, it presumes its conclusion, but that doesn't make it wrong. And if you throw in phras

It might be a piss-poor explanation, because it doesn't explain anything, it presumes its conclusion, but that doesn't make it wrong. And if you throw in phrases like "composition problem" and "analytical idealism" the fer fuck's sake provide some simple explanation or something.

namero999 4y ago
Something that assumes its conclusion and doesn't explain anything is not even wrong... At any rate, given the context of the thread I didn't feel the need to clarify what the composition problem nor idealism are. But since you ask: The composition (aka combination) problem refers to the need to explain how multiple bits of consciousness combine together to form a united and cohesive experience such as yours or mine. The hard problem focuses instead on how quantities (matter) give rise to qualities (experience). Analytic Idealism is the view that experience is the ontological primitive. Both problems sublimate away. Yes, you can derive physics from it. In fact you don't even bother physics in any way: all we know about it remains valid under analytic idealism. If anything, many counterintuitive findings of QM fall into place under AI. If this pique your interest, here's a good intro https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/ https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > Something that assumes its conclusion and doesn't explain anything is not even wrong... No. It can be entirely right. It just isn't useful in any way. From your link "Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence" Maintain all you like. It might even - per my prior statement on pan-psychism - be true. I want quantifiable evidence before we accept it as true. Cough up. Anyway, thanks for the descriptions of the tech terms.
  - namero999 4y ago
    Can you argument your desire for a quantifiable evidence without begging the question? There is research compatible with these claims. It's mentioned and linked in the link I've previously provided.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      > Can you argument your desire for a quantifiable evidence without begging the question? Don't fall back to sophistry. Is there evidence? yes or no, if yes then show me. > There is research compatible with these claims. It's mentioned and linked in the link I've previously provided. I'm downloading the single video which mentions the word evidence. If there is any more evidence links, please show me them, especially written evidence, and especially especially, empirical evidence. Edit: right, they're saying that experience is essential to reality. They provide evidence in the form of quantum experiments. I can provisionally accept that, very provisionally. Does it say anything about what consciousness actually is, which is what you (seemed to) claim? Haven't found any sign of that yet.
      - namero999 4y ago
        It's not sophistry, it was a preemptive question anticipating your response, which in fact showed up: you asked what consciousness _is_. This is the sort of question Babbage would have replied to with his famous remark. "What is" is a philosophical, in fact metaphysical, question. You know what consciousness is. Just pinch yourself. To ask what something _is_ implies reduction. You want a description of experience in terms of something else. So you are begging the question, having already concluded that it's not fundamental. In idealism experience is the reduction basis, so the question makes no sense. On the contrary, one should try to explain everything else in terms of experience (and if you don't accept a reduction basis, then you won't be able to explain anything, even with materialism). Now, the explanations need to be consistent with empirical evidence and they need to have explanatory power. I submit to you that AI succeeds, and the empirical adequacy of those claims is abundantly linked in the description of the material you are downloading. Science and scientific theories are concerned with the behaviour of nature, not its essence. They tell us how it behaves, not what it is. We build models out of observations and given the chance, we should stand by a model with the most explanatory power.

namero999 4y ago

Something that assumes its conclusion and doesn't explain anything is not even wrong... At any rate, given the context of the thread I didn't feel the need to clarify what the composition problem nor idealism are. But since you ask: The composition (aka combination) problem refers to the need to explain how multiple bits of consciousness combine together to form a united and cohesive experience such as yours or mine. The hard problem focuses instead on how quantities (matter) give rise to qualities (experience). Analytic Idealism is the view that experience is the ontological primitive. Both problems sublimate away. Yes, you can derive physics from it. In fact you don't even bother physics in any way: all we know about it remains valid under analytic idealism. If anything, many counterintuitive findings of QM fall into place under AI. If this pique your interest, here's a good intro https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/ https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/.

zasdffaa 4y ago
> Something that assumes its conclusion and doesn't explain anything is not even wrong... No. It can be entirely right. It just isn't useful in any way. From your link "Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence" Maintain all you like. It might even - per my prior statement on pan-psychism - be true. I want quantifiable evidence before we accept it as true. Cough up. Anyway, thanks for the descriptions of the tech terms.
- namero999 4y ago
  Can you argument your desire for a quantifiable evidence without begging the question? There is research compatible with these claims. It's mentioned and linked in the link I've previously provided.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > Can you argument your desire for a quantifiable evidence without begging the question? Don't fall back to sophistry. Is there evidence? yes or no, if yes then show me. > There is research compatible with these claims. It's mentioned and linked in the link I've previously provided. I'm downloading the single video which mentions the word evidence. If there is any more evidence links, please show me them, especially written evidence, and especially especially, empirical evidence. Edit: right, they're saying that experience is essential to reality. They provide evidence in the form of quantum experiments. I can provisionally accept that, very provisionally. Does it say anything about what consciousness actually is, which is what you (seemed to) claim? Haven't found any sign of that yet.
    - namero999 4y ago
      It's not sophistry, it was a preemptive question anticipating your response, which in fact showed up: you asked what consciousness _is_. This is the sort of question Babbage would have replied to with his famous remark. "What is" is a philosophical, in fact metaphysical, question. You know what consciousness is. Just pinch yourself. To ask what something _is_ implies reduction. You want a description of experience in terms of something else. So you are begging the question, having already concluded that it's not fundamental. In idealism experience is the reduction basis, so the question makes no sense. On the contrary, one should try to explain everything else in terms of experience (and if you don't accept a reduction basis, then you won't be able to explain anything, even with materialism). Now, the explanations need to be consistent with empirical evidence and they need to have explanatory power. I submit to you that AI succeeds, and the empirical adequacy of those claims is abundantly linked in the description of the material you are downloading. Science and scientific theories are concerned with the behaviour of nature, not its essence. They tell us how it behaves, not what it is. We build models out of observations and given the chance, we should stand by a model with the most explanatory power.