5 ms·

By your standards nobody can offer any piece of insight. I admitted that there is a fair bit of generalization going on with me, but your requirement of being i

By your standards nobody can offer any piece of insight. I admitted that there is a fair bit of generalization going on with me, but your requirement of being infinitely exhaustive is not exactly how you create knowledge either. I don't have to fall off from every bicycle on Earth to know that it hurts. > humanity, on Planet Earth in the year 2022, might be "doing it wrong", We are doing everything wrong to a substantial degree, ever since the industrial revolution, destroying the biosphere of the only planet we have. We are evolved to thrive in a specific environment, and we are ruining it. How science is being used is very often questionable, just think of the Nazis or the Russians, but this only makes the case of the usefulness of science to all problem spaces stronger. We are also talking right now because of science. > There is not database of all shamans I will keep choosing doctors for my medical needs. I haven't tried all the doctors or any of the shamans, and yet I still know that a doctor is the right choice, even though there are incompetent doctors, even serial killer doctors out there. You can tell why, right?

mistermann 4y ago
> By your standards nobody can offer any piece of insight. You are welcome to offer your opinions, and where I believe them to be incorrect, I make note of it. It seems to me that you've done a fair amount of that yourself in this conversation, although with a distinctly different level of quality imho. > I admitted that there is a fair bit of generalization going on with me, but your requirement of being infinitely exhaustive is not exactly how you create knowledge either. Third party observers may now have some greater insight into how actually true the "true" stories people tell about their religious beliefs (The Science, in this case). Besides: laughing at Christians and religious people in general seems to have become a bit of a sport on the internet (including often here on HN), I think it is fair that Scientific Materialists get ribbed a little for their bizarre beliefs now and then. Jesus you people are sensitive - grow a sense of humour ffs!! > I don't have to fall off from every bicycle on Earth to know that it hurts. Figures of speech and rhetoric are a double edged sword, and they are also not very scientific. > We are doing everything wrong to a substantial degree, ever since the industrial revolution, destroying the biosphere of the only planet we have. We are evolved to thrive in a specific environment, and we are ruining it. How science is being used is very often questionable, just think of the Nazis or the Russians.... Ah yes, of course: those other people. What about us? What about the scientists who brought forth these powerful but dangerous tools. If scientists are so smart, and are the sole source of knowledge on the planet, why don't they lead us out of the mess they've so substantially contributed to getting us into? > ...but this only makes the case of the usefulness of science to all problem spaces stronger. Perhaps, if you ignore the role science played in creating the problem in the first place. > We are also talking right now because of science. In part, but not entirely because of science. >> There is not database of all shamans > I will keep choosing doctors for my medical needs. I haven't tried all the doctors or any of the shamans, and yet I still know that a doctor is the right choice.... For all people, for all ailments, without exception? Also: is it safe to presume that you are using the word "know" (as opposed to believe) colloquially? > ...even though there are incompetent doctors, even serial killer doctors out there. You can tell why, right? For the vast majority of ailments, a doctor is the superior choice. Question: would you mind commenting on these two points from my prior message (for the second, I'm interested if you think you could execute the technique, literally): > One might think that a "scientific thinker" (or, an arbitrary user on Hacker News) would immediately realize the fundamental logical flaw in such a claim, but as the saying goes: "Reality is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine". > Here I will try an experimental technique: are you able to, within your mind, take a strictly third person perspective on this conversation...can you imagine yourself rising into the air, and the higher you go your mental "connection" to this reality (and yourself as a person living within that reality) gradually separates, until eventually you reach an altitude where you no longer have any connection to yourself or this conversation...as if you had come upon it randomly, rather than being an active participant in it. From this perspective, are you able to see and appreciate the substantial silliness, "the folly of humans" you might say, that is going on here? And thinking more broadly: is this phenomenon not true of a substantial majority of arguments that take place on this planet?
- Comevius 4y ago
  For the first one I already told you that I tried demonstrating that you don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness. I didn't offer exhaustive proof, but I linked a paper, and that paper is built on solving Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon used to provoke a substantial debate on the philosophy of science, until it was solved, and solved experimentally later. Reality is strange, but there is a way to figure it out. For the second one my ego is not especially involved in this one, neither of us is an expert here, so the stakes are not high. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but you haven't been able to provide a coherent debate. I was curious about your argument, but you never really presented more than your default opinion, that there is more to reality than physical reality, namely metaphysical reality. You think that a thought or belief is not entirely physical, but there is nothing to suggest that. In fact the very existence of software elegantly demonstrates how seemingly metaphysical things are part of the physical reality. You wouldn't be able to find a red door in a video game with a microscope inside your computer either, it's still part of our physical reality. Computers keep advancing in their ability to see, hear and think, and yet nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > For the first one I already told you that I tried demonstrating that you don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness. Incorrect again. What you actually said: "The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. You don't need anything else to create consciousness, it's 100% physics, and would work quite differently if it wouldn't be." "don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness" and "it's 100% physics" are very different claims. > I didn't offer exhaustive proof, but I linked a paper, and that paper is built on solving Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon used to provoke a substantial debate on the philosophy of science, until it was solved, and solved experimentally later. Reality is strange, but there is a way to figure it out. Try this: can you acknowledge that you stated your opinion as if it was a fact? When Christians or Shamans do this (real or imagined, in your case with Shamans) it's not ok, so why is it ok for Scientific Materialists, who describe their not-a-religion as the uncontested framework for the discovery of truth, IN FACT? > For the second one my ego is not especially involved in this one... Speculative, necessarily. > ...neither of us is an expert here, so the stakes are not high. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.... I don't think you've once acknowledged that you're wrong (and look at all the unforced(?) errors you've made), and here you only speak abstractly as a hypothetical - if no ego is involved as you say, a demonstration would be more impressive (you know, like they do in science). > ...but you haven't been able to provide a coherent debate. The coherence of a debate is a function of both the sender and the receiver, and your error rate is suggestive that there is a fairly substantial issue on your side. Besides, I'm not promoting a position, I am mainly fact checking your numerous claims, made in the name of science. > I was curious about your argument, but you never really presented more than your default opinion, that there is more to reality than physical reality, namely metaphysical reality. I don't have much more specific to say, other than I believe that science and its fan base has perhaps grown a little too big for its britches, like a teenager entering puberty and getting prideful at their newly acquired powers. > You think that a thought or belief is not entirely physical, but there is nothing to suggest that. It may emerge 100% from the material realm, but whether thought "is" material (what, precisely, is the meaning of the word in this context - perhaps we should call a physicist?), or actually emerges 100% from the material realm, is complicated - and unknown. > In fact the very existence of software elegantly demonstrates how seemingly metaphysical things are part of the physical reality. You wouldn't be able to find a red door in a video game with a microscope inside your computer either, it's still part of our physical reality. Computers keep advancing in their ability to see, hear and think, and yet nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this. A problem: "nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this" passes through the hard problem of consciousness again. Also, "nothing suggests" is yet another subjective opinion, stated in the form of a fact. Observe (or at least, try) how at the abstract level (abstract away the object level content of your claims) your thinking (and arguably, your honesty) is indistinguishable from that of a strawman representation of a religious fundamentalist. Is it not substantially true?

mistermann 4y ago

> By your standards nobody can offer any piece of insight. You are welcome to offer your opinions, and where I believe them to be incorrect, I make note of it. It seems to me that you've done a fair amount of that yourself in this conversation, although with a distinctly different level of quality imho. > I admitted that there is a fair bit of generalization going on with me, but your requirement of being infinitely exhaustive is not exactly how you create knowledge either. Third party observers may now have some greater insight into how actually true the "true" stories people tell about their religious beliefs (The Science, in this case). Besides: laughing at Christians and religious people in general seems to have become a bit of a sport on the internet (including often here on HN), I think it is fair that Scientific Materialists get ribbed a little for their bizarre beliefs now and then. Jesus you people are sensitive - grow a sense of humour ffs!! > I don't have to fall off from every bicycle on Earth to know that it hurts. Figures of speech and rhetoric are a double edged sword, and they are also not very scientific. > We are doing everything wrong to a substantial degree, ever since the industrial revolution, destroying the biosphere of the only planet we have. We are evolved to thrive in a specific environment, and we are ruining it. How science is being used is very often questionable, just think of the Nazis or the Russians.... Ah yes, of course: those other people. What about us? What about the scientists who brought forth these powerful but dangerous tools. If scientists are so smart, and are the sole source of knowledge on the planet, why don't they lead us out of the mess they've so substantially contributed to getting us into? > ...but this only makes the case of the usefulness of science to all problem spaces stronger. Perhaps, if you ignore the role science played in creating the problem in the first place. > We are also talking right now because of science. In part, but not entirely because of science. >> There is not database of all shamans > I will keep choosing doctors for my medical needs. I haven't tried all the doctors or any of the shamans, and yet I still know that a doctor is the right choice.... For all people, for all ailments, without exception? Also: is it safe to presume that you are using the word "know" (as opposed to believe) colloquially? > ...even though there are incompetent doctors, even serial killer doctors out there. You can tell why, right? For the vast majority of ailments, a doctor is the superior choice. Question: would you mind commenting on these two points from my prior message (for the second, I'm interested if you think you could execute the technique, literally): > One might think that a "scientific thinker" (or, an arbitrary user on Hacker News) would immediately realize the fundamental logical flaw in such a claim, but as the saying goes: "Reality is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine". > Here I will try an experimental technique: are you able to, within your mind, take a strictly third person perspective on this conversation...can you imagine yourself rising into the air, and the higher you go your mental "connection" to this reality (and yourself as a person living within that reality) gradually separates, until eventually you reach an altitude where you no longer have any connection to yourself or this conversation...as if you had come upon it randomly, rather than being an active participant in it. From this perspective, are you able to see and appreciate the substantial silliness, "the folly of humans" you might say, that is going on here? And thinking more broadly: is this phenomenon not true of a substantial majority of arguments that take place on this planet?

Comevius 4y ago
For the first one I already told you that I tried demonstrating that you don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness. I didn't offer exhaustive proof, but I linked a paper, and that paper is built on solving Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon used to provoke a substantial debate on the philosophy of science, until it was solved, and solved experimentally later. Reality is strange, but there is a way to figure it out. For the second one my ego is not especially involved in this one, neither of us is an expert here, so the stakes are not high. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but you haven't been able to provide a coherent debate. I was curious about your argument, but you never really presented more than your default opinion, that there is more to reality than physical reality, namely metaphysical reality. You think that a thought or belief is not entirely physical, but there is nothing to suggest that. In fact the very existence of software elegantly demonstrates how seemingly metaphysical things are part of the physical reality. You wouldn't be able to find a red door in a video game with a microscope inside your computer either, it's still part of our physical reality. Computers keep advancing in their ability to see, hear and think, and yet nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > For the first one I already told you that I tried demonstrating that you don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness. Incorrect again. What you actually said: "The physical realm as you call it is the entire reality, it's the only thing you can interact with in an empirical manner. You don't need anything else to create consciousness, it's 100% physics, and would work quite differently if it wouldn't be." "don't necessarily need a hidden variable or supernatural for consciousness" and "it's 100% physics" are very different claims. > I didn't offer exhaustive proof, but I linked a paper, and that paper is built on solving Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon used to provoke a substantial debate on the philosophy of science, until it was solved, and solved experimentally later. Reality is strange, but there is a way to figure it out. Try this: can you acknowledge that you stated your opinion as if it was a fact? When Christians or Shamans do this (real or imagined, in your case with Shamans) it's not ok, so why is it ok for Scientific Materialists, who describe their not-a-religion as the uncontested framework for the discovery of truth, IN FACT? > For the second one my ego is not especially involved in this one... Speculative, necessarily. > ...neither of us is an expert here, so the stakes are not high. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.... I don't think you've once acknowledged that you're wrong (and look at all the unforced(?) errors you've made), and here you only speak abstractly as a hypothetical - if no ego is involved as you say, a demonstration would be more impressive (you know, like they do in science). > ...but you haven't been able to provide a coherent debate. The coherence of a debate is a function of both the sender and the receiver, and your error rate is suggestive that there is a fairly substantial issue on your side. Besides, I'm not promoting a position, I am mainly fact checking your numerous claims, made in the name of science. > I was curious about your argument, but you never really presented more than your default opinion, that there is more to reality than physical reality, namely metaphysical reality. I don't have much more specific to say, other than I believe that science and its fan base has perhaps grown a little too big for its britches, like a teenager entering puberty and getting prideful at their newly acquired powers. > You think that a thought or belief is not entirely physical, but there is nothing to suggest that. It may emerge 100% from the material realm, but whether thought "is" material (what, precisely, is the meaning of the word in this context - perhaps we should call a physicist?), or actually emerges 100% from the material realm, is complicated - and unknown. > In fact the very existence of software elegantly demonstrates how seemingly metaphysical things are part of the physical reality. You wouldn't be able to find a red door in a video game with a microscope inside your computer either, it's still part of our physical reality. Computers keep advancing in their ability to see, hear and think, and yet nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this. A problem: "nothing suggests that you would need anything, but physical reality to accomplish this" passes through the hard problem of consciousness again. Also, "nothing suggests" is yet another subjective opinion, stated in the form of a fact. Observe (or at least, try) how at the abstract level (abstract away the object level content of your claims) your thinking (and arguably, your honesty) is indistinguishable from that of a strawman representation of a religious fundamentalist. Is it not substantially true?