5 ms·

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 of

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?
- Comevius 4y ago
  It's not true, a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity. I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions. My opinion is that the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard. I think it's a form of magical thinking to even presume it, and there is an intuitive appeal to do that. The solution however is to not take your intuition at face value, and presume instead that you are an unreliable witness of your own consciousness. I don't think you are a smart man to put it bluntly, but I think you like playing one. You keep creating word salads. I admire your confidence, but this wasn't an interesting debate.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > It's not true, a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity. I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions. But once again: from what source have you acquired your epistemically flawless and ontologically comprehensive knowledge of reality? > My opinion is that the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard. As the saying goes: "We're each entitled to our opinion, but not to our own facts" (I love that saying, it was very popular during Donald Trump's presidency, for obvious reasons). But regardless, I'm under the impression that we're discussing reality itself, not our respective opinions of it. I hope I haven't made an incorrect presumption on that, because that would kind of nullify the conversation (since we're coming at it from two very fundamentally different perspectives). > I think it's a form of magical thinking to even presume it, and there is an intuitive appeal to do that. The solution however is to not take your intuition at face value, and presume instead that you are an unreliable witness of your own consciousness. Wait a minute though: how does it work such that certain presumptions are "magical thinking", and others are not? Is there even a single source of Truth on such things (a single, authoritative, guaranteed correct classification algorithm)? > I don't think you are a smart man to put it bluntly, but I think you like playing one. You keep creating word salads. I admire your confidence, but this wasn't an interesting debate. Say what? Is there something in particular I said that caused you to form this belief? I can assure you, I am indeed extremely smart, and I suspect you are at least as smart as me (I'd even wager: much, much smarter, considering your encyclopedic-like knowledge), so surely there must be some sort of a misunderstanding.

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?

Comevius 4y ago
It's not true, a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity. I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions. My opinion is that the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard. I think it's a form of magical thinking to even presume it, and there is an intuitive appeal to do that. The solution however is to not take your intuition at face value, and presume instead that you are an unreliable witness of your own consciousness. I don't think you are a smart man to put it bluntly, but I think you like playing one. You keep creating word salads. I admire your confidence, but this wasn't an interesting debate.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > It's not true, a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity. I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions. But once again: from what source have you acquired your epistemically flawless and ontologically comprehensive knowledge of reality? > My opinion is that the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard. As the saying goes: "We're each entitled to our opinion, but not to our own facts" (I love that saying, it was very popular during Donald Trump's presidency, for obvious reasons). But regardless, I'm under the impression that we're discussing reality itself, not our respective opinions of it. I hope I haven't made an incorrect presumption on that, because that would kind of nullify the conversation (since we're coming at it from two very fundamentally different perspectives). > I think it's a form of magical thinking to even presume it, and there is an intuitive appeal to do that. The solution however is to not take your intuition at face value, and presume instead that you are an unreliable witness of your own consciousness. Wait a minute though: how does it work such that certain presumptions are "magical thinking", and others are not? Is there even a single source of Truth on such things (a single, authoritative, guaranteed correct classification algorithm)? > I don't think you are a smart man to put it bluntly, but I think you like playing one. You keep creating word salads. I admire your confidence, but this wasn't an interesting debate. Say what? Is there something in particular I said that caused you to form this belief? I can assure you, I am indeed extremely smart, and I suspect you are at least as smart as me (I'd even wager: much, much smarter, considering your encyclopedic-like knowledge), so surely there must be some sort of a misunderstanding.