4 ms·

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

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.
- Comevius 4y ago
  Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Although the last 200 years of science was basically finding out that nothing is as special as we thought. We used to take this personally, humans after all supposed to be the crown jewel of creation. There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics, but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. a) How would one test these two propositions: - a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity (in a way that covers all instances) - I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions b) Did you test them, and if so: how? > They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Occam's Razor is not even intended to determine truth. > Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I'd find this more convincing if you were able to try to answer my numerous unanswered questions. > I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Ok this is interesting: at that point in time (prior to your increase in knowledge), did you believe that biology WAS NOT special? > There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. a) Is the truth always accessible? b) Have there be any instances where consensus opinion on Truth turned out to be incorrect? c) Have there been any instances where your belief of Truth turned out to be incorrect? > Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. In this case, what is the data type of "True" - is it a binary (True/False)? > To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics.... "May not" tends to imply uncertainty - are you uncertain on this topic? > ...but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. If one does not have a perfect understanding, how would one necessarily know where details reside? > It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope. If this is possible, does it logically follow that all(!) other problems resolve this easily, using the same technique?

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.

Comevius 4y ago
Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Although the last 200 years of science was basically finding out that nothing is as special as we thought. We used to take this personally, humans after all supposed to be the crown jewel of creation. There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics, but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. a) How would one test these two propositions: - a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity (in a way that covers all instances) - I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions b) Did you test them, and if so: how? > They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Occam's Razor is not even intended to determine truth. > Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I'd find this more convincing if you were able to try to answer my numerous unanswered questions. > I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Ok this is interesting: at that point in time (prior to your increase in knowledge), did you believe that biology WAS NOT special? > There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. a) Is the truth always accessible? b) Have there be any instances where consensus opinion on Truth turned out to be incorrect? c) Have there been any instances where your belief of Truth turned out to be incorrect? > Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. In this case, what is the data type of "True" - is it a binary (True/False)? > To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics.... "May not" tends to imply uncertainty - are you uncertain on this topic? > ...but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. If one does not have a perfect understanding, how would one necessarily know where details reside? > It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope. If this is possible, does it logically follow that all(!) other problems resolve this easily, using the same technique?