5 ms·

I don't think I'm a materialist, but I downvoted you because "bag of electric meat" just radiates a silly smugness that overrides whatever other value your comm

by patcon 3y ago

I don't think I'm a materialist, but I downvoted you because "bag of electric meat" just radiates a silly smugness that overrides whatever other value your comment offered. Can't say why others might be downvoting though

082349872349872 3y ago
I actually like "bag of electric meat", but as it's redundant, I prefer "ugly bag of mostly water".
- smitty1e 3y ago
  I was just grateful for some feedback pertaining to the down vote. Not quite sure how one takes a euphemistic phrase and gets "smug" out of it. However, the reader has the right of it.
  - patcon 3y ago
    I appreciate your followup comment. Perhaps I misread your tone. As someone else said, it just sounded so silly that it seemed to lampoon the perspective of those who supposedly hold it. It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
The recognition of emergent properties can exist even in materialism. Reducing to a sum-of-parts with "bag of electric meat" is essentially a strawman ad hominem.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  > emergent properties can exist even in materialism How would the material as such be aware of these properties? I'm sincerely questioning here. The accusation of "smugness" up the thread seems a cop-out. The dirt needs to explain its awareness of its dirt-state. Conversely, any theistic interpretation I could offer is going to have some hand-wavy aspects to it. I freely admit that there is no closed-form, mathematical expression for existence that falls within the scope of human intellect. To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    The simple answer is that we don't know yet. We don't know at what level of complexity a nervous system starts to have subjective experience (qualia), or even how to detect the condition. However, constructing a computer program that's aware of its own programmedness, or a robot that can tell itself apart in (for example) a reflection from other robots is not terribly difficult. Do such machines have qualia? How could we know? How can I know you have qualia? What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception. If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.
    - broscillator 3y ago
      > If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        >It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself. >Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face. Okay, now undo the analogy.

by patcon 3y ago

082349872349872 3y ago

I actually like "bag of electric meat", but as it's redundant, I prefer "ugly bag of mostly water".

smitty1e 3y ago
I was just grateful for some feedback pertaining to the down vote. Not quite sure how one takes a euphemistic phrase and gets "smug" out of it. However, the reader has the right of it.
- patcon 3y ago
  I appreciate your followup comment. Perhaps I misread your tone. As someone else said, it just sounded so silly that it seemed to lampoon the perspective of those who supposedly hold it. It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

The recognition of emergent properties can exist even in materialism. Reducing to a sum-of-parts with "bag of electric meat" is essentially a strawman ad hominem.

smitty1e 3y ago
> emergent properties can exist even in materialism How would the material as such be aware of these properties? I'm sincerely questioning here. The accusation of "smugness" up the thread seems a cop-out. The dirt needs to explain its awareness of its dirt-state. Conversely, any theistic interpretation I could offer is going to have some hand-wavy aspects to it. I freely admit that there is no closed-form, mathematical expression for existence that falls within the scope of human intellect. To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  The simple answer is that we don't know yet. We don't know at what level of complexity a nervous system starts to have subjective experience (qualia), or even how to detect the condition. However, constructing a computer program that's aware of its own programmedness, or a robot that can tell itself apart in (for example) a reflection from other robots is not terribly difficult. Do such machines have qualia? How could we know? How can I know you have qualia? What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception. If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.
  - broscillator 3y ago
    > If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      >It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain). Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself. >Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face. Okay, now undo the analogy.