bch8_

3 ms·

1.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
Can you share this recent evidence about communication through fields?
2.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
I went on a very similar trajectory to you w.r.t to the paper (From a similar starting point too). Just wanted to mention that the idea you are describing here is in principle compatible with the theory that the brain is an analog computer:
3.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
First I want to say I don't think this is an unreasonable position nor does it appear to be one without some degree of support in the expert debates. The position taken by this paper is not, as far as I can tell, a universally accepted
4.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
No that's not an implication of the argument. You are misunderstanding. It is not necessary to continuously inject increasingly complicated historical scenarios, I am not going to respond to those, we can just talk about the clock. If
5.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
No because it doesn't physically instantiate the concept of 3:00pm. By the author's contention if you go and find an analog clock right now and read the time, the clock still doesn't have an intrinsic property of "X AM&#
6.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
To the best of my understanding I believe the response from the position taken by the paper is that this is still committing the abstraction fallacy (Assuming you aren't just agreeing with them here, which I don't think you are).
7.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
I had the same initial thought but to be fair the paper addresses this explicitly and the author believes their argument can hold without fully understanding consciousness
8.
by bch8_ 5mo ago
The paper addresses this point in section 3.2. They aren't debating the fact that a physical process is taking place in a computer running a program. They are arguing that the semantic interpretation of the output of that program is in