osama obama
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
beer tastes like SHIT tastes like gross ass BREAD water where as BREAD tastes like GOOD as bread BREAD
we only drink spirits in this mfer
Sorry, what are those? What particles mediate them? I do not know of any mechanical process called "pain"
Read Wittgenstein Private experience vs Public Language. Pain isn't a thing in the universe like an atom, its a label we came up with to describe a biological AND behavioural phenomenon that we all experience subjectively. Unless you're Plato, I guess.
I thought you said it was all just biological soup and electricity. Now you're claiming there's some kind of ghost "inhabiting" it?
Look up the definition of I. Biological soup and electricity can have first person experience.
How can a cloud of particles and forces have values or experiences?
Eyeballs. Ears. Electricity. You say "cloud of particles" as if its a reified thing, but from your perspective it ought not be. The organization of stimuli is how a cloud of particles has experience.
And if you do, why do you value some fleshy bags of meat but not others?
vegan. jainist. "efilist". plenty of types of people out there don't value themselves over others. We evolved affect for each other because it was biologically useful.
A choice? How can a deterministic set of mechanical interactions have a choice? It just responds to cause and effect according to the laws of physics.
Wow you're discovering why the agent exists. Crazy. We're a deterministic set of actions that has to weigh several external and internal factors, which cannot happen instantaneously, so we are presented with the illusion of choice. Using brain scan technology scientists are able to detect what you choose before you detect what you choose, because its all shit done in the brain. This is all happening behind the scenes but choice is a real thing that evaluates over time. Time being the key factor in why it seems so odd.
Sorry, what's an "experience"? And why would your arbitrary designation of some physical systems as having a valence be "good"
Experience is the public word for our subjective processes. The designations are not arbitrary, but biological. What we deem good is socially useful and feeds back into our internal reward system because it benefits our survival.
"Significant role" is very different from "there is only meat and electricity."
Actually not really. Meat and electricity play THE most significant role. The only role. Matter. Again, semantic confusion, not an actual argument.
There's no evidence you can either: all we have is stimulus and response via physical mechanism. A mousetrap does that too
While there is clearly no evidence you can think, I believe the person you've responded to has demonstrated a significant ability to do so.
I read the paper. Literally nonsense. Even Chalmers himself argues that Zombie Chalmers would be making the exact same argument as Non Zombie Chalmers, so the actual question is what are we asking? Can I imagine a universe with P Zombies? Sure. I can imagine an ice cube that is hot. I can imagine a box that contains itself. Doesn't mean its possible or relevant to the conversation at all. What about this universe? Are we arguing there are P Zombies in this universe? If so, how? Are we simply arguing that consciousness may exist outside of the physical realm? If so, explain the mechanism that allows it to interact with the physical realm and cause physical effects on our brains.
You should read Wittgenstein instead of being aggro and arguing past people. Specifically Beetle in a Box
You should def check out at least a lil Pre War Sartre. Its nuts. He basically makes the determination that almost ALL love is Bad Faith and both lovers are reducing the others freedoms... He basically sees Freedom as the one good thing humans should aim for because hes a privileged French fuck who skipped several steps on the hierarchy of needs. Post War he changed his tune realizing that, in fact, society is pretty impactful on determining ones freedom... Dipshit. Took an entire war to realize material conditions matter.
I don't know if you want to learn about love from people who notoriously groomed their female students for Sartre's pleasure. Like, maybe it is a French v.s. American cultural difference, but the fact that they would usually completely abandon their protege professionally when the sexual relationship was done speaks volumes to what they actually cared about.
Sartre in particular is obviously a giant privileged, anxiety ridden, piece of shit and you realize that the moment you read a single thing he has to say about love. That's actually kinda why I like reading his work, it's like defining the color red by defining every color it's not.
Like... The Chomsky point is great. I've read a lot of Chomskys political theories and knowing they're all wrong while I was reading them gave them an entirely different meaning. I can logically follow some of Chomskys points but then have to contend with why they were inaccurate, which is useful philosophizing.
Like... Beauvoir was obviously more good faith with their approach to love and feminism but they were also a pedophile... That means somewhere in her writings is something that will maybe try to convince you to sign a French petition in 1977. Knowing that before engaging with their work lets you keep your guard up and actually intellectually engage with the material instead of subsuming your brain to it after you agree with them enough in the first chapter. You'll be critical throughout because you know they're a fucking pedo. And French.
Right. Again, I don't really know what we are disagreeing about. I acknowledge their is knowledge to be found in Vol 2. I am simply stating it isnt really that important to me right now, which is why I am posting about consciousness and trans liberation instead. I personally want to write a paper on Labor Theory of Value and the implications AI has on labor but I don't have the time or energy to do that so I focus on more frivolous shit.
I 100% recommend that you read Adam Smith and Ricardo as well, so you can even argue with Marx on his interpretation of it. Hell, I 100% recommend that you read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, etc. We live in an age with access to archives of knowledge Marx would have literally killed for. Excersize it.
Yeah I hope to get to it someday. There is infinite to read and not infinite time. I can either learn lots of small things or deep dive into Vol 2 and probs be scratching my noggin for the next several months as I have to read supplementary works to make sense of what Marx was talking about, because that mother fucker used some very pretty language that doesn't translate too well to English all the time.
I still don't think Vol 2 is gonna teach me about Love like Sartre or Beauvoir...
When I say I've read enough Marx, what I mean is I have read enough Marx to get the gist and now possess the ability to use his works as a resource whenever I run into a question that stumps me. Basically like a Bible. I may not know everything in the Bible, but it has now transitioned from a roadblock to a stepping stone. Thats the important part.
You act as if Baudrillard, Debord, Sartre, or Beauvoir don't literally cite Marx directly constantly. Same is obviously true for Lenin.
Marx took someone else's Labor Theory of Value to prove his point about surplus extraction, do I need to read Adam Smith and Ricardo before I read Marx? No. They're baked into what Marx wrote. Would I understand more if I did? Sure, that's true for literally any damn pursuit of knowledge.
I legit don't understand what you're saying. I've read Vol 1. I've read various passages from the other volumes of capital, ive read critique of the gotha program, I've read Gundriss. I've done all of that and have defended Marx and Engels work to prove they did not sneak in teleology, in an academic setting.
I still think you're missing a whole world of philosophy by thinking Marx had everything figured out. He was clearly very bad at predictive history to say the least.
That's basically the question of a thought experiment. If it were possible for a being to exist that exhibits human behavior but isn't conscious, how would we be able to tell? What would need to be different? It's pointing to gaps in our current understanding.
They aren't gaps to a physicalist though. We would end up dissecting the P Zombies brain and concluding it's literally exactly the same as ours, and he was probably actually conscious.
We could even envision a technology that is able to capture, in data, the entirety of your brain state. We could then take a copy of your brain, and the p Zombies brain, and see if any differences exist. Once we determine that A = A (as the thought experiment claims at least) we would conclude the P Zombie is conscious.
This has actually happened before. People went diving for vital essences and came up with a better understanding of biology instead.
Instead of a computer with no processor we can just boil it down to what I actually think we are: biological agents with a proclivity for homeostasis. You remove the "agency" and you cannot achieve homeostasis. You can't achieve homeostasis you will not be a biological creature very long. The biological creatures that lack agency lose to my lawn mower every spring.
Consciousness simply is agency, which p Zombies lack in the thought experiment, but cannot lack in reality without being BTFO by the weather.
Imagine if Lenin decided to stand on the shoulder of giants instead of trying to make himself a giant. Idk seems like we can take what's work and try to improve it.
To never imagine yourself as a giant is selling yourself short. I am just as capable as Marx, as Marx was simply describing reality.
Yes there is no way to observe that something else has a conscious thought, but if we were to assume other highly complex possess similar means of consciousness as us, then we can look at outer phenomena to confirm it.
A philosophical zombie with my exact state but somehow no consciousness would be dead within the evening. They would have woken up this morning, completely failed to take any medication because they have no memory of medication (memory IS consciousness) no memory of glasses, no memory of what food is like in 2025... They would die. They would effectively be an infant.
To be agential in our universe is to be conscious. There is no distinction. The confusion comes when trying to separate agentiality from consciousness. A human has self diagnostic models, a mix of internal and external stimuli, and a whole host of chemical reactions that make up your consciousness. To say a P Zombie is not conscious is to say they would not receive an emotional improvement from my anti depressants in the morning. Emotion is consciousness.
The act of self modeling IS consciousness. There isn't anything else going on. It "feels" that way because "feeling" that way is *how" we self model. Consciousness isn't a thing its the sum total of all of your self modeling reified into a single experience to give you agency, which grants you an advantage in getting your fuck on.
I think a bigger issue I have, and failed to articulate at all lol, is that transition implies becoming meaning one has yet to "become" a woman... theyre in the process of doing so. Again.. a telos! But a telos we never even acknowledge as complete. Sure some passing people may have the luxury of not being assumed as trans, but if they were outed that prefix would appear again even when it seems like they're not Transitioning they've Transitioned... I don't have to specify that bread is Baked Bread, though its certainly useful to distinguish Baking Bread. Its implied it became Bread at some point down the line, a priori.
Oh also... yes we may "other" a convert or an immigrant, but that distinction ONLY arises if you are trying to somehow deem them different from you... If you somehow see it as a negative.
When I see a tran woman I literally do NOT need to know she is trans... it has no effect on how I treat them as a person. It makes sense in a legal setting, or face to face with your doctor, but socially distinguishing people as trans ONLY exists to categorize them as different from what they are.
philosophy @hexbear.net Kill the Woman in Your Mind - Free the Woman in Your Heart
It would be a lot of cutting, as memories are actually encoding in various places across the brain. We do know a lot about how memories function, but that is actually besides my point... We definitely know memory is somewhere in the brain... not elsewhere. Its a physical thing.
Talking strictly in terms of what p zombies can and cannot do feels a bit like asking whether unicorns would be able to fart rainbows if they existed. Do you want them to?
To me, entertaining the thought of a P Zombie is like asking me whether a unicorn can fart: sure why not but does that actually provide any utility to the conversation?
My belief is that consciousness is a result of your physical state, so asking me to make something with my physical state that isn't conscious is like asking me to imagine a computer that doesn't have a processor. That can't be. A computer is defined by its relationship to the processor!
How do we dissect a P Zombie that is fake conscious? How do we even suspect it's a P Zombie? Is the P Zombie dead after I take it's brain out?
This is exactly what I'm thinking though, how do you know it has no means of inteospection, no memory, or no foresight?
Where could it possibly obtain the mechanisms to do that? Those all originate from physical parts of our brain. I can literally cut out your memories with a scalpel...
Where does experience emerge from?
It's all diagnostic data for an agent, humming at once. It's the internal reification of all of your diagnostic data into a single sweater that you wear. Thousands and thousands of tiny threads that eventually make up one big "thought process" that we reify, but is really just a bunch of tiny processes happening simultaneously
Whether that computer feels the experience of playing pong is not something anyone but the computer itself can observe.
I am not talking about simply replacing the OS of a computer with another, I am talking about taking the exact state of the computer during runtime, and putting it in a different system. Or if we want to get virtual I am talking about taking a full snapshot of a VM.
I am pretty sure this is just a compsci way of explaining that one Star Trek teleporter episode.
We take the raw state of the man, and put it in a different place in spacetime, and see what part of his consciousness is lost along the way.
Pong is something an outside observer can see. We can show something is playing pong simply by seeing it, and transferring the code to anither PC may be a mysterious process to all but you, but seeing pong on another device would be readily evident to any observer with the senses to perceive it.
The computer is doing far more than just playing pong is the thing. Playing pong is actually the result of a fuck load of chemical and physical reactions, and programming, and system diagnostics. Consciousness is actually the result of internal diagnostics, chemical reactions, physical reactions, external stimuli, etc...
From the outsider perspective they will NEVER be able to discover the internal diagnostics of that Pong machine... They just see the machine as "playing pong" the same way you see me as "being a conscious entity"
If you take the exact state of one machine and put it in another you will immediately crash. I believe that is probably true for humans too. Our consciousness as we currently know it would certainly be real fucked up at least.
The electrical grid may be "experiencing" something but I feel like a lot of personifocation occurs when we attempt to imagine that feeling. The electrical grid has no means to introspect, so it's moment to moment feeling would be completely raw and impossible to pin down as it is changing rapidly through time. No memory, no foresight, no sensory data, nothing... Very hard to imagine.
It wouldn't ever feel alive because it would never possess the ability to self reflect.
It wouldn't be agential nor would it be aiming to achieve homeostasis.
It's like a single thread on your sweater. By itself it's incredibly basic, it gets more complex as it interacts with other matter. You don't "feel" thousands of individual threads though, when you wear a shirt. You reify it into a single experience.
Maybe this doesn't make much sense I am hungover af
Nah dawg I was really cooking with this comment last night you're the one rambling
I am not sure what this means. Are you suggesting an agent collecting diagnostic data is teleological? Or are you suggesting that the need for an agent to collect diagnostic data is teleological?
I can imagine plenty of things that collect data that aren't teleological but I am probably just not understanding your question.
A universal will is inherently teleological. An individual will that developed randomly within the universe doesn't have to be.
philosophy @hexbear.net Wtf is Rawlsianism about anyways?
philosophy @hexbear.net What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness?
it makes so much sense that he is a fed failson