Underappreciated cause of lib-left fighting on here is that the 80th percentile MAGA member is still dumb as a bag of rocks and the modal conversation with them is like dragging your face across cement. Very rare to find a lib as useless to talk to as the average rightoid
A Handy Beginner’s Dictionary of Philosophy:
• Agency (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Art (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Consciousness (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Existence (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Identity (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Justice (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Knowledge (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Life (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Meaning (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Philosophy (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Truth (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Person (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Rationality (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Reality (n): unsure; meaning disputed
• Self (n): unsure; meaning disputed
What's the best way to solve linear regression? (No, it’s not least squares.)
In our new paper, we show that principal component regression (PCR) beats, up to constants, every monotone spectral filter (incl. gradient descent & ridge regression) on every problem instance! (1/8)
it's not any more problematic than the fact that fire is a plasma that burns everything it touches, or that gravity is an invisible non-reducible force the pulls everything towards itself
consciousness, in the colloquial sense, is an illusion
the hard problem of consciousness is only hard if one believes there is a "you" in the body
something is having an experience, but it's not "you"
the concept of self is an illusion
No, you have misunderstood. The hard problem survives elimination of the self; it is the presence of any experiential character of reality that is problematic
It's funny whenever some smartass goes "actually we are all atoms and everything is meaningless" to qualified people and learns that this isn't even remotely the academic consensus anymore.
Interesting how much of this discourse has gone from pretending it's about the functioning of neural networks and straight up to theological discussions about the soul
Not all who reject reductive materialism do so because of a desire for there to be a soul or something. In fact, if you accept some pretty reasonable positions and want to avoid a “magic” step, it’s pretty easy to fall into something that rejects materialism. It does sound
difficult to believe if you’re not well read on the subject, but sometimes that’s just how things go. Reductive materialism in its least magical form asks you to accept some pretty hard to accept things too, it turns out.
Something that gets missed when this comes up is that in the heavily populated parts of the Americas, much of the vulnerability to disease also came from the severe societal disruption experienced. Many of the very damaging plagues were from (probably) endemic diseases
you know how native americans were utterly anhiliated by european diseases they have no immune response to? how come the europeans didnt catch native american diseases in the same way
I don’t want to overstate the point, novel diseases wreaked havoc and move ahead of actual European expansion oftentimes. Just that the syndemic aspects absolutely should be remembered as well.
No. 6 plastic death just should be "the first glass beach album" but for some reason they didn't have that. I actually hate plastic death.
Tried to pick one album of every genre. Not necessarily my favorite now, but the one that introduced me to that world
No. 6 plastic death just should be "the first glass beach album" but for some reason they didn't have that. I actually hate plastic death.
Tried to pick one album of every genre. Not necessarily my favorite now, but the one that introduced me to that world
Having to simultaneously read awful reasoning about the death penalty (from both sides) and presence of consciousness (from both sides) is going to be what finally ends me
Consciousness is one of those tricky terms to describe. Its like an emergent byproduct of intelligence. Almost like attempting to observe an observation of itself.
But what is the connection between the presence of consciousness and reasoning for the death penalty? I was confused by that
Let me sidestep this a little. I think many people in these discussions don't have a firm meaning in mind, and a large portion of them really just mean something like "acts in a way sufficiently similar to a human" or "is of moral consequence" (they *mean* that it means that).
The poorly defined/understood terms by many people is a large part of why it is so frustrating.
That said, I think the most *interesting* versions of the question are the presence of subjectivity, the presence of phenomenal experience, and the coherence of those two ideas.
idk I think the burden of proof (or, if you like, the burden of persuasion) lies with those who think a concatenation of many matrix multiplications produces consciousness
Who the hell said it "affects the truth of a claim"?
And there is a clear default position: we have no idea what causes consciousness, and any arbitrary claim that [insert mechanism x] causes it is likely false, but the floor is open to show it's really [insert mechanism x].
You certainly seem to, otherwise I'm not sure what the point being made is-- you're not engaged in a debate with the guy you're retweeting.
What you've described doesn't give you a position on the presence of phenomenal consciousness in LLMs etc.
Repeatedly stating the thing you want to be true will do a lot to strengthen your conviction and little to sway people not already emotionally committed to that same position. This is not a good thing!