SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
on 15 Aug 16:44
nextcollapse
Average US voter
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
on 15 Aug 16:52
collapse
They do think. It’s just that they’re bad at it. All the stuff they complain about is just in their heads.
Lemminary@lemmy.world
on 15 Aug 17:08
nextcollapse
I’m just glad I’m seeing the democrats start pushing back with the same vitriol republicans have used, and are finding out the other side is full of snowflakes who can’t take the heat. Good job, USians! One step in the right direction. Get down and dirty with it, it’s about damn time.
It is nice to see them grow part of a spine, but based on history, the Dem party leadership will nip that in the bud by next summer when the mid term election cycle is in full swing in a lame attempt to sway moderate and conservative voters.
again
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Aug 21:19
collapse
Just because it didn’t work the last 17 times doesn’t mean it won’t suddenly work now!
No no no, if you don’t constantly support the policies that got us here, youre an accellerationist who want the republicans to win. Which is definitely a real position people on lemmy have. Don’t ask them, just trust me and block any instance left of tepid liberalism.
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
on 15 Aug 17:22
nextcollapse
We are all manipulated to think a certain way by our garbage media diet and lackluster advertising regulations. It’s impossible to avoid the bs projected at us 24/7. I constantly have to drive by billboards with anti-abortion propaganda slogans on them…
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
on 15 Aug 19:19
collapse
I know. I’m not saying this from any kind of high horse. It’s not just the US and Americans aren’t inherently weaker or dumber or whatever else. It’s just a particularly shitty situation. We’re most likely heading towards similar times over here in Europe.
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
on 15 Aug 19:27
collapse
No one is immune to it and you are correct that is starting to really pickup in Europe too.
Fil was arguing Obama care shut down his doctor because too many patients were using it.
Then I said hmm thats interesting so all those ppl didn’t have health insurance before then? Then started blaming Obama for again for decreasing health insurance profits. I went to break Then.
mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Aug 16:46
nextcollapse
This is a great example in support of something I often think about. We see our consciousness as “me” and as “the thing in charge” of the body, but really it’s more of an ancillary subprocess that the body runs for its own benefit. It’s just a special subprocess that does its job best when it mistakenly thinks of itself as being the boss of the body.
I mean that’s basically what a person who is a vegetable is (sorry, don’t know the correct terminology, someone probably will be offended by that phrase)
The vegetative state is a chronic or long-term condition. This condition differs from a coma: a coma is a state that lacks both awareness and wakefulness. Patients in a vegetative state may have awoken from a coma, but still have not regained awareness. In the vegetative state patients can open their eyelids occasionally and demonstrate sleep-wake cycles, but completely lack cognitive function.
I don’t see how either sentence follows. Rephrasing your comment and supplementing it with context to explain your reasoning may better communicate your point.
Chakravanti@monero.town
on 16 Aug 03:24
nextcollapse
He’s not communicating. He’s bragging. Although in truth, he’s actually demonstrating because there’s no purpose in showing you his knowledge. That means he’s showing you what he understands and sees rather than explaining. Explaining is extensive and difficult because the many are blind even though they can read so often don’t see their own lack of ability to see reality.
I can explain more deeply but I think I’m just going to go masterbate instead.
That’s not muscle. Even metaphorically. He’s trying to help you better than most. Look, see how well explantion even did?
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
on 16 Aug 04:57
collapse
Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.
Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.
Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.
As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don’t close the investigative and theory making space.
I can see what points you’re making, but it’s unclear what you’re arguing for. It would be helpful if you made that explicit, too.
My best guess is that you don’t think that consciousness is emergent. What then, do you consider the nature of consciousness to be? Are you perhaps agnostic on the matter?
I agree that strong emergence sounds like magic and I’m therefore highly sceptical of its existence. I find consciousness one of the most intriguing and mysterious phenomena we know of - I don’t really think I understand it to a degree where I can make confident claims about its nature. But dualism sounds like magic too, so weak emergence seems to me the most reasonable and likely mechanism, not least because it’s one we actually observe in reality.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
on 16 Aug 06:10
collapse
I lean toward agnosticism here, because I see real merits and pitfalls on both sides. If I were clever enough, I’d try to devise an experiment that cut between them—but part of me suspects that no such experiment is possible, precisely because the conceptual frame might already bias the outcome.
I’m wary of dismissing strong emergence simply because it ‘sounds like magic.’ That response risks becoming circular: we assume everything unexplained must eventually be physically explainable, since everything explained so far has been physical. But that’s not really evidence—it’s induction edging into dogma.
This is where I find Wittgenstein helpful. ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ But silence, to me, doesn’t mean disengagement. It means recognizing that consciousness may resist the clean resolutions science is used to delivering. To turn away from that means not being rigorous. To turn away from that mystery just because it unsettles our frameworks seems to me to miss something vital about living—and thinking—at all.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t really disagree with anything you laid out here.
I’ll just add that I think we don’t yet have the conceptual frameworks to fully describe (and by extension - understand) the problem in the first place.
Yes, strong emergence seems like magic, as does dualism. But if there is no magic, consciousness feels like the closest thing to it; so who knows?
That makes more sense. Thanks for the response! I’m not sure if can agree with your conclusions. It may be that I’m still missing context you’re working within. My best guess is you’re assuming some axioms that I am not. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think you’re incorrect. We might just be operating with different frameworks.
I agree that strong emergence and weak emergence seem different by your definitions. I’m not convinced strong emergence is a thing. Is there a compelling argument that the perception of strong emergence is actually a more complex weak emergence that the observers have not fully understood?
Something something Occam’s Razor / god of the gaps something. I find these sorts of discussions quite compelling. Thanks again for engaging. :)
idiomaddict@lemmy.world
on 15 Aug 20:13
nextcollapse
Like why Reubens are so good. I don’t like salty protein, bread with caraway seeds, thousand island dressing or Swiss cheese, but fuck is a Reuben delicious.
Reubens are the only beef food I used eat in my 20s. I’ve since switched to seitan, but there’s something about the combo that just works. The rye bread is a key part of it.
That’s why I said salty protein :) Swiss cheese is imo so unremarkable that the dairy free version is just as good, and a vegan Reuben is still a perfect sandwich.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev
on 16 Aug 02:50
nextcollapse
Can you explain what this means?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Aug 12:41
nextcollapse
There’s no biological structure the creates consciousness to the ppint where you can say “if you have x, you’re conscious”, to the point where saying “humans are conscious” or even “only humans are conscious” aren’t always true. Many elephants are conscious. Some dogs are consciohs. Some humans aren’t. And no, the split between humans are/aren’t conscious ARE NOT CORRELATED WITH DEMOGRAPHIC (fuck Nazis and racists), nor is it easy to draw a line in the sand because it’s a spectrum.
It comes from having a brain that’s complex enough. Decision making process start interacting together in unexpenced ways, with subtle variations caused by genetics and history. Literally just read the wikipedia page the previous person posted and apply that same logic to brains and minds.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev
on 16 Aug 22:54
collapse
Thank you!
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Aug 18:40
collapse
Conscious (sentience / sapience) is an ineffable, unmeasurable, quality. There is no way to say that one sentient being is more or less sentient than another. In fact there is no way to tell that I am not the only consciousness in existence but it feels rude not to give others the benefit of the doubt. We can create neurons and even small brains in the lab but we don’t have any way to instill life into that neuron. Consciousness simply emerges out of the constituent parts of being alive, possibly even as a result of the interactions of such a complex system.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev
on 16 Aug 22:54
collapse
Thank you!
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Aug 14:30
collapse
Thanks for the daily dose of mini-existential crisis 🫠
[Internal Monologue] What the fuck am I? HOW IS BEING ALIVE POSSIBLE? WTF?!?
You are a nervous system, piloting a space suit made of meat.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 16 Aug 16:15
nextcollapse
Read ‘blindsight’
bitcrafter@programming.dev
on 17 Aug 00:04
collapse
I think that is a bit of a misleading way of putting it because the feeling being a “self” that is in charge of the body is an experience that is contained within consciousness rather than the essential nature of it; in principle, one could imagine having consciousness without any feeling of being a “self” at all.
If I had to define the nature of consciousness, I would say that it is essentially an internal simulation that the brain creates in order to aggregate information from various sources in order to facilitate processing and decision making. Just to be clear, this is not my own original idea, and more importantly I do not think that it is a particularly clever or deep way of thinking about consciousness, but rather the inevitable conclusion one reaches when one plays around with one’s own attention and awareness and sees what happens; the trick is just to do it like a scientist and be constantly challenging one’s own conclusions, rather than to invent one’s own version of chakras. I find it especially enlightening to watch what the mind does when one tries not to steer it into doing anything; with some practice, it is possible to watch the “self” pretend to be in charge while simultaneously realizing it is not, and this experience can be helpful (though frustratingly I have not found it to be as immediately life-changing as I might have hoped).
If this is a typical example, you must get some top quality hatemail. There's nothing quite like being told to digest your own brain to convey the poster's opinion of you.
why do our manymanymiles of roads suck!
damn DMV taking forever!
taxation is theft!
downtown looks pretty shitty, they should clean that up more!
I don’t want my tax dollars spent on non-car infrastructure!
threaded - newest
I hear ya, squirt. I hear ya.
What?
These are some of the closest relatives of the vertebrates, by the way.
Sea squirt looking at us doing dumb things to the planet: … nah, don’t know those guys, not related at all
I mean, it's not like we're the worst. Stromatolites completely fucked up the atmosphere and it's still full of poison billions of years later.
In that context, we emerged to thrive on and require that poison like some kind of ghoul feeding off a river of demonic ooze from hell.
Makes sense why we keep fucking shit up.
Sounds like fun guys…
One is now sitting in the White House
Average US voter
They do think. It’s just that they’re bad at it. All the stuff they complain about is just in their heads.
I’m just glad I’m seeing the democrats start pushing back with the same vitriol republicans have used, and are finding out the other side is full of snowflakes who can’t take the heat. Good job, USians! One step in the right direction. Get down and dirty with it, it’s about damn time.
It is nice to see them grow part of a spine, but based on history, the Dem party leadership will nip that in the bud by next summer when the mid term election cycle is in full swing in a lame attempt to sway moderate and conservative voters.
again
Just because it didn’t work the last 17 times doesn’t mean it won’t suddenly work now!
And if you criticize our failing strategy you are actually a right winger, you just don’t know it!
No no no, if you don’t constantly support the policies that got us here, youre an accellerationist who want the republicans to win. Which is definitely a real position people on lemmy have. Don’t ask them, just trust me and block any instance left of tepid liberalism.
We are all manipulated to think a certain way by our garbage media diet and lackluster advertising regulations. It’s impossible to avoid the bs projected at us 24/7. I constantly have to drive by billboards with anti-abortion propaganda slogans on them…
I know. I’m not saying this from any kind of high horse. It’s not just the US and Americans aren’t inherently weaker or dumber or whatever else. It’s just a particularly shitty situation. We’re most likely heading towards similar times over here in Europe.
No one is immune to it and you are correct that is starting to really pickup in Europe too.
Fil was arguing Obama care shut down his doctor because too many patients were using it. Then I said hmm thats interesting so all those ppl didn’t have health insurance before then? Then started blaming Obama for again for decreasing health insurance profits. I went to break Then.
This is a great example in support of something I often think about. We see our consciousness as “me” and as “the thing in charge” of the body, but really it’s more of an ancillary subprocess that the body runs for its own benefit. It’s just a special subprocess that does its job best when it mistakenly thinks of itself as being the boss of the body.
I mean that’s basically what a person who is a vegetable is (sorry, don’t know the correct terminology, someone probably will be offended by that phrase)
In a coma?
Spot the fuck on. BTDT.
In a vegetative state would be more accurate:
Didn’t know that! Thanks for the clarification!
I didn’t either til I looked it up!
Consciousness is 100% an emergent property.
It would be strongly emergent then. And strong emergence is basically magic.
I don’t see how either sentence follows. Rephrasing your comment and supplementing it with context to explain your reasoning may better communicate your point.
He’s not communicating. He’s bragging. Although in truth, he’s actually demonstrating because there’s no purpose in showing you his knowledge. That means he’s showing you what he understands and sees rather than explaining. Explaining is extensive and difficult because the many are blind even though they can read so often don’t see their own lack of ability to see reality.
I can explain more deeply but I think I’m just going to go masterbate instead.
Weird flex but… Ok.
That’s not muscle. Even metaphorically. He’s trying to help you better than most. Look, see how well explantion even did?
Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.
Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.
Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.
As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don’t close the investigative and theory making space.
I can see what points you’re making, but it’s unclear what you’re arguing for. It would be helpful if you made that explicit, too.
My best guess is that you don’t think that consciousness is emergent. What then, do you consider the nature of consciousness to be? Are you perhaps agnostic on the matter?
I agree that strong emergence sounds like magic and I’m therefore highly sceptical of its existence. I find consciousness one of the most intriguing and mysterious phenomena we know of - I don’t really think I understand it to a degree where I can make confident claims about its nature. But dualism sounds like magic too, so weak emergence seems to me the most reasonable and likely mechanism, not least because it’s one we actually observe in reality.
I lean toward agnosticism here, because I see real merits and pitfalls on both sides. If I were clever enough, I’d try to devise an experiment that cut between them—but part of me suspects that no such experiment is possible, precisely because the conceptual frame might already bias the outcome.
I’m wary of dismissing strong emergence simply because it ‘sounds like magic.’ That response risks becoming circular: we assume everything unexplained must eventually be physically explainable, since everything explained so far has been physical. But that’s not really evidence—it’s induction edging into dogma.
This is where I find Wittgenstein helpful. ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’ But silence, to me, doesn’t mean disengagement. It means recognizing that consciousness may resist the clean resolutions science is used to delivering. To turn away from that means not being rigorous. To turn away from that mystery just because it unsettles our frameworks seems to me to miss something vital about living—and thinking—at all.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t really disagree with anything you laid out here.
I’ll just add that I think we don’t yet have the conceptual frameworks to fully describe (and by extension - understand) the problem in the first place.
Yes, strong emergence seems like magic, as does dualism. But if there is no magic, consciousness feels like the closest thing to it; so who knows?
That makes more sense. Thanks for the response! I’m not sure if can agree with your conclusions. It may be that I’m still missing context you’re working within. My best guess is you’re assuming some axioms that I am not. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think you’re incorrect. We might just be operating with different frameworks.
I agree that strong emergence and weak emergence seem different by your definitions. I’m not convinced strong emergence is a thing. Is there a compelling argument that the perception of strong emergence is actually a more complex weak emergence that the observers have not fully understood?
Something something Occam’s Razor / god of the gaps something. I find these sorts of discussions quite compelling. Thanks again for engaging. :)
Like why Reubens are so good. I don’t like salty protein, bread with caraway seeds, thousand island dressing or Swiss cheese, but fuck is a Reuben delicious.
Reubens are the only beef food I used eat in my 20s. I’ve since switched to seitan, but there’s something about the combo that just works. The rye bread is a key part of it.
That’s why I said salty protein :) Swiss cheese is imo so unremarkable that the dairy free version is just as good, and a vegan Reuben is still a perfect sandwich.
Can you explain what this means?
There’s no biological structure the creates consciousness to the ppint where you can say “if you have x, you’re conscious”, to the point where saying “humans are conscious” or even “only humans are conscious” aren’t always true. Many elephants are conscious. Some dogs are consciohs. Some humans aren’t. And no, the split between humans are/aren’t conscious ARE NOT CORRELATED WITH DEMOGRAPHIC (fuck Nazis and racists), nor is it easy to draw a line in the sand because it’s a spectrum.
It comes from having a brain that’s complex enough. Decision making process start interacting together in unexpenced ways, with subtle variations caused by genetics and history. Literally just read the wikipedia page the previous person posted and apply that same logic to brains and minds.
Thank you!
Conscious (sentience / sapience) is an ineffable, unmeasurable, quality. There is no way to say that one sentient being is more or less sentient than another. In fact there is no way to tell that I am not the only consciousness in existence but it feels rude not to give others the benefit of the doubt. We can create neurons and even small brains in the lab but we don’t have any way to instill life into that neuron. Consciousness simply emerges out of the constituent parts of being alive, possibly even as a result of the interactions of such a complex system.
Thank you!
Thanks for the daily dose of mini-existential crisis 🫠
[Internal Monologue] What the fuck am I? HOW IS BEING ALIVE POSSIBLE? WTF?!?
You are a nervous system, piloting a space suit made of meat.
Read ‘blindsight’
I think that is a bit of a misleading way of putting it because the feeling being a “self” that is in charge of the body is an experience that is contained within consciousness rather than the essential nature of it; in principle, one could imagine having consciousness without any feeling of being a “self” at all.
If I had to define the nature of consciousness, I would say that it is essentially an internal simulation that the brain creates in order to aggregate information from various sources in order to facilitate processing and decision making. Just to be clear, this is not my own original idea, and more importantly I do not think that it is a particularly clever or deep way of thinking about consciousness, but rather the inevitable conclusion one reaches when one plays around with one’s own attention and awareness and sees what happens; the trick is just to do it like a scientist and be constantly challenging one’s own conclusions, rather than to invent one’s own version of chakras. I find it especially enlightening to watch what the mind does when one tries not to steer it into doing anything; with some practice, it is possible to watch the “self” pretend to be in charge while simultaneously realizing it is not, and this experience can be helpful (though frustratingly I have not found it to be as immediately life-changing as I might have hoped).
Me, rotting in bed
Lucky bastard
This hurts, I got denied for a loan for a house a few years ago.
You should find a rock and then digest your brain.
Seeing your reply out of context made me think “what did I do to get hatemail this time?”
I wonder if we can get the fortnite/counterstrike kids too use this instead of the old classic: KYS
There’s just something more refined about it
If this is a typical example, you must get some top quality hatemail. There's nothing quite like being told to digest your own brain to convey the poster's opinion of you.
Botryllus schlosseri, also called a star tunicate, is humans’ closest evolutionary relative among invertebrates in the sea. […] The way the invertebrate’s brain degenerates and disappears has important parallels to the way the brain degenerates in human neural disorders.
s/disorders/orders
Me too buddy
I’ve never seen an organic political stance before… that’s amazing.
Finally understand republicans
Invertebates United
Dem property taxes!
why do our manymanymiles of roads suck! damn DMV taking forever! taxation is theft! downtown looks pretty shitty, they should clean that up more! I don’t want my tax dollars spent on non-car infrastructure!
Same. It’s why I hate change. You know how much it hurts to regrow your brain? It hurts a lot!
It really depends on the capacity for knowledge.
Most people (these days) can painlessly regrow a brain with just a few YouTube tutorials, viral videos & a couple of memes.
I retired 7 years ago and can relate.
Some of my colleagues fit the description. Been there for ages producing virtually nothing, and you can’t squeeze an ounce of thinkign out of them.
Clearly parasitizing that brain coral.
Relatable
Original flavor MAGA