followed tags: 21
followed domains: 0
badges given: 1 of 1
member for: 2359 days
Yeah, agreed. Tragic character. Tragic field. Very well written. I think neuroscience has helped philosophy of the mind quite a bit -- these guy can start testing their phenomenology in some way. I've heard whispers that the field is quietly progressing.
Let's start with this idea: The subjective experience (aka phenomenal experience) is a hypothetical model of reality. The brain represents the world to itself, itself being another representation. A combined simulation and emulation. But we are naive realists; the brain does not represent the representing; we intuitively believe our given experience is a direct experience with reality. Our intuitions are wrong. We mistakenly believe what we see is the external reality and not our brain flipping a grid of optical nerves firing and calling it real.
To our intuitions, freewill exists. We definitely have a sense of freewill. I perceive I can direct my attentional resources to all sorts of phenomena, concepts, and engage in all sorts of actions. I cannot perceive the physics determining my freewill. Neither does my brain represent to me it's subconscious processes which the conscious percept of freewill emerges. Right. And those subconscious processes emerge from physics, if we are to accept materialism.
Let's accept materialism. Freewill is an extension of physics. Physics is ultimately in control of freewill. If someone had the proper information, they could predict your every action and could manipulate physics to produce whatever result they wanted given it fits the constraints of what's possible.
Feels crappy doesn't it? It directly clashes with our intuition. It feels we aren't really in control.
And now what happens to the concept of responsibility? Can any brain be guilty of what physics determines?
Here's a pretty interesting quote from this discussion from r/depthhub on freewill:
- >If every 'bad' act is committed by a brain bound to obey its own physics, is a human ever truly guilty of such an act?
- I think the problem here lies in some confusion, as if guilt exists outside the universe, rather than being a description of something in it. If it turned out that physical determinism was absolutely and obviously true, would it change how we treated guilt and innocence? The crime and the punishment would all be part of the same clockwork; the meaningfulness of the crime and the punishment, if they're at all dependent on determinism, move in lockstep with it.
- >the one that most people seem to believe in / hope for: being free from any third party's control, including the laws of physics - making choices and performing actions from pure will alone.
- There's a fundamental confusion here. You're not competing with the laws of physics (I don't think that's even a well-defined state of things); you are made out of the laws of physics. Your "pure will" is made out of physics. The ill-defined idea of "pure will", like a glowing ball bearing in the center of your skull, is an artifact of the way we think; it doesn't necessary have any meaningful correlates in reality.
Our intuitions are wrong, but we have them for a reason: they work. A sense of agency is a key part of consciousness in humans because it helps to form the gestalt of ourselves as dynamic agents in a world of branching paths. Could we make sense of ourselves without it? Responsibility, blame, guilt are feelings and concepts made of the intersection between value systems and causal relationships. Could we function intelligently without them?
Yeah that screen door effect will be a problem for a while, even with an HD version. Apparently even if you had 4k resolution, you'd still be able to see pixels.
I don't care. Well, maybe I will. I'll see for myself if I care.
I would find it interesting if this article explored how a consuming culture is engineered. I'm not quite sure I buy that there is a Capital T They enforcing a cultural standard as a business strategy. My gut feeling is this culture emerged organically, contrary to this title.
That said, I agree that mindlessly consuming is spiritually unsatisfying and the forty-hour workweek ends up reinforcing in part those impulses.
I think you would enjoy this: Romance, the Infinite Leap, and Why It Doesn't Really Matter Who You're With. So you say take a step back, perhaps from the general, and then this guy says make the infinite leap towards the particular.
Those ideas expressed made me OK with settling into somebody.
Oculus Rift is my boyhood dream, one still valid for it's a whole new medium of entertainment. That can happen in my lifetime? DAMN.
My brother got a development kit and he tells it, yes it's legitimate, it's incredible, it's nauseating, and yes I will be trying it for myself at Christmas.
It was explained to me that 5c is really just the five, but with less expensive materials and a fresh look aimed at those who would like that sort of thing. They've always sold three iphones: flagship 199 on contract, last years model 99 on contract, and the year before that free on contract. So they've got all price markets covered there save for the unlocked crowd (in other news NEXUS FIVE!)
So last year, they were selling $199iphone5, $99iphone4s, $0iphone4. They want to bump everything forward this year and drop the iphone4. Except a $99iphone5 is kind of awkwwwaaaard. I mean, for them it still carries really expensive materials but you're selling it for cheaper so profit margins take a hit. And the look of the phone with all those expensive materials is dilluting iphone5s look.
5c will probably start selling later, because the wait-in-line for a phone probably wants the 5s, but the buyer with a contract expiring might be more inclined to go for 5c. It's worth pointing out that an alternate universe un-c'd version of iphone5 would probably have sold less than 5c.
All this is interesting in that the major innovation here seems to be Apple as Primarily Fashion and then working behind the scenes to make that fashion as cheaply as possible. It's a good business strategy that only they can really execute here. For me, it's interesting but unexciting. I'm all about android's flexibility and it's integration into google's incredible service arm.
Concept splintered, threaded together Tangled outfits of neural nets The outside put together: I am the monitor and the camera. The mirror exists in me and I am the mirror. I watch myself writing You shaped by your gorgeous skin. Can't I demand of what you create of me? Think of me without stereotype. No shortcuts. Think of me as a thoughtful edit. Think of me as sexy. Think of My eyes. Sparkly no? They are windows though My soul by upside down spark Of your own optical nerve And then a gestalt.
The switch is heavy as a trigger, but always worth it.