Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't understand where your position is - does your brain tell you it's smudging over part of your vision or does it just do so without telling you, whether you like it or not? You don't have any part of your brain telling you its doing that trick - there's no hardware or software there to do that. You're left numb to it. How much else are you left numb to? The edges of your vision just kind of run out as well, rather than have any kind of sign of where they end.Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.
But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?
That arrangement 'A: A reporter and B: One who gives the report', why would that have to be the case? Why would there even be two 'entities'
A creature that cannot report how it works can just as much be 'A: A mechanism and B: A verbal system with limited access to the prior mechanism it runs on - much like software running on hardware and )
Otherwise I don't know what you're saying - my computer is going to give the server the SA forums a report. Are these two entities?
I don't understand this part ->
" the software's code can't access all the hardware because there isn't hardware for accessing the other hardware (also the software isn't even code to show this absence, in much the same way as we all have a blindspot in out sight but it is smudged over and hidden from us, without native documentation"
Could give an example of software and hardware? I don't see how the software/hardware lack of access is at all like the blindspot that is smudged over?
But what ensures A should always be the result? Why doesn't some event B sometimes end up as the result instead of A? The usual explanation seems to be that there are brute facts that are called "natural laws". Yet why don't the "laws" change? What keeps them in place? "Meta-laws"?
Well I did say a creature that cannot report how it works.
But even the attempt suggests two entities, the reporter and the one given the report?
Yeah, fair enough. I'll just break down the first part - they are not trying to think of how an arrangement of atoms could result in a creature that cannot report how it works.
Doesn't "report" imply a relationship between a set of data and its observer?
Yeah, fair enough. I'll just break down the first part - they are not trying to think of how an arrangement of atoms could result in a creature that cannot report how it works.IIRC Sam is a Neuroscience PhD, as such I doubt he's telling people in his own field to just give up researching the brain. Rather he's asking how you can go from matter that lacks consciousness to something that has consciousness - his object[ion], AFAICTell, is that there's a Something from Nothing problem.They don't seem to be thinking about looking at an arrangement that would result them saying 'wouldn't give you the answer as to to why that arrangement works'.
I think Nagel said something similar, how describing the arrangement of atoms* that bring about consciousness wouldn't give you the answer as to why that arrangement works
Their critique is being done at a recursive level and absent a third recursive level to see the second, they don't consider seeing an arrangement that not only shows their critical responce, but makes sense that it would result in those critical words being uttered.
I don't understand this reply at all.
IIRC Sam is a Neuroscience PhD, as such I doubt he's telling people in his own field to just give up researching the brain. Rather he's asking how you can go from matter that lacks consciousness to something that has consciousness - his object[ion], AFAICTell, is that there's a Something from Nothing problem.They don't seem to be thinking about looking at an arrangement that would result them saying 'wouldn't give you the answer as to to why that arrangement works'.
I think Nagel said something similar, how describing the arrangement of atoms* that bring about consciousness wouldn't give you the answer as to why that arrangement works
Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.
Just letting you know I have the current high score.Is that 23? It gets pretty tough as it slowly dials up the enemies reaction speed over time. Considering some kind of health system for missed clicks and to cap the reaction increase at a certain point and just make it random.
How is it? I keep forgetting about it lol.
