116
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
116 points (96.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26709 readers
1784 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Your arrogance is staggering. Is science not also a form of philosophy? And anyway, it's not a scientific 'fact' that your consciousness will do anything at all, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet solved.
No science is not a form of philosophy. One is based on logic from priors or argument over Ordinary Language and the other is based empirical data. They have vastly different approaches and achieve vastly different goals. I am not going to ask a scientist the proper way to live and I am not going to ask a philosophy department head to explain momentum.
They might help each other, on occasion, but healing each other does not mean one is a subset of the other.
I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is both the rational (a priori) approach, and the empirical (a posteriori) approach.
The scientific method, whilst very useful, is still the empirical method with certain postulates.
It really isn't. The presumption argument requires that you are a mind reader and can be 100% certain that you know what unstated priors a person is operating under. If they deny them, you mere reassert it. It is a non-falisifable claim. Thus the attempt to disprove science required a return to faith.
Fish do fine and know nothing about water. Birds fly and don't understand aerodynamics. The vast majority of life in existence conducts energy production via ATP and only a small fraction of the human race has understood that. Fireflies don't know that they are doing the most efficient form of light production from chemicals ever found.
The whole presumption apologetics argument is a garbage heap only advocated for by people who value faith over experimental methods. A false attempt to sub in a bad contextualization from the things itself. You don't need to have a fully worked out from first principles understanding of the universe to conduct a basic experiment. It might be helpful, maybe, but it isn't required.
I don't understand how what you've said refutes my claim, sorry.
Very well. Try it a different way. You claim that scientists have priors that you have discovered. Please provide evidence of your claim. Use the scientific method and try to disprove it and fail.
Very nice. But now it's not an empirical debate, it's a linguistics debate. How do you define the scientific method?
Sure, 200 years ago when they called it 'natural philosoply', but the advent of the scientific method is what transitioned it away from pretty words and feelings to concrete observable, recordable data.
If you can't see the difference, you aren't worth wasting electrons on.
Oh but it is my friend and the wonderful thought experiment that is the game SOMA can make that clear to you, if you are capable of understanding it.
Every examination of cranial and nerve damage in relation to consciousness has made it pretty clear that whatever it is that is our self-awareness is tied to the fat and nerves in our skull, and when disturbed often have drastic results on our cognition, awareness, and sense of self. These are things we have been documenting for centuries. Damage the brain, damage the consciousness. And to a lesser extent the spine but that is still fringe.
Our consciousness isn't anything special phenomenologically, it consists of complex interactions yes but there is no non-material aspect of it other than what we experience as our cognition, which is not an actual space but rather the results of our self-modifying chemical cascade.
What you think of as arrogance is rather the result of spending decades both in a scholarly frame as well as for personal pleasure studying biology, physics, and psychology. I'm sorry that up until now your main conversation group has consisted of people who think communications in excess of 144 characters is mentally draining.
Yeah I'm with you on this. Even from a pure science fiction perspective there's just no way the experience of consciousness "transfers" by any currently understood science.
Just like when you move a computer's file across the Internet the result would be a copy, and that wouldn't really be noticable or impactful to the copy or the people who know you and the copy would interact with, but it would make a hell of a lot of difference for the person going in. Great if you're dying and want to do what you can (The Culture book series covers this possibility quite well) but otherwise small comfort.
Best case scenario is "The Prestige", but with a much quicker and cleaner death.
And if someone slaps "quantum entanglement" on the table like that is a real answer for anything, imma not even bother.
Fucking finally someone in this thread that makes sense.
Haven't read the Culture books yet but your post is the third reference I've seen this week so maybe I got a new series to read.
That's okay, you won't understand it.