Nate
@titchcat.bsky.social
It really doesn't matter - I'm not claiming it as true.
November 29, 2024 at 8:31 PM
It really doesn't matter - I'm not claiming it as true.
The values being contingent is not the default, there's no meaningful evidence to suggest that. I don't propose that the values have to be the way they are, it's just a possibility with the same credence.
November 29, 2024 at 6:33 PM
The values being contingent is not the default, there's no meaningful evidence to suggest that. I don't propose that the values have to be the way they are, it's just a possibility with the same credence.
Yes but there is no empirical argument or reasoning either way, no conclusion is supported, so one ought to be agnostic.
November 29, 2024 at 6:20 PM
Yes but there is no empirical argument or reasoning either way, no conclusion is supported, so one ought to be agnostic.
We have no evidence either way for them being necessary or contingent.
November 29, 2024 at 2:00 PM
We have no evidence either way for them being necessary or contingent.
Yes that's true, but that doesn't stop this being used as evidence for a multiverse, God, or something God-like, as Philip mentioned. To say that it's not surprising that we measure those values assumes all the other values have been true where we were not there to measure it.
November 29, 2024 at 1:29 PM
Yes that's true, but that doesn't stop this being used as evidence for a multiverse, God, or something God-like, as Philip mentioned. To say that it's not surprising that we measure those values assumes all the other values have been true where we were not there to measure it.
Would you really not know in the best possible world?
November 29, 2024 at 1:27 PM
Would you really not know in the best possible world?
This is irrelevant to Bayesian reasoning.
November 29, 2024 at 1:27 PM
This is irrelevant to Bayesian reasoning.
We don't know if they could possibly have been different, nor do we have any evidence, so we ought to be agnostic to the possibility.
November 28, 2024 at 10:08 PM
We don't know if they could possibly have been different, nor do we have any evidence, so we ought to be agnostic to the possibility.
But you're applying it objectively... I'm criticising the term finely-tuned as carrying an unproved presupposition that is objective, being that physical constants could be otherwise. I'm contending that it's not established whether it's a 'possibility' or not.
November 28, 2024 at 2:31 PM
But you're applying it objectively... I'm criticising the term finely-tuned as carrying an unproved presupposition that is objective, being that physical constants could be otherwise. I'm contending that it's not established whether it's a 'possibility' or not.
Finely-tuned is likely misleading... it implies the constants are possibly different, which people ought to be agnostic on in the absence of empirical evidence. Everyone would agree that if they could have been another way then the likelihood of them being precisely tuned for life is tiny.
November 28, 2024 at 10:49 AM
Finely-tuned is likely misleading... it implies the constants are possibly different, which people ought to be agnostic on in the absence of empirical evidence. Everyone would agree that if they could have been another way then the likelihood of them being precisely tuned for life is tiny.
Ontology: Idealism.
Epistemology: Vaguely pragmatist.
Philosophy of Religion: Cognitive theist (I made this term up)
Theology: A big mixture
Moral Philosophy: Virtue ethics
Meta-ethics: Non-cognitivist anti-realist
Personal identity: Hi I'm Nate :)
Free will: Contradictory concept
Time: Emergent
Epistemology: Vaguely pragmatist.
Philosophy of Religion: Cognitive theist (I made this term up)
Theology: A big mixture
Moral Philosophy: Virtue ethics
Meta-ethics: Non-cognitivist anti-realist
Personal identity: Hi I'm Nate :)
Free will: Contradictory concept
Time: Emergent
November 27, 2024 at 8:11 PM
Ontology: Idealism.
Epistemology: Vaguely pragmatist.
Philosophy of Religion: Cognitive theist (I made this term up)
Theology: A big mixture
Moral Philosophy: Virtue ethics
Meta-ethics: Non-cognitivist anti-realist
Personal identity: Hi I'm Nate :)
Free will: Contradictory concept
Time: Emergent
Epistemology: Vaguely pragmatist.
Philosophy of Religion: Cognitive theist (I made this term up)
Theology: A big mixture
Moral Philosophy: Virtue ethics
Meta-ethics: Non-cognitivist anti-realist
Personal identity: Hi I'm Nate :)
Free will: Contradictory concept
Time: Emergent
I have my system font set to comic sans so i believe everything i read now :(. Worth it!
November 26, 2024 at 6:24 PM
I have my system font set to comic sans so i believe everything i read now :(. Worth it!
We kind of (?) already have found most of the neural correlates of consciousness. Not exhaustively of course but we've found so much tie in of the brain to our conscious experience that we basically know what's going on. Explaining qualia, the 'what it's like' is what's hard for people, not this.
November 23, 2024 at 11:44 PM
We kind of (?) already have found most of the neural correlates of consciousness. Not exhaustively of course but we've found so much tie in of the brain to our conscious experience that we basically know what's going on. Explaining qualia, the 'what it's like' is what's hard for people, not this.
As a theory of consciousness, it doesn't explain consciousness. Science might just need more time, but I'm fairly sure there's a fundamental issue with doing that so it won't be able to.
November 23, 2024 at 11:29 PM
As a theory of consciousness, it doesn't explain consciousness. Science might just need more time, but I'm fairly sure there's a fundamental issue with doing that so it won't be able to.
To clarify the functionalism part - if consciousness is emergent over degrees of complexity in information processing or any other variable, then it must exist fundamentally as a physical law, which seems to be (formally) the same as panpsychism.
November 23, 2024 at 11:50 AM
To clarify the functionalism part - if consciousness is emergent over degrees of complexity in information processing or any other variable, then it must exist fundamentally as a physical law, which seems to be (formally) the same as panpsychism.
My confusion is that both claim some consciousness non-physical side to reality that increases in complexity proportionate to some variable. Functionalism claims consciousness is fundamental as some kind of physical law, which seems to be the same as panpsychism. I likely misunderstand one or both.
November 23, 2024 at 11:48 AM
My confusion is that both claim some consciousness non-physical side to reality that increases in complexity proportionate to some variable. Functionalism claims consciousness is fundamental as some kind of physical law, which seems to be the same as panpsychism. I likely misunderstand one or both.
But also, can't whatever factor that causes more complex consciousness in panpsychism be understood as a functionalist theory centred around that factor? I'm likely missing some key nuance here.
November 23, 2024 at 11:31 AM
But also, can't whatever factor that causes more complex consciousness in panpsychism be understood as a functionalist theory centred around that factor? I'm likely missing some key nuance here.
Would you reject that as empirical evidence for one theory, or claim there is empirical evidence for panpsychism? I'm curious.
November 23, 2024 at 11:12 AM
Would you reject that as empirical evidence for one theory, or claim there is empirical evidence for panpsychism? I'm curious.
It's counterintuitive to say that they're empirically equivalent given how tied our conscious experience is to our brain. This obviously isn't something you haven't heard before but I don't see how positing consciousness as fundamental has any empirical backing, just beating the hard problem.
November 23, 2024 at 11:11 AM
It's counterintuitive to say that they're empirically equivalent given how tied our conscious experience is to our brain. This obviously isn't something you haven't heard before but I don't see how positing consciousness as fundamental has any empirical backing, just beating the hard problem.
wait til you hear about what adam and eve did...
November 23, 2024 at 11:00 AM
wait til you hear about what adam and eve did...
(4) Leibniz was a theist
(5) Leibniz must have realised this argument was flawed
(C) Leibniz was a Jedi
(5) Leibniz must have realised this argument was flawed
(C) Leibniz was a Jedi
November 23, 2024 at 10:55 AM
(4) Leibniz was a theist
(5) Leibniz must have realised this argument was flawed
(C) Leibniz was a Jedi
(5) Leibniz must have realised this argument was flawed
(C) Leibniz was a Jedi
You've figured out how to do it in the sense that it's a coherent theory - not that you have sufficient justification or evidence for it. Physicalism as a theory is still superior in that regard, while still flawed.
November 23, 2024 at 10:27 AM
You've figured out how to do it in the sense that it's a coherent theory - not that you have sufficient justification or evidence for it. Physicalism as a theory is still superior in that regard, while still flawed.