So humans that can't feel pain can't have morality? That doesn't make sense to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...
> So humans that can't feel pain can't have morality? That doesn't make sense to me.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...
You appear to understand "pain" in the most simplistic manner possible. I'd recommend not attempting iamverysmart gotchas.
I'd recommend you stick to reddit and don't pester any other forums.
It's not a simple counterexample, its a misunderstanding that reduced the very complex concept of "pain" to merely feeling a needle poke.
It's the kind of ignorant, technical dumbassery that makes a lot of software engineers feel like they're very clever.
There is still something in those people who cannot feel pain, and that’s the empathy. How can a GPU and software ever have a human empathy if it has never been human?
But the more things a person must close themselves off from, the less open their consideration of possibility, the more I tend to see their worldview as subservient to something else.
In this part of society it tends to be in support of rapid, high reliability problem-solving, and rational explanation thereof.
Starbuck collected data and William James turned the data into a compelling book, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Varieties draws on Starbuck's questionnaire data and names him dozens of times. Some of James’ main arguments were:
1) Against "medical materialism": a belief's origins don't settle its value. If Paul's vision is discredited by its physiology, so is the materialist's own conviction.
2) Mystical states: they carry authority for those who have them but don't bind others. Still, they break ordinary rational consciousness's claim to be the only authoritative kind. The sheer numbers of these, and the intact they have on healthy peoples’ lives, make it hard to argue rationally on an empirical basis that there is nothing there.
3) Structurally the conscious self is continuous with a "wider self" through which religious experiences come, which James calls the "more."
4) "The Will to Believe" (1896): Clifford's rule against believing on insufficient evidence is itself a personal preference, choosing to avoid error over gaining truth.
Following on that: your desire to be a reliable producer of material goods outweighs your desire to understand things that require you to take risks in assuming potentially false viewpoints. This is not common sense (whatever that means), it is an epistemological choice that seems common to you because of your educational and professional environment.
Its not his fault he existed before information theory existed and that it has physical cost. Even if we don't know information theory, its common sense that ones mood affects ones mind and life. If you wallow in negative thoughts, you will have various problems.
It has nothing to do with education, its that my "side" has continually triumphed over and disproven beliefs in anything beyond material physical systems over the centuries, I leave others as to which side of the bet they wish to take.
I cannot say anything further without actually reading his works or reviews of his work instead of just what you claim about them, no offense of course.
How, precisely, are you linking information theory to this?
I didn’t claim a side for you, you created that. From my perspective it is one system. Right now you are behaving as a person running an incentivized and specialized negentropic process. You are unknowingly chasing theological propositions and claiming victory every time the perspective can be durably shifted.
To move it back into a more familiar frame: theology loads in the low res view and you claim victory while most of what you did was disaggregate pixel values, but collectively a lot of people like you can form new more accurate images in certain parts of the low res view.
While you move through doing that, though, adjacent areas open up where you have no purchase, religion steps in again, and the process repeats.
There is a core that doesn’t disaggregate. That is where the pixels are coming from. That is what you cannot see when all you want is higher resolution.
https://thedebrief.org/new-theory-suggests-consciousness-may...
I mean this earnestly. Do you know any physics at all? Did you have physics in school? Do you think waves are "magical" or non-material? The theory of waves is one of the great works in physics and mathematics. That paper seems to posit a completely normal physical hypothesis.
The materialist always thinks they will keep finding more and more material, the smallest "thing". You will spit things infinitely and you will never see your trun nature.
At which atom in a piece of metal does the temperature 20C exist?
If you think physical sciences don't have the concept of states and macro configurations, then I don't even know what to say.
I understand that things can appear like a material, but the underlying nature of the universe is non-material. What we see as an atom is only our minds collapsing the probability of a wave.
This can all be proven with the very childish thought problem of infinite halving. To say that calculus solves this is laughable:
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/can-the-area-of-a-c...
"Nothing Is Ever Precise
We can never know anything with complete precision. Length, mass, volume and other quantities can only be known to a certain level of precision. "
Do you see that, even the mathematicians say we can never know anything with complete precision. Yes, we can develop all these theories that work out in practice, but they are never 100% predictable.
My view is that almost is good enough to navigate the world.
Of course I know pi to as many digits I want. It is a turing program or the series for 4*tan(1) or the Ramanujan series or any other representation you prefer. All of these are quite finite and short representations that people just wrote on pieces of paper, nothing infinite about them.
Nothing being able to be known to infinite precision has not been any trouble to us for designing and building cars, washers, computers, drills or any other machinery and tools we have made. Unless you have evidence humans need some unbelievably high level of precision to model, that is not required.
I did not say that.
> Of course I know pi to as many digits I want.
But it never ends. Why are you ignoring that?
> Unless you have evidence humans need some unbelievably high level of precision to model,
I do not.