I already posted a comment on this, but forgot to answer the actual question. I don’t think it follows that it’s wrong to commoditize basic necessities. Take, for example, food: the reason just about everyone in the western world can afford food is BECAUSE it is commoditized.
I would like the barriers to home ownership to be lowered. On the other hand, I don’t think the rental market is evil. A lot of people can’t afford to buy homes, and without homes for rent would be out on the street.
I think there is a big problem with housing affordability in many countries. It’s also a promising investment because, as Mark Twain says, “Buy land, they’re not making it any more.” This makes land unlike other commodities (you can just make more iPhones or whatever.) The situation leads to some movements which see land as inherently a public good, such as Georgism, on which there is a good Wikipedia article.
I think it would also be nice if there were some kind of scheme whereby property tax is low for a first home, but increases when you own more than one.
I use the 13 mini and am satisfied. The battery life is good, which is important… but I actually prefer touchID to faceID. The reason, I guess, is more consistent success and no accidental unlocking. It’s also nice to be able to unlock a phone on your desk without picking it up.
It’s like, people with scientistic views, praising objectivity, claiming that consciousness doesn’t exist, come out with conclusions like “a system understands Chinese.” I’m afraid I find this so ludicrous that I can’t continue the discussion on a civil level.
I guess it is hard to define because it’s such a basic, essential thing. So does it matter that it’s hard to define? Even babies and puppy dogs experience pain and pleasure. They are feeling creatures. We don’t have any evidence that non-biological beings have pain, pleasure, fear, excitement… and so on.
I don’t know where you get the idea that these guys are dualists. Maybe Chalmers, but I don’t think so. My favorites are Nagel and Searle, and neither is a dualist or a neo-Cartesian. Their main contribution, I believe, is simply to show how silly the computational theory of mind is. Dennet may be easier to read because he professes something which inspires the imagination, and is easy to digest, since it doesn’t conform to the truth.
This is just full of ontological and epistemological assumptions which have been mainstream for a few decades but are very controversial among philosophers. Philosophers don’t sit in bubbles—and use all the evidence they can find—and make great contributions to knowledge, even though what they do is not science. There’s a reason there are other subjects besides chemistry and physics.
I agree with you. The way I stated it was a little blunt. But no matter what the hard sciences show, they don’t really make claims about subjective experience. This is simply because the hard sciences by definition make no such claims. They can find things like correlations between states of matter and claimed subjective experience, but this doesn’t really get to the point. I think if it ever does, it will be such a huge revolution that what we’re left with should be called something other than physics or chemistry.
You’re right. I’m being repetitive. But it’s not really an argument. All I’m doing is saying the definition of science, at least as it’s historically been defined. The only bit of argument I have there is that I think by forgetting this definition we’ve wandered astray.
But science has never said anything about it at all. The subject matter of science is the externally observable and consciousness is an internal category.
How can science, whose subject matter is the external world, explain the internal world of sentience? Not only has it contributed nothing to this question, it was also never supposed to.
It is if you take “sentience” to mean “the ability to feel,” which is what my dictionary just told me. I think this category really is the most basic differentiating one. Higher level stuff like self awareness all depend on it. The most basic difference between a computer and a human (or even a dog…) is, in my opinion, the ability to feel.
Philosophy is currently the only subject which can teach us about sentience (which I would define as the ability to experience.) This is because the subject matter of the sciences is the external world. During the scientific revolution, this limitation of science was, however, more generally and explicitly acknowledged than it is today, where there seems to be a lot of confusion about it. A good book on this stuff is Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos.
I do agree that the terminology is unfortunately convoluted. The main term is “consciousness,” which does often seem unclear to me.
The basic mystery is just the ability to experience/feel, and is an undeniable part of life, for humans and at least some animals.
The only physical evidence is found in behavior and facial expressions. But the internal evidence is very convincing: try, for example, sticking yourself with a pin. Much if not all of morality also depends on our belief in or knowledge of sentience. Sentience is why torture, rape and murder are wrong.
Our “societal system” does no such thing. If you wish to acquire something, you have to either trade for it (trade, for example, work), steal it, or acquire it from nature (as in hunting/gather thing). This is just nature, not a human system.
Well I have to admit, I don’t know their business model very well. But, at least in my case, if I did it for a while and calculated my reimbursement after the costs of running the car—and found out I wasn’t making enough—I would quit.
Uber doesn’t force anyone to work for them. If they feel exploited, they quit and do something else. That the company is making a lot of money shows that there is demand among their drivers. I just fail to see what’s wrong with that.
To me force—including reckless regulation—is the real exploitation.
If Uber were holding guns to peoples’ heads and forcing them to work, then I would most definitely condemn them. But people work voluntarily for Uber. So I can’t see that as oppressing them.
Call me naive, but if Uber exploits workers, why don’t they choose some other employer? If it’s the workers’ best choice, then thank goodness for Uber, right?
I would have really dug this when I was in college and considered myself far left, but now I don’t believe it makes any sense: the reason Uber has succeeded is that there are people who voluntarily use it to make money by driving and people who voluntarily use it for their transportation. It therefor fulfills both the desires of many drivers and passengers who see it as their best choice. Regulation may be great for the few licensed taxi drivers, but for everyone else it decreases availability and increases price.
I know Searle replied to this, but don’t remember what he said, except it seemed a little ridiculous to talk about sentient rooms. I think it’s much more plausible to just claim that the people who wrote the instructions know Chinese.
The question is whether there was ever a good reason to suggest that mind is computational, and I think philosophy (i.e. Searle) have shown that there wasn’t. A brain CAN compute (albeit very slowly), but that’s the end of the similarities.
The reason it’s not morally wrong, say, to recycle an old computer is that computers are not at all like human minds.