The Hard Problem of Consciousness

1. 2019-03-21 at 10:42 AM UTC

   #201
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

   Originally posted by Common De-mominator It's not a matter of a theory having opponents you fuck wit: it is directly contradicted by data, such as the Chinese examples.

   
   Which of his 4 main hypotheses are contradicted?
2. 2019-03-21 at 10:43 AM UTC

   #202
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Originally posted by Common De-mominator It's not a matter of a theory having opponents you fuck wit: it is directly contradicted by data, such as the Chinese examples.

   
   Wait, wut? Chinese people lack conaciousness? What am I missing here?
3. 2019-03-21 at 10:46 AM UTC

   #203
   

   Common De-mominator African Astronaut

   Originally posted by gadzooks Wait, wut? Chinese people lack conaciousness? What am I missing here?

   
   They do not, they won a Nobel Prize in consciousness before Jaynes thought it possible.
4. 2019-03-21 at 10:47 AM UTC

   #204
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Divination is also considerably older than that date and the early writings he claims show bicamerality: The oldest recorded Chinese Writing was on oracle bones, meaning that divination arose at the same time or even earlier than writing in Chinese society.[37][not in citation given]

   
   So the Chinese developed conciousness before us? Big deal. That's not a counter argument.
   
   Unless you're racist and can't accept the hypothesis that the Chinese developed conciousness thought before the rest of the world?
   
   It certainly does not bother me, but, then again, I'm not a racist prick.
5. 2019-03-21 at 10:48 AM UTC

   #205
   

   Common De-mominator African Astronaut
   Same with Aborigines, who wouldn't have consciousness.
6. 2019-03-21 at 10:49 AM UTC

   #206
   

   Common De-mominator African Astronaut

   Originally posted by gadzooks So the Chinese developed conciousness before us? Big deal. That's not a counter argument.
   
   Unless you're racist and can't accept the hypothesis that the Chinese developed conciousness thought before the rest of the world?
   
   It certainly does not bother me, but, then again, I'm not a racist prick.

   
   They developed conscious thought outside of her proposed timeline, i.e. falsifying it on temporal grounds.
7. 2019-03-21 at 10:49 AM UTC

   #207
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Originally posted by Common De-mominator They do not, they won a Nobel Prize in consciousness before Jaynes thought it possible.

   
   The Nobel prize is not exactly the one true measure of scientific accuracy.
   
   Next you'll tell me the Academy awards are an objective source of quality in the cinematic arts.
8. 2019-03-21 at 10:51 AM UTC

   #208
   

   Common De-mominator African Astronaut

   Originally posted by gadzooks The Nobel prize is not exactly the one true measure of scientific accuracy.

   
   Lobotomy is a legitimate medical procedure.
   
   

   Next you'll tell me the Academy awards are an objective source of quality in the cinematic arts.

   
   No nobody in the Academy won a Nobel Prize in film, how can they be an authority?
9. 2019-03-21 at 10:51 AM UTC

   #209
   

   gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

   Originally posted by Common De-mominator They developed conscious thought outside of her proposed timeline, i.e. falsifying it on temporal grounds.

   
   HIS timeline, first of all. That's been bugging me for a while now.
   
   But more on topic: That does not disprove the theory. It it means that the predictions made based on the theory are slightly inaccurate. Do you have any idea how common a thing that is in science and academia? It probably happen a 50 times a day.
10. 2019-03-21 at 10:56 AM UTC

    #210
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut

    Originally posted by gadzooks HIS timeline, first of all. That's been bugging me for a while now.
    
    But more on topic: That does not disprove the theory. It it means that the predictions made based on the theory are slightly inaccurate. Do you have any idea how common a thing that is in science and academia? It probably happen a 50 times a day.

    
    No, it means she made a theory to fit the historical data but it doesn't fit all the relevant historical data. So it's a nice work of historical fiction "based on a true story".
    
    The Aboriginal example is good too.
11. 2019-03-21 at 10:57 AM UTC

    #211
    

    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Lobotomy is a legitimate medical procedure.

    
    I legitimately can't tell what you're driving it here.
    
    If you only approve of medical procedures that have won Nobel prizes in the field of Medicine, your options in the E.R. must be pretty restricting.
12. 2019-03-21 at 11 AM UTC

    #212
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Actual video of Hitler's final minutes (slightly inaccurate theory):
    
    
13. 2019-03-21 at 11:01 AM UTC

    #213
    

    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

    Originally posted by Common De-mominator No, it means she made a theory to fit the historical data but it doesn't fit all the relevant historical data. So it's a nice work of historical fiction "based on a true story".
    
    The Aboriginal example is good too.

    
    It is possible that we evolved consciousness at different rates, ya know?
    
    Either way, every theory has edge cases. Some kids die from being vaccinated.
    
    Are you also anti-vaxxer?
14. 2019-03-21 at 11:02 AM UTC

    #214
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut

    Originally posted by gadzooks I legitimately can't tell what you're driving it here.
    
    If you only approve of medical procedures that have won Nobel prizes in the field of Medicine, your options in the E.R. must be pretty restricting.

    
    Those procedures are usually reviewed by a Nobel Prize winner.
15. 2019-03-21 at 11:05 AM UTC

    #215
    

    gadzooks Dark Matter [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]

    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Those procedures are usually reviewed by a Nobel Prize winner.

    
    I respect the Nobel prize, but you're coming off as some kind of Nobel prize zealot.
16. 2019-03-21 at 11:05 AM UTC

    #216
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut

    Originally posted by gadzooks It is possible that we evolved consciousness at different rates, ya know?
    
    Either way, every theory has edge cases. Some kids die from being vaccinated.
    
    Are you also anti-vaxxer?

    
    There's nothing to support the theory and the theory does not fit the data nor even really make testable predictions, nor answers the Hard Problem.
    
    I mean you can read it if you want, but understand that you're not really receiving any information about reality from it.
17. 2019-03-21 at 11:06 AM UTC

    #217
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Btw many vaccine scientists have won the Nobel Prize in vaccination.
18. 2019-03-21 at 11:11 AM UTC

    #218
    

    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

    Originally posted by Common De-mominator There's nothing to support the theory and the theory does not fit the data nor even really make testable predictions, nor answers the Hard Problem.
    
    I mean you can read it if you want, but understand that you're not really receiving any information about reality from it.

    
    You haven't even read it.
19. 2019-03-21 at 11:12 AM UTC

    #219
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut

    Originally posted by Obbe You haven't even read it.

    
    Why would I read it if it hasn't even won a Nobel prize and is wrong?
20. 2019-03-21 at 11:14 AM UTC

    #220
    

    Common De-mominator African Astronaut
    Is Jayden Jaymes won a Nobel prize or if the data all fit or if people thought that it was actually valuable for studying consciousness then I might read it.