User Controls
Thanked Posts by SHARK
-
2019-03-08 at 11:10 PM UTC in What y'all reading?The Holy QuranThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-03-15 at 2:17 AM UTC in Why do we feed billions to our pet parasite Israel?Perhaps Pakistan and the rest of the nuclear world will collaborate to flash cook Israel in one final nuclear holocaust.
It could bridge the divide between the West and the Muslim world. It has been foretold by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that the Muslims and Christians will come together for Armageddon to eliminate the jedis. Each and every single jedi will be caught and punished. The trees will refuse refuge to the jedis who attempt to hide behind them and escape justice.
The jedi menace will be removed from the blue earth forever and the time is upon us.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-13 at 6:35 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-12 at 2:46 AM UTC in Theists of NIS, why do you believe?I am a theist of sorts.
Here is my logic.
If the universe is eternal, it suffers from the problems of infinite regress. If it had a first moment, then it suffers from the problems of the uncaused cause.
In what sort of scenario is existence possible while needing to worry about neither of these issues?
Imagine simulating a universe where the only elements are a particle that moves from the left to the right and collides with a wall.
An observer inside this universe might ponder as to how this strange universe came to be: if the particle was coming from infinity, why now this brick wall, and how did it cover the infinite distance between it and this wall? And if indeed the particle popped into existence from some arbitrary point, why? Why there and nowhere else? Why this particle? What structures this first event? But as the programmer of the simulation, I can simply set the particle to appear at some arbitrary position and internally it would be indistinguishable whether or not I did so, or if the particle came from infinity.
I think so too is the nature of our universe.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-13 at 1:10 AM UTC in The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Originally posted by gadzooks It's hard to take a firm position either way on the matter, because we have no instruments that can "detect/measure" subjective experience.
Listen dipshit, you have been babbling this the entire time and it is just making you look like a retard.
We already accept report to be a sign of consciousness in living beings. The very fact that you're talking about consciousness at all by making air waves through your mouth and a pattern of ATP discharges that actuate your keyboard means we have a genuine measuring instrument available. The entire point of this discussion at large is to figure out what aspect of that instrument leads to consciousness. We already have a for-sure "maximal" neural correlate of consciousness, it is the brain et al.
The way to test for consciousness is to take an approach similar to Integrated Information Theory, which tries to find what type of physical structures could support the phenomenological properties of consciousness, then proposes to test minimal neural correlates of consciousness (MNCCs) against the phenomenology.
One, in this framework you would test for a value called Phi to test for integration and "how conscious" a system is due to the level of integration. This is basically a test of how many interconnections each informational unit in a system is subject to. The conscious state is essentially just this state in any given instant.
Two, you can test it by using the accepted report hardware, the brain. This is actually a current area of neuroscience research. You can simply stimulate a particular set of neural structures and generate a conscious experience, then record report from the subject.
In fact we understand consciousness so well as an idea that researchers, a priori and from current neuroscience research and knowledge, and known principles were able to create a brand now optical illusion, never before practically or empirically observed until it was tested, and replicated.
That's how much predictive purchase we have over the concept already. I thought you were a psych major or some shit? Do you actually read any consciousness research literature or just jerk off to the conversation like anime nerds who have fantasy battles?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
