User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-07-03 at 6:52 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erection
Originally posted by HTS (In all seriousness though part of me hopes Trump wins just because I want to see Libtard Meltdown 2: Impeach Drumpf Boogaloo, but most of me wants to see Trump lose because MIGA.)
The first time was a shock. This time would just be his last term i.e. 6x liberal annoyingness. He's already weakened the republican party massively in one term. One more term would probably gut it. -
2019-07-03 at 6:46 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erection
Originally posted by HTS lol polls gave Trump a 1% chance of winning last time, so does that mean he's 35x more likely to win this time? :o
I have never once seen a credible source for 1% that didn't mean something completely different.
They gave Hillary a 15 point lead i.e. a 65% chance i.e. Trump 35% -
2019-07-03 at 6:35 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erection
-
2019-07-03 at 6:35 PM UTC in I will best the fucking shit out of WellHung
-
2019-07-03 at 6:34 PM UTC in Simulation is Consciousness
Originally posted by Obbe The mechanism of apprehending anything, the mechanism of subjective experience or however you want to refer to it - is simulation. That's what the mechanism is. I mean, if you have another explanation let's hear it. Explain what a "subjective experience" is.
"Subjective experience" is a simulation of reality.
No, a "simulation" isn't a thing in the universe like a photon, it's only a simulation because of my conscious apprehension of it as a simulation. 2 stones could be a simulation of an infinite number of things, and of nothing at all... It could just be 2 stones. That's only by virtue of how they are viewed.
Again, this is just a basic category error. Simulation comes after consciousness. You have to explain the preconscious structure. -
2019-07-03 at 6:30 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
-
2019-07-03 at 6:27 PM UTC in Free energy coming soon
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny like i said, the cost of all these processes that are required to bring the oils from the the deepst of the bottomless pit into your car is just 11 cents. the other 89 cents are solely and strictly for profits of the oil companies and their share holders.
if you dont believe me go talk to a gas station owner and find out how many gallons of gas they sold and for how much profit. or open one. i heard gas stations are among pakis preferred means of income.
then talk to a few who are gas industry insider, and their share holders.
No, the other 89 cents are the cost of fulfilling your need in a marketplace. I can't believe how fucking stupid this argument is. You don't get 11 cent gas, nobody gets 11 cent gas just because that's the raw cost of just the resource chain. -
2019-07-03 at 6:11 PM UTC in Ok is it me or is most of the internet down.
-
2019-07-03 at 6:07 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erectionAlso Hillary aint running faggot.
-
2019-07-03 at 6:07 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erection
Originally posted by -SpectraL There's a really small minority, about 20% of the voter base, who care more about illegals and foreigners than they do Americans, basically traitors, in the classic sense of the word, and they are noisy and annoying as all hell, but there's not near enough of them to get rid of Trump. The economy is doing much too well for them to get any traction. It's game over for them. They're beat. They and their lame horse Hillary will just have to wait until 2025 for another chance to sink the country, and even then I highly doubt they will. Most likely, one of Trump's sons, or even his daughter, will become the next President, and they'll be crying into their cereal bowls again for another eight years, at least.
1. Shut up Canadian faggot.
2. Trump got a smaller segment of votes in 2016 (46.1%) than Mitt Romney did in 2012 (47.2). But Hillary lost 3% from Obama in the most key possible locations due to low turnout because of the shittest Democratic campaign that virtually ignored the Rust Belt.
Fortunately nobody wants a retard who categorically harmed the country in every possible dimension as a president again and the DRC has already announced several measures to not let that shit happen a second time so the numbers say Trump is going to get his ass kicked.
Now when I say that, instantly 12 IQ Trumptards say "BUT THE POLLS LAST TIME SAID"
Shut up faggot: the polls gave Hillary a 15 point lead. 35% doesn't mean impossible. Those are still bad odds and you can try to beat them but don't count on it: that's literally how odds work.
3. Shut up Canadian faggot. -
2019-07-03 at 5:49 PM UTC in Simulation is Consciousness
Originally posted by Obbe Isn't that what an "inner subjective experience" is? Like when you imagine an elephant, within your consciousness or mind space you begin to simulate an elephant whatever that means to you, an inaccurate representation of a real elephant. Simulation seems to describe the "inner subjective experience" accurately enough. What exactly do you think is missing?
Jesus fucking Christ dude. Whether I observe a simulation in my "inner headspace" or a computer in the world doesn't explain how I come to apprehend it.
You have to explain the actual mechanism of apprehension, that's the hard part. The reddit post literally sidelines the entire actual problem into:
If the simulation became aware it was a simulation
No shit, that's the hard part asshole, how does that happen?
Like I said, it is fully possible that our consciousness is a specific type of simulation. But then the challenge is unwrapping how that is is the challenge. Because a "simulation" in general only implies a symbolic manipulation rather than a semantic one.In attempt to answer your billion dollar question, I say we are not actually distinct from any of the seemingly non-conscious stuff around us. We are tricked into thinking we are by a system that evolved over billions of years, a system that combines environmental awareness, the ability to simulate space and time, and also the ability to use complex language and we call this system "consciousness".
That's a retarded opinion you formed because you don't understand anything you read properly.
You go to sleep, you lose consciousness. Someone brains you with a mallet, you lose consciousness. Someone chloroforms you, you lose consciousness. Then you wake up, recovering consciousness.
When we talk about understanding consciousness, this is generally the distinction we are looking to make, to find the underlying physical basis that can support this phenomenon that one calls a state of experience. What is the character of the colour red?
Each time I have an immediate subjective experience, it has specific characteristics that are exclusive of the characteristics of other experiences. The ones that are in my apprehension, I am conscious of and the ones that are excluded I am not.
When scientists and philosophers talk about understanding consciousness, they're talking about the specific distinction between these states, and not being able to support such a state at all (as one might find when they're billyclubbed over the head).
I can think of a couple more way to illustrate the difference between a system of 2 rocks and our brains but I'm honestly starting to doubt if there is one in your case. -
2019-07-03 at 1:33 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erectionNigga got a priapism
-
2019-07-03 at 1:31 PM UTC in Simulation is Consciousness
Originally posted by Obbe What do you mean by "conscious"? What would be the difference in your mind between a "conscious" simulation and a non-conscious simulation?
Having an inner subjective experience, there being something "it is like" to be the simulation.
Again, it still seems that you don't really understand what I'm saying.
A simulation is a simulation because it is a symbolic representation of the rules and relations in some other system.
By itself, whatever you are running the simulation ON, doesn't need to have any particular properties. You can run a simulation with no causal connection between ticks of the simulation, by writing it out on paper for example. We have no reason to believe such a system has any continuity of belief, experiential content etc because there's nothing in particular the graphite molecules and paper are doing when you run the simulation on them, the relevant fact is their semantic and syntactic content is in your consciousness. By itself it is just some particles in space.
The challenge of consciousness is figuring out how it is that some particles bumping around in space come to have a subjective experience.
If you write a computer simulation of water for example, the computer doesn't need to know what water is. We don't need to give it any semantic information or understanding to simulate water, the computer is just a symbol manipulator, a bean counter that runs according to the rules we set, just some dominoes falling. We are the ones that define it to be a simulation.
But undoubtedly we too are just some dominoes falling ourselves, and somehow we are conscious.
Thats the difficult part of explaining consciousness, the billion dollar question, how it is that we are distinct from all the other shit that doesn't seem to be conscious, similar to how there are causally connected parts of my body system thay I am not conscious of (for example idk what my pancreas are up to right now)? What makes me start being conscious of something and then stop? What is the distinction there in my mind, as it relates to my brain?
That's the problem. Just saying it's a simulation doesn't help at all with understanding what is actually going on. -
2019-07-03 at 12:59 PM UTC in Free energy coming soon
-
2019-07-03 at 12:38 PM UTC in Free energy coming soon
-
2019-07-03 at 12:36 PM UTC in Simulation is Consciousness
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think it only involves simulation, the entire contents of consciousness are simulated or metaphorical as far as I can tell.
Even if consciousness is indeed a type of simulation, the fact that it is a simulation wouldn't give us anything, we would have to see what actually makes that simulation conscious. Because there's nothing inherently conscious about a simulation, it's just a representational concept. -
2019-07-03 at 12:35 PM UTC in Donald Trump will lose the 2020 erectionNiggas been a boner for 3 years already damn.
-
2019-07-03 at 12:34 PM UTC in Free energy coming soon
-
2019-07-03 at 12:31 PM UTC in Simulation is Consciousness
Originally posted by Obbe I see what you're saying, but consciousness or subjectivity is a simulation of reality. We have no reason to believe a system of 2 pebbles has consciousness as we know it (although maybe it could be, we dont know), but consciousness as we know it is a sort of simulation.
It certainly can involve simulation but that doesn't give us any purchase on what is actually going on to make your brain conscious. I know what you're saying, I'm saying the implication of the Reddit post doesn't follow from its conclusions, it's just a conflation. He's not saying consciousness is a simulation, he's saying simulation is consciousness. Which there's no reason to believe. It could very well be a type of simulation but that still wouldn't tell us anything about how it comes to be conscious. -
2019-07-03 at 11:51 AM UTC in I will best the fucking shit out of WellHung
