From g4tv? Damn. Also, same.

This took a lot of guts to say.

Instead of very pretentious, try using chi-chi.

Is the emergent phenomena, consciousness, weak or strong? I think the former, which I think you support, posits a panpsychism and the latter is indistinguishable from magic.

I’m a little confused about the relationship between the causal prediction machine (CPM) and the self. to reiterate, the brain has a causal prediction engine. It’s inputs are immediate sensory experience. I assume the causal prediction engines’ output is predictions. These predictions are limited to the what the next sensory stimuli might be in response to the recent sensory input. These predictions lead to choices. Or maybe the same as choices.

So these outputs are experienced. And that experience of making predictions is me. Am I the one experiencing the predictions as well?

So this sentence confuses me: “This prediction machine is me making predictions and choices.” Am I making the predictions or is it the CPM?

Well played polite vampires! Otherwise you could have been subject to this rebuff!

A perfect cretic, long, short, long (– ᴗ –).

If this was what was commented, I’d have a different argument and tone. But they were explicit in mentioning lashing out.

We can discuss your statement, but I didn’t want to muddy my response with it.

Sure, people lash out. Cool. Don’t give them a pass. Again, nothing in the post said you had to give them a pass for lashing out because you understand that their trauma caused them to lash out. Where are you getting that the post even remotely suggests this? What part of the post is this the other side of the coin?

Nothing in the original post says anything about giving traumatized people a pass for lashing out.

Just wait till tomorrow to have your kids. Kegels it in!

Cut the wide end of. Dip your tooth brush into opening. Moan when you do. 60% of the time, it works every time.

Surprised there’s no one in the comments going bat shit crazy that this was made by AI. Are we not doing that anymore?

The queue can be sorted by date. If you hit date again it reverse the order.

Hasok Chang, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University, wrote a wonderful book Is Water H2O? In it he traces the historical and philosophical twists and turns to get from water to H2O. Along the way, he reckons with and treats seriously competing theories other than what emerged as the winner.

In the end, he doesn’t disagree with the role of H2O in water. Rather, he shows how the process of scientific theory making is benefited from a pluralistic view through s repetitive process of challenge and theory adjustment.

I mainly made the comment because we shouldn’t always assume what we were shown in high school captures the deeper process of insight creation.

He deals with the weekly emergent qualities like surface tension. We might be able to say that surface tension is one property of wetness even.

But I also think that water is one of the few phenomena that seems to actually have a strongly emergent qualities. Which is to say, there’s qualities that are in water that are not explainable by the properties of its component parts.

Ultimately, one of Chang’s goals it to contextualize and not reduce these scientific concepts for greater insights.

To be more accurate, I don’t think it’s wrong to say that water is more than just H2O. To get gestalt, we should say water is something other than the sum of its parts, H2O.

H2O is not water

Diuretic not laxative.

deleted by creator

Do the old fold and drip.