HowManyNimons @ HowManyNimons @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

802

Joined

2 yr. ago

These things are all legitimately good for humanity and .. life. Are Republicans literally ghouls?

Wait. Are those supposed to be bad things?

Sounds like the boss wanted a grid layout of some kind. Honestly, if they can express themselves in Excel, and they can be made to understand the limitations of responsive Web design, then it's not so bad. At least it's a requirement and you don't have to guess.

I was in Barcelona last week. This was basically everywhere.

Hang on. Don't Germans say it "doobla-veh?"

By breakfast crews on crappy radio stations.

Nucular. Checkmate, atheists.

What happened to her eyes?

They killed the apps.

Saved.

Please try to remember that being better than them means being better than them.

Bah. They're Republicans in name only.

Maybe this is a picture of some real hospital equipment? I didn't check for pixels.

I disagree with your assessment here, but I think we've both made ourselves clear and neither of us is going to change our minds. I shall bid you good day.

Haha "Don't think about it too hard," I suggested! But there's some real value in what you've said: I do find your idea of an "audience" very helpful and will have to cogitate on it.

The first thing it makes me think of is a story about Doctor Who that I once made up while trying to sleep: are you familiar with Doctor Who? It's a sci-fi show like a home-made British Star Trek with more tinfoil and more time travel.

In my story, if you'll indulge me, one of the characters briefly enters a super-perceptual state where she sees some kind of invisible entity steal the consciousness out of her friend's head, squirts someone else's consciousness in there, and then makes off with the one originally belonging to her friend.

It's like the audience from your analogy walked out of one brain and became the audience for another brain. Her friend wakes up, and doesn't seem to be any different: the brain his conscientiousness inhabits still has all his memories and nobody else's, so why would she expect him to be any different? But the "audience" observing their friendship hitherto has been spirited away to who-knows-where and this grieves her.

The middle of the story consists of her trying to track down the entity, and also her trying, with only ambiguous success, to determine any difference in his behaviours or thoughts. She becomes increasingly desperate as she imagines the invisible entity getting further and further away.

In the end, she tracks down a way to re-enter the state in which she perceived the entity originally. This time, she is able to look over a large group of people, and the punch line, of course, is that there are countless such entities swapping our "audiences" from head to head constantly. How many times in the last minute has she herself had her conscientiousness swapped for somebody else's?

It makes me wonder if the ownership between brain and audience is a thing. Is that connection a necessary thing that is missing from our materialistic definition of a consciousness? Maybe that's the nagging thing that you call a communication channel.

I've got another thought experiment to share which challenges this idea, but I've given you far too much to wade through already so I'll save it.

I guess, if we're looking at trees, I see it more like the shelter provided by the tree. The shelter cannot exist without the tree, it consists entirely of the tree, and when a tree attains certain properties it creates/becomes a shelter almost definitionally.

Note that here I'm making a distinction between a shelter and a sheltered area. The sheltered area is not the shelter; it is an effect of the shelter. I don't think there's room for the sheltered area in my consciousness analogy. So don't think about it too hard?

Anyway, do you believe there is any ingredient to consciousness other than the physically of the brain? For example a "spark", or a soul, or a connection to something external to the brain?

Jan 6 was the president doing something bad. The Senate acknowledged this, but let him off because his time was up.

You're welcome. I too find it very interesting, though my expertise in it is below amater level.

I am a little confused about your model of continuous and the brain: you speak of consciousness appearing to be a manifestation of the brain's processing, but talk about what seems to be a communicative relationship between the two. My understanding is that consciousness is entirely an emergent property of the brain, impossible to distinguish from the squishy mechanics. If yours is significantly different to this, then it is no wonder that our beliefs diverge.

How do you extract energy from a used HAZMAT suit?

"If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge," he said. "But in this case, that question is moot. Because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction."

That's McConnell explaining that he didn't vote for conviction, because Trump's term was over at the time of the vote. Not because the case was "weak" -- you can find video of McConnell speaking his agreement with the charge.

Impeachment is clearly impossible in this climate.