TempermentalAnomaly @ TempermentalAnomaly @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

619

Joined

2 yr. ago

Mamet went full MAGA

Increase the density of air around them by ten of fifteen percent. If they begin to lie, reduce it to like 85% of normal.

I continue to be this old.

1. Is your bond solid?
2. Does he know the value of work?
3. Does he know how much most people would have to work to get that phone?
4. Does his friendship nourish him?

Next time the parents decide they, assumingly from a good place, give your son an expensive gift, have them run it by you. Talk to them like they actually care for your son and know, for yourself, that your care is different than theirs. We all need a lot of caring adults when we're young.

What... No one masturbating in the corner. This must be a rush hour train.

Here's some others:

• Windows is garbage. The last time windows was good was Windows [10, 7, 2000, NT, 3.1, O/S2].
• don't you care about your privacy?
• All AI is all slop all the time. If you think of using AI you are garbage.
• Star Trek. I have no issues with my Star Trek homies. Y'all are awesome.

F#? What? We can't curse on the internet? Self censorship at dictator levels here. /s

Had the same experience. You could share tlyour collection, but it had to be password protected. But you also put a text note named password.txr in the parent directory and you in. If you shared without protection, you'd get your network privileges suspended.

You're doing America wrong.

"Welcome back to tonight's episode of "Is it AI or 700 Indian Engineers!!" 👏🏾👏🏾 👏🏾

He's also got great politics and taste in music.

I watched this video a while back. Apparently, they were looking to develop a universe that they could make a sequel in. They ended up with Hades.

My group recently switched to Matrix and so this would be a tough sell, but it seems interesting. I haven't been a fan of Matrix and miss the ease of UI in discord, but was happy to leave with it's direction. How would you sell it with a small group that has small, but mounting usability issues with Matrix?

It's been pristine here! Just perfect weather. Sunny and about 75.

I was, as a teenager, a person who hated small talk. Looking back, the big things I wanted to talk about were and are important to me, but I realize that I like listening to people's thinking and let them vibe where they feel heard and happy!

I should start off and say I'm less interested in the quesiton of free will than the relationship between consciousness and matter. I want to reframe that so you know what I'm focused on.

Modern theories are a lot more integrative. ... [I]nstead it is an essential active element in the thought process.

Here, I'm assuming "it" is a conscious perception. But now I'm confused again because I don't think any theory of mind would deny this.

On the other hand, if "it" is "the brain" then I need to know more about the theory. As I understanding it, the theory says that the brain creates models. Models are mental. I just don't know how that escapes the black box that connects to the mind. But as you assert and I understand, it is:

stimuli -> CPM ⊆ brain -> consciousness update CPM -?> black box -?> mind -?> brain -> nervous system -> response to stimuli

If it isn't obvious, the question marks represent where I don't understand the model.

So if I were to narrow down my concerns, it would be:

1. Is a model a mental process?
2. If mental processes are part of the brain, then how so?

"text so that the comment is federated properly"

Say what now?

Shit got real in the shit post sub.

I'm going to stick with the meat of your point. To summarize,

1. Some materialist views create a black box in which consciousness is a passive activity
   brain -> black box -> mind
2. CPMs extract consciousness from the black box
3. Consciousness plays a function role by providing feedback
   brain -> black box -> CPM-> consciousness -> black box -> mind

But to go further, stimuli -> brain -> black box -> CPM-> consciousness update CPM -> black box -> mind -> response to stimuli

The CPM as far as I can tell is the following:
representation of stimuli -> model (of the world with a modeled self) -> consciousness making predictions (of how the world changes if the self acts upon it) -> updating model -> updated prediction -> suspected desired result

I feel like I've mis-represented something of your position with the self. I think you're saying that the self is the prediction maker. And that free will exists in the making of predictions. But presentation of the CPM places the self in the model. Furthermore, I think you're saying that consciousness is a process of the brain and I think it's of the mind. Can you remedy my representation of your position?

Quickly reading the review, I went to see if they posited role for the mind. I was disappointed to see that they, not only ignored it (unsurprising), but collapsed functions normally attributed to the mind to the brain. Ascribing predictions, fantasies, and hypotheses to the brain or calling it a statistical organ sidesteps the hard problem and collapses it into a physicalist view. They don't posit a mind-body relationship, they speak about body and never acknowledge the mind. I find this frustrating.