Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.
You can claim that all you want but you can't really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is "well science will figure it out one day for sure" then you have a belief system and you aren't actually thinking scientifically.
Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?
Why not? My own consciousness is literally the one and only thing I have direct, ineffable evidence of existing. Unlike God, you actually have proof of your own consciousness existing, the same consciousness that doesn't really fit anywhere in our purely quantitative descriptions of the universe. I think that's reason enough to give the idea some credence.
Some hypotheses shouldn't be entertained because they require so many strange assumptions they're essentially useless and just a waste of time
The only "strange assumption" I'm making is that my consciousness actually exists.
If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that's enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it's less than useless.
What's so weird about any of those questions/assumptions? A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer, that would include dolphins since we're pretty sure they're having conscious experiences.
I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that'd be a rediculous claim to make.
Would it? We now know with the recent experiments with Bell's inequality that quantum mechanics can't be reduced to a local hidden-variable theory, doesn't that at least in theory leave space for consciousness? Sure you could go with superdeterminism but currently that seems equally unfalsifiable as a consciousness-based theory.
No it just fucking isn't. You really think every place of work magically has dozens of free apartments close to it and you can just hop to a different one every time you change jobs? What fucking fantasy land do you live in?
People like you are so fucking pathetic, you can't for the life of you admit you were wrong so you do some bullshit decorum song and dance to appear like you have some abstract moral highground.
I use sonicare too it's great but you don't really need the top end models, the tech inside is the same as the lower-mid end models it's just some marketing bullshit.
Chatgpt is just Cortana with better marketing. AI isn't smart, it's just algorithms producing a facsimile of language via pattern heatmaps. What was Cortana if not just an earlier version of the same thing?
Well no, not really IMO. Cortana as far as I know wasn't based on LLMs as we know them today, it was a way older method of NLP. You're right that on a high level it's pretty similar but the underlying technology is qualitatively different IMO.
Yeah tbh if you paid for the cat toy more than $5 you've almost certainly wasted money. Mine gets bored of most toys after a few days except for a few banger toys he still uses, but those also cost like $5.
Not sure if that's true for table tennis. Like yeah if you're just barely starting out sure get the $10 paddle but pretty soon (maybe even within a month or two) you're gonna want a better paddle if you want to be at all serious about it.
Electric toothbrushes. Don't get the cheapest one either, get a mid range one from a good brand but the top end models of the good brands are just scams, they just look a bit nicer and have some shitty "AI powered" app you'll never use.
This kind of thinking feels like just cherry picking the good things to focus on, which sometimes isn't the worst coping mechanism to have but in this context I think it just leads to complacency. The fact is the general trajectory of the world isn't good even though some progressive ways of thinking have been normalized in some places, we could be doing much much better, we just choose not to.
How the fuck do you think the global population gets lowered other than, at the very least, restricting some people from reproducing? You think people are magically going to want no kids?
Also you didn't respond to the part of my comment where I literally say that "overpopulation" is a fascist myth and isn't anywhere close to the truth.
Its not fascist to say all humans need to curb our reproduction rates to make a better life for future generations.
Yes it is, because the problem was never the total number of humans, the problem is our wasteful economic system. With a rational economic system we could easily sustain 10 billion people, we literally already produce food for that much, it just goes to waste.
You're just so brainwashed by capitalist ideology you think the only solution to climate change is genocide, god forbid you try to envision a better economic system.
Diapers are causing the most damage to the planet? You sure about that? Also the dude is a climate change denier so this isn't even a "broken clock right twice a day" thing, it's just purely accidental.
Do these feelings of anger linger for long? Personally I'm like you in the sense that tiny inconveniences piss me off but I also drop those feelings pretty quickly and go on with my day, it's like a very short spike of anger and then back to normal, I just kinda remind myself it's not a huge deal and go on with my life. I think it's healthy to feel the anger just don't dwell on it for long.
Gitgui is pretty great too if you need a bit of interactivity. It's bare bones and no bullshit but can still do like 90% of what all the other fancy tools can do.
You can claim that all you want but you can't really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is "well science will figure it out one day for sure" then you have a belief system and you aren't actually thinking scientifically.
Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?