|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 22 2024 04:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all impressively designed. I can barely manage 15 people. I can't imagine attempting to lead billions.
It's not really about leading the people but uniting them. Your brain can't handle info about more than 150 people at a time so all outsiders are treated with suspicion and potentially hostility. What religion provides is a shared set of core values and some general code of conduct guidelines that ease this tension a bit when meeting new people (he can't be a bad guy if he believes what I believe).
|
On September 22 2024 08:44 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2024 04:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all impressively designed. I can barely manage 15 people. I can't imagine attempting to lead billions. It's not really about leading the people but uniting them. Your brain can't handle info about more than 150 people at a time so all outsiders are treated with suspicion and potentially hostility. What religion provides is a shared set of core values and some general code of conduct guidelines that ease this tension a bit when meeting new people (he can't be a bad guy if he believes what I believe).
Of course, then you run into the problem of "He must be a bad guy, he doesn't believe what I believe"
Evidence: The internet
|
This is the world: An animal "loses" a fight and is eaten alive suffering a horrifying death; the animal who "won" staves off hunger for a few hours.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1ksQubTg-DI
Whoever "wins" the conflict on the Israeli border will have much work to do after it is over. Similar to the cat. The cat is merely not hungry for a few hours. The "loser" suffers many horrifying deaths. If you believe in a creator or great designer keep in mind that it has all been set up this way. We are just more advanced versions of the fish and the cat.
|
If that’s the extent of your morality, you’re not even that much more advanced than the fish and the cat
|
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise.
|
On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise.
It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons.
|
On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons.
Wandering off topic here but...
Currently it seems like this is the sad truth.
There's still alot we don't understand though.
Apparently there's new evidence about Penrose's microtubule theory that suggests there's quantum fuckery going on and we've no chance of understanding what any of that means for a long time yet.
|
On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons.
I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris.
Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing?
|
On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing?
Neuroscience is very broad and can mean alot of things, some that rely solely on interpretation, others that provide definite scientific answers.
They can actually see the delay in real time between where a decision is made and in the brain and when a person reports making a decision.
Its a pretty simple scientific test with the correct equipment, and it has been repeated enough times to be pretty much taken as fact at this point.
Here's a study from 2008
https://www.mpg.de/research/unconscious-decisions-in-the-brain
The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.
|
On September 23 2024 01:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing? Neuroscience is very broad and can mean alot of things, some that rely solely on interpretation, others that provide definite scientific answers. They can actually see the delay in real time between where a decision is made and in the brain and when a person reports making a decision. Its a pretty simple scientific test with the correct equipment, and it has been repeated enough times to be pretty much taken as fact at this point. Here's a study from 2008 https://www.mpg.de/research/unconscious-decisions-in-the-brainShow nested quote +The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.
Okay so this part would be the part that isn't bullshit, the mechanical part. The rest of the argument doesn't naturally follow from this though. You could unconsciously decide to not act like an animal several seconds before you report that you plan to not act like an animal. Or you could unconsciously decide that you're going to act like an animal, then make that decision, and then unconsciously decide to change your mind about what you're gonna do, and then make that decision.
|
On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing?
It would be a separate computation if you didn't have the opportunity to act on the first one, by the time you make a different one new information entered the process.
I would make the following analogy:
Say you take a fistful of coloured marbles and throw them forward and the one that ends up furthest away from you is blue.
Then you pick them all up, go back to your initial position and make another throw. The result can be different this time and let's say the furthest one is yellow. The result can be different because the conditions changed, the position of each marble in your fist is different, the force you applied isn't exactly the same, the place you throw them from and your movement is different, some of them suffered chip damage on the first throw, etc.
But if you were able to rewind time to your first attempt to the moment you let them go, even if you repeat this a million times it would always result in the furthest marble being the blue one, because the conditions are identical down to smalles minutiae.
|
On September 23 2024 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 01:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing? Neuroscience is very broad and can mean alot of things, some that rely solely on interpretation, others that provide definite scientific answers. They can actually see the delay in real time between where a decision is made and in the brain and when a person reports making a decision. Its a pretty simple scientific test with the correct equipment, and it has been repeated enough times to be pretty much taken as fact at this point. Here's a study from 2008 https://www.mpg.de/research/unconscious-decisions-in-the-brainThe researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding. Okay so this part would be the part that isn't bullshit, the mechanical part. The rest of the argument doesn't naturally follow from this though. You could unconsciously decide to not act like an animal several seconds before you report that you plan to not act like an animal. Or you could unconsciously decide that you're going to act like an animal, then make that decision, and then unconsciously decide to change your mind about what you're gonna do, and then make that decision.
You're right, there's always some subjectivity when it comes to interpreting things like this... We can say how things appear and I think although it doesn't follow necessarily, it is probably the most natural way to explain the results. Like I said above though there appears to be other stuff going on that we still aren't close to understanding so there's no definite conclusion you can draw other than we are making decisions before we experience making them.
|
On September 22 2024 08:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2024 08:44 Manit0u wrote:On September 22 2024 04:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc are all impressively designed. I can barely manage 15 people. I can't imagine attempting to lead billions. It's not really about leading the people but uniting them. Your brain can't handle info about more than 150 people at a time so all outsiders are treated with suspicion and potentially hostility. What religion provides is a shared set of core values and some general code of conduct guidelines that ease this tension a bit when meeting new people (he can't be a bad guy if he believes what I believe). Of course, then you run into the problem of "He must be a bad guy, he doesn't believe what I believe" Evidence: The internet
We've had plenty of wars fueled by religion. Whatever you can do to unify people you can also use against other people.
|
On September 23 2024 01:35 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing? It would be a separate computation if you didn't have the opportunity to act on the first one, by the time you make a different one new information entered the process. I would make the following analogy: Say you take a fistful of coloured marbles and throw them forward and the one that ends up furthest away from you is blue. Then you pick them all up, go back to your initial position and make another throw. The result can be different this time and let's say the furthest one is yellow. The result can be different because the conditions changed, the position of each marble in your fist is different, the force you applied isn't exactly the same, the place you throw them from and your movement is different, some of them suffered chip damage on the first throw, etc. But if you were able to rewind time to your first attempt to the moment you let them go, even if you repeat this a million times it would always result in the furthest marble being the blue one, because the conditions are identical down to smalles minutiae.
That's assuming quantum mechanics fuckery won't have macro effects, because we know that if you do that with very very very tiny marbles (aka elementary particles) you won't get the same outcome every time.
That sounds like a strong assumption to make in the context of the biochemistry of the human brain. We already know quantum effects play a role in a number of natural processes. It'd be naive to assume they have no impact on cognition.
E: anyway, it's hard to go further offtopic. Back to rockets and exploding pagers!
|
On September 23 2024 01:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2024 01:35 Dan HH wrote:On September 23 2024 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 23 2024 00:53 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2024 23:00 Nebuchad wrote:
You were also given an awareness of your own self, something that the other animals were not given, so it's a decision to behave like other animals do, you could also decide otherwise. It certainly feels that way, but it's highly debatable whether that's how it works. The past few decades of evidence from neuroscience suggests that we commit to decisions before we become aware of having made them. A non-romantic look into how our circuitry works makes me lean towards thinking that we're very proud automatons. I mean a lot of neuroscience sounds bullshit to me but it's probably mainly because the first neuroscientist I've been exposed to was Sam Harris. Do you know how changing your mind works in this framing? It would be a separate computation if you didn't have the opportunity to act on the first one, by the time you make a different one new information entered the process. I would make the following analogy: Say you take a fistful of coloured marbles and throw them forward and the one that ends up furthest away from you is blue. Then you pick them all up, go back to your initial position and make another throw. The result can be different this time and let's say the furthest one is yellow. The result can be different because the conditions changed, the position of each marble in your fist is different, the force you applied isn't exactly the same, the place you throw them from and your movement is different, some of them suffered chip damage on the first throw, etc. But if you were able to rewind time to your first attempt to the moment you let them go, even if you repeat this a million times it would always result in the furthest marble being the blue one, because the conditions are identical down to smalles minutiae. That's assuming quantum mechanics fuckery won't have macro effects, because we know that if you do that with very very very tiny marbles (aka elementary particles) you won't get the same outcome every time. That sounds like a strong assumption to make in the context of the biochemistry of the human brain. We already know quantum effects play a role in a number of natural processes. It'd be naive to assume they have no impact on cognition.
You can't have identical conditions at different moments in time. Those very tiny marbles are vibrating. We can control variables to the best of our ability when repeating experiments, but the smaller the scale we deal with the larger is the effect of any difference in initial conditions.
In any case, I don't think randomness would be a good basis for agency.
|
|
|
On September 23 2024 02:05 Dan HH wrote:
You can't have identical conditions at different moments in time. Those very tiny marbles are vibrating. We can control variables to the best of our ability when repeating experiments, but the smaller the scale we deal with the larger is the effect of any difference in initial conditions.
In any case, I don't think randomness would be a good basis for agency.
I don't think that's the point Acrofales is making. I'm one who minored in physics but who likes to believe in determinism too. Quantum comes along and says "we can't know anything's position exactly" and suddenly electrons are teleporting through solid barriers purely because of their indeterminate nature. I was never comfortable with it, but it's a real thing, and then we use that thing to build better microscopes.
Of course I don't think quantum necessarily disproves determinism as it's used in a philosophical sense, especially given that quantum effects generally tend to disappear as soon as you "integrate up" to a macroscale. There's also a lot of just straight-up quackery out there that just uses "quantum" as an argument for "actually we're all linked and can read each other's minds if we just unlock our powers".
You're right regardless that randomness isn't a good argument for agency, but I just wanted to give my take on some of the context here.
|
|
|
Iran is in a really weird position with all this right now. Every sign indicates Israel has essentially fully infiltrated the Iranian intelligence network. They are consistently striking high value targets and the situation appears to get a little worse for Iran every time.
I am by no means an expert in international intelligence, but I imagine a part of this works kinda like echolocation. When Israel makes a big play, Iran's responses (communication, movement, other logistics) being monitored closely allows Israel to dig even deeper and further infiltrate Iran's intelligence network.
With Hezbollah's communication and logistics being in complete shambles, they basically had a choice between rolling over and surrendering or trying to recover best they could. The problem with their recovery is that they are making the problem worse every time. They probably showed almost every card up their sleeve with their recent attack and everything they needed to do to make it happen.
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve.
|
On September 24 2024 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
The fact is that Iran does not have a good enough reason to keep this up. They are not liberating anyone. They are not pushing anyone back. They are not achieving objectives. Even in purely selfish or evil terms, Iran has no real path to achieving anything they want to achieve.
Sure they do.
Israel is very close to launching a ground war that might very well turn into a quagmire.
IDF being stuck for the next 20 years fighting in Lebanon is very much in Iranian interests.
The only question being if Hezbollah can last the next few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
