Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved
Wow, total fail! I take it you never managed to actually get through any of his books on the subject?
Did the math scare you off? No, that's giving you too much credit. I'll bet that you "formed" "your" opinion by blindly believing some nonsense someone wrote on an internet forum. Very likely someone who also didn't read those same books.
For clarity: I'm not offering my opinion on Penrose here. I'm just pointing out that you clearly know absolutely nothing about his thoughts on the subject. You should probably avoid this topic in the future. It makes you look like a name-dropping moron.
TutorText books are a bit difficult to find. I couldn't even find a cover image. On the plus side, I found a dirt-cheap copy of the one above on Alibris It might be worth the risk to pick that one up.
Too little, too late - especially with such a crapfest OS that continues to use the biggest piece of shit interface since people wrote with dried manure.
Look, I'm no fan of Android, but it's not THAT bad.
You know the really sad part about this? You think this is insightful.
Straight, white, males enjoy privilege. We benefit from it everyday in countless ways. We are not an oppressed minority. It's a bit sad and, yes, pathetic to believe that you're the one being persecuted when you're so clearly advantaged.
That was the parent's point when he wrote "You poor, pathetic straight white male. It must be terrible for you. I shed a tear. *sob*
You should read that as "Having every advantage must be so horrible when all those 'others' are demanding equality. It breaks my heart."
Cue the "we're being oppressed!" Pac-Man pie-chart...
I love how people in the majority pretend that they're an oppressed minority to make themselves feel more important. Look, we get it. Despite having every advantage, you still can't compete with people who are significantly disadvantaged. That's got to make you feel terrible. I'm so sorry.
Both examples pretty clearly demonstrate the physical nature of our consciousness
Ah, but they don't! That's the rub.
The first example is no different than saying that damaging the yolk coil on my old TV proves that the pictures are produced entirely within the set and that all those 'radioists' are a bunch of religious fools.
To the second, you could replace 'drug addiction' with 'need to pee'. The desire to satisfy a physical discomfort doesn't tell us anything about the nature of consciousness other than the fact that people generally prefer to be comfortable.
Like I said before, you can reject dualism for any number of reasons, just not those.
I'd see no reason to treat it as magically different from any other person.
See, that's an entirely different discussion. That's how we know.
with all the emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations of a person
That's the sticking point. The belief that such a mechanical arrangement could have those properties is what he's questioning. It sounds absurd, which adds a bit of rhetorical punch, and he knows that there is no explanation for how such properties could emerge from an arrangement of gears and springs.
Now, you believe that that tin-man is a perfectly reasonable contrivance, yet you have no reason to believe it other than your own metaphysical assumptions about the universe. That's why you're convinced that it's only a matter of time before we puzzle it out. Now, let's stop pretending that that assumption is scientific, because it's not.
By carefully stimulating parts of this television, I can cause it to emit sounds and produce specific distortions to the image. You would therefore conclude that the images and sound are produced entirely within the television set. Sure, we don't understand all the details, but this is proof that nothing external to the set is responsible for its behavior.
See, those details you "gloss over" are pretty important. That fact is, we simply don't understand consciousness.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved
Wow, total fail! I take it you never managed to actually get through any of his books on the subject?
Did the math scare you off? No, that's giving you too much credit. I'll bet that you "formed" "your" opinion by blindly believing some nonsense someone wrote on an internet forum. Very likely someone who also didn't read those same books.
For clarity: I'm not offering my opinion on Penrose here. I'm just pointing out that you clearly know absolutely nothing about his thoughts on the subject. You should probably avoid this topic in the future. It makes you look like a name-dropping moron.
So ... what you're saying is that women have no business on Slashdot.
Fuck you.
That was CYOA #12 Inside UFO 54-40
Was it this? Computer Programming Techniques: A TutorText
TutorText books are a bit difficult to find. I couldn't even find a cover image. On the plus side, I found a dirt-cheap copy of the one above on Alibris It might be worth the risk to pick that one up.
A shame you missed the Fighting Fantasy series. They weren't for me, but it sounds like they'd have been perfect for you.
That would be -1 Redundant. You can see the countless flaws described in various depth in the comments above.
Yet his "experiment" was conducted so incompetently, and his conclusions so dubious, that it would even make the mythbusters blush.
Is your telepathy a genetic thing or a technological advancement I haven't heard of?
Ah, yes. it's an ancient art called "basic reading comprehension skills".
Too little, too late - especially with such a crapfest OS that continues to use the biggest piece of shit interface since people wrote with dried manure.
Look, I'm no fan of Android, but it's not THAT bad.
Name one.
Wet nurse.
(That's still a thing, right?)
You know the really sad part about this? You think this is insightful.
Straight, white, males enjoy privilege. We benefit from it everyday in countless ways. We are not an oppressed minority. It's a bit sad and, yes, pathetic to believe that you're the one being persecuted when you're so clearly advantaged.
That was the parent's point when he wrote "You poor, pathetic straight white male. It must be terrible for you. I shed a tear. *sob*
You should read that as "Having every advantage must be so horrible when all those 'others' are demanding equality. It breaks my heart."
Now go and sin no more.
Men are definitely *feeling* harassed for being men during this "debate"
LOL! No. Not even a little bit.
Really, if you feel threatened or harassed by this, I feel very sorry for you.
Cue the "we're being oppressed!" Pac-Man pie-chart...
I love how people in the majority pretend that they're an oppressed minority to make themselves feel more important. Look, we get it. Despite having every advantage, you still can't compete with people who are significantly disadvantaged. That's got to make you feel terrible. I'm so sorry.
If you think FFOS development is bad, I'd hate to see what you think about Android development!
RMS predicted this in The Right to Read.
Germany?
How times have changed...
The names backing the brief include Bjarne Stroustrup, Ken Thompson, Guido van Rossum, and many other luminaries.
It's like reading Cary Grant, Clark Gable, Honey Boo Boo, and many other luminaries
Maybe any introduction to philosophy course that actually fucking covers Descartes?
Yes, you could certainly use one!
I'm sorry you can't imagine someone attacking an idea for what it is?
Oh, I can image it. In fact, I HAVE to image it, as you're incapable of doing so!
BTW: Try reading that link. Perhaps then you'll understand why I laughed at you.
Wow, you're confused. Where do you come up with this stuff? The brilliant "philosophers" at JREF?
You don't need to posit a soul for that.
Also, there is no reason that a Christain couldn't accept that animals have souls.
Both examples pretty clearly demonstrate the physical nature of our consciousness
Ah, but they don't! That's the rub.
The first example is no different than saying that damaging the yolk coil on my old TV proves that the pictures are produced entirely within the set and that all those 'radioists' are a bunch of religious fools.
To the second, you could replace 'drug addiction' with 'need to pee'. The desire to satisfy a physical discomfort doesn't tell us anything about the nature of consciousness other than the fact that people generally prefer to be comfortable.
Like I said before, you can reject dualism for any number of reasons, just not those.
I don't get this argument.
We know.
I'd see no reason to treat it as magically different from any other person.
See, that's an entirely different discussion. That's how we know.
with all the emotions, concerns, thoughts, and motivations of a person
That's the sticking point. The belief that such a mechanical arrangement could have those properties is what he's questioning. It sounds absurd, which adds a bit of rhetorical punch, and he knows that there is no explanation for how such properties could emerge from an arrangement of gears and springs.
Now, you believe that that tin-man is a perfectly reasonable contrivance, yet you have no reason to believe it other than your own metaphysical assumptions about the universe. That's why you're convinced that it's only a matter of time before we puzzle it out. Now, let's stop pretending that that assumption is scientific, because it's not.
By carefully stimulating parts of this television, I can cause it to emit sounds and produce specific distortions to the image. You would therefore conclude that the images and sound are produced entirely within the television set. Sure, we don't understand all the details, but this is proof that nothing external to the set is responsible for its behavior.
See, those details you "gloss over" are pretty important. That fact is, we simply don't understand consciousness.
Answer me this Mr Smartypants: If spirits don't exist, how come activating this spirit detection equipment allows you to sense them?
Laugh all you want, but that is an excellent point.
Umm... No.
You can reject dualism for any number of reasons, but that sure as hell isn't one of 'em.