Slashdot Mirror


User: gweihir

gweihir's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
19,136
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 19,136

  1. Re:Bullshit popular science on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    Indeed. There is no way to even begin explaining consciousness based on Physics as known today. Claiming differently as a scientist is just completely unethical and irresponsible. The actual state of things is that we have no clue what is going on with regards to consciousness and it is important to make that absolutely clear. This nonsense just opens the door for religion and devalues Science. That is not good at all.

  2. Re:Kinda on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    All the materialist positions run into this simple fact

    If there was such a simple and valid argument that could undermine the materialist position, there wouldn't be so many materialists. Apparently, the argument is less convincing than you think it is.

    And fail. Materialism is just a surrogate for religion to a certain type of person. They are about as ignorant and inaccessible to rational arguments as the religious ones.

  3. Re:Superstition, mysticism, and other nonsense on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    You are not any better than those you look down on. Yes, they are stupid and are going into baseless mystic "explanations". But the actual Scientific state-of-the-art is that we have no clue what consciousness (and intelligence) is and there are no Scientific reasons to believe we will find out. Science has never managed to accurately describe anything even remotely comparable and hence there is no precedent. Postulating "we will find out" is just mysticism that ascribes unlimited power to Science.

  4. Re:Look, this was settled already on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    Indeed. That was another nice demonstration how very wrong people that actually should know better can be. Sure, it is a possible model, but the "proof" for the probability was as incompetent and disconnected as it gets. Reminded me of a certain type of "proof" for the existence of "God" that is about similarly stupid.

  5. Re:Correction on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'. Just admit you don't know something and then try to figure it out; handwavy intellectual caulking slobbed into whatever gaps exist in your understanding don't make it smooth: it simply shows you're lazy.

    It seems a pretty long, awkward, and torturous way to just desperately try to avoid actually calling it animism and religion.

    Could not agree more. The only value that this nonsense has is confirming that Physics still has no clue what consciousness is and that those claiming they know it are just full of it. Incidentally, the same is true for intelligence, but that is harder to see.

  6. Re:as a physicist... on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    Quantum entanglement does not imply information exchange. Read up on the Physics sometime.

  7. Re:as a physicist... on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    Having one consciousness in the universe is appealing to the way physicists think.

    Indeed. And then you have that for every question there is an explanation that simple, elegant, clear and wrong. Seems to be what happened here. These people are intellectually _lazy_.

  8. Re:Suspend Disbelief Until You Have Read the Paper on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    "Deep and thoughtful" has no value as indicator of accuracy. Humans have created the most "deep and thoughtful" nonsense based on absolutely nothing. Just look at organized religion.

  9. Re:sounds like a cave man describing lightning on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 0

    "Emergent property" is a Science joke. It means "we have no clue how that works or why that happened". There are no "emergent properties" in Physics.

  10. Re:Binary or a spectrum? on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nobody with actual understanding claims humans do not have free will. What is claimed (and rightfully so) is that many decisions are not made using free will. But claiming the absence of free will just shows that the person making that claim lacks in intelligence.

  11. Re:Binary or a spectrum? on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 0

    Don't be infantile...

  12. Re:Binary or a spectrum? on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    So much ignorance and stupidity in one single posting. Impressive. Just strengthens my point that physicalist are merely another stupid fundamentalist religious group that cannot see what is real.

  13. Sound like the type of nonsense... on Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com) · · Score: 1

    ... that arises when people desperate for an explanation do not have even nearly enough data to form one. Hence boundless speculation ensues that has no value as an actual explanation. Look for example also to religion and the average ridiculous urban myth.

    The sane thing is to accept that we have no clue what consciousness is. Also, incidentally, we have no clue what intelligence is, we can only somewhat describe its effects. This is harder to see, but a dive into the relevant research makes it amply clear. Learn to live with it. This state (that we have no clue) may someday change or it may not. However filling the void with bullshit is not going to be helpful at all.

  14. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    Who said I was envious?

    I said it, because it was absolutely obvious. And you know it is true. Gotcha.

  15. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    I agree with you on all points, except that in order to be caught with your pants down in this way in the first place, you usually have to be pretty stupid and greedy. This was just an opportunity to insult them that I found myself unable to resist. Happen sometimes. And I will definitely watch the show when it all goes down in flames.

  16. Re:And the others..? on A Single Line of Computer Code Put Thousands of Innocent Turks in Jail (www.cbc.ca) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So yeah, the country with 2nd largest army in NATO after the US and previously the largest muslim majority secular state is slowly turning into a totalitarian islamist theocracy and the attitude of the entire West is mostly 'oh well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, can't be helped'.

    And that is the truly despicable and repulsive thing here. Not that this has not happened before...

  17. Re:Enemies Everywhere on A Single Line of Computer Code Put Thousands of Innocent Turks in Jail (www.cbc.ca) · · Score: 1

    On the plus-side, he has better hair than Trump.

  18. Re:The other 120,000 on A Single Line of Computer Code Put Thousands of Innocent Turks in Jail (www.cbc.ca) · · Score: 1

    Since this is primarily about scaring the population into quiet compliance, it could be argued that the 30k are not so unintended after all...

  19. This is where the west is going with all its surveillance and data collection. Calling the 120'000 that were actually using the messaging app "guilty" is "justice" about as perverted as it gets. It just needs a continuation of the current slow slide into fascism the west does and all that data collected about you _will_ be used in the same way. While worthless to "fight terrorism" or "protect the children", Turkey nicely demonstrates the primary use a dark and unjust state has for mass-collected data about people: To accuse people of thought-crimes and then get rid of them.

  20. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    An AC that is desperately envious? Hehehehehehe. You fucked up your life, but I did not.

  21. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    There is also the little problem that manufacturing BC mining-ASICs takes production capacity away from other things and that does affect gfx-card prices and availability. But I expect that argument will fly right over the hollow heads that drive this madness.

  22. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    I see the Bitcoin morons are getting more butt-hurt and even more stupid. Excellent. Please continue. And I do hope you never recover economically.

  23. Re:This is pretty much nonsense on Is It Time For Zero-Trust Corporate Networks? (csoonline.com) · · Score: 1

    Google can do it because they are atypical. It is no indicator that, say, a bank or a hospital can do the same.

  24. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    TL;DR: The modern bitcoin is completely useless as a payment system, and only remains of interest to people who hoard it and hope the price will rise. I expect it to crash and burn eventually as the realization sets in that it's not good for anything anymore except as a kind of gambling system.

    This. I hope it crashes soon, I need a new graphics card and the market is either dry or you pay insane prices. This madness has to stop.

  25. Re:one-time-use addresses on Deanonymizing Tor: Your Bitcoin Transactions May Come Back To Haunt You (wired.com) · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Bitcoin is not designed for anonymous payment, just for pseudonymous payment. That is something else entirely. All these people thinking Bitcoin is anonymous have either not bothered finding out any facts or are just kidding themselves. This has basically been known since Bitcoin exists and no expert is the least bit surprised by research results such as this one.

    Anonymity must be a primary design goal in a communicating system or it will not be there. Sure, the effort for identifying a person will vary, but it will be possible.