zero_iq

I wasn’t arguing from a non-scientific point view at all. Reality is there. That doesn’t make the problem any less “hard”. But I think it is “hard”, not “impossible”.

And as any modern physicist will tell you: most of reality is indeed invisible to us. Most of the universe is seemingly comprised of an unknown substance, and filled with an unknown energy. Most of the universe that we can see more directly follows rules that are unintuitive and uses processes we can’t see. Not only can’t we see them, our own physics tells is it is literally impossible to measure all of them consistently.

Yet despite this, physics works. We can use our minds and tools to reveal the invisible truth. That’s why I believe in the scientific method, and why I think consciousness is not necessarily an impossible problem (unlike Nagel).

But subjective consciousness and qualia fit nowhere in our modern model of physics. It’s potentially “nature of reality”-level stuff – and I don’t mean hippy quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo by this, I mean it seems to reach right down deep into the fundamentals of what physics is and seeks to achieve, to a level that we have not yet uncovered.

I don’t think it’s impossible to explain consciousness. It is part of the universe and the universe is there for us to study. But we are not ready to answer the question. We don’t even fully understand what the question is really asking. It sidesteps our current model of physics. Obviously it is intimately connected to processes in the brain somehow… but that somehow is, currently, an absolute mystery.

I don’t subscribe to Nagel’s belief that it is impossible to solve, but I do understand how the points he raises are legitimate points that illustrate how consciousness does not fit into our current scientific model of the universe.

If I had to choose anyone I’d say my thoughts on the subject are closest to Roger Penrose’s line of thinking, with a dash of David Chalmers.

I think if anyone doesn’t see why consciousness is “hard” then there are two possibilities: 1) they haven’t understood the question and its scientific ramifications 2) they’re not conscious.

deleted by creator

Which will just push people towards file sharing. If your DRM makes your service less convenient than copyright infringement, people will infringe copyright.

If companies start getting too draconian, the ad-blocking/circumvention/copying/sharing technologies will start getting smarter and harder to detect and circumvent. It is a battle that cannot be won.

I’d say the main obstacle in the short term is that as Google controls both client side (Chrome) for the majority and server-side can manipulate web standards to make ad-blocking harder, by exploiting their near-monopoly. They’ve already done this to an extent by modifying browser extension APIs. But people can just switch browsers. I’ve already done that on mobile. And if ChromeOS prevents it, I’ll be erasing it and installing native Linux.

If its possible to watch the video, then it’s possible to watch the video without ads.

Worst case scenario: videos can be downloaded and adverts stripped from them. (If you can watch it, you can copy it.) Would you be prepared to trade, say, a 20 minute timeshift delay on your YouTube videos’ initial publish time for no adverts? I would.

Yep, if you see the popups just refresh your filter lists and restart. Longest I’ve had to wait is about an hour for a fix, and that was a while back. Fixes seem to be coming much faster now as more people are watching this.

In addition to other reasons already given, commercial software may contain licensed code, libraries, assets, trademarks, and other IP that cannot legally be given away for free, or under an open source licence.

Sure, it may be possible to strip those things out, but that may leave the software broken or fundamentally changed, and it may be a significant amount of work to do, which am author or publisher is not likely to spend on abandoned software, especially if their free release would compete with any current products.

Users get a service, so it can be argued they are paid in kind. That’s the price of their “free” services.

Whether you agree with that or not, websites are unlikely to pay users to use their services (unless they’re at least providing content) any more than a coffee shop would pay its customers to drink their coffee.

I heard a rumor that even non-vegetarians can eat salad.

I wouldn’t trust myself with a full replicator. You’re gonna have to turn on all the safety protocols, sobriety lockouts, and nutritional programmes.

Otherwise, I’m gonna start off with the intentions of designing a nice camera… and six months later I’ll be a wasted super-obese cyborg monster who’s caused half the planet to be devoured by self-replicating grey goo.

Ah, of course! And it does have extra buttons too. Remarkable they squeezed all that advanced engineering in under half a gigabyte, tbh. I clearly didn’t think it through!

True, but I’d still like to see the explanation for why a mouse driver needs to be 300MB…!

3D printer that can print fully-populated functional electronic devices. Design or download a schematic for, say a new camera or phone, make whatever modifications I want, and just hit print!

Basically a replicator for electronic devices…

It’s Mau in the singular, Maus in the plural (in English anyway), but maybe there are still some amusingly ambiguous sentences possible in German! :)

I wouldn’t recommend walking cats anywhere near any significant traffic. Maybe some cats would be OK with being in a pack (I’ve seen YT channels with cats in baskets on bikes etc) but I imagine you’d have to train them from a young age.

It is possible to an extent with certain breeds, e.g. Egyptian Mau. However, they are curious and skittish so may not follow you everywhere if they find something interesting or get spooked. When you get too far from their known “territory” they may stop and wait for you to come back, (while also yelling at you to come back to the concern of passers-by!).

I used to go for walks with my gf and her egyptian maus. They would follow along like a pride of tiny lions but spread out a bit, so while we walked on paths their parallel routes would go through gardens, over roofs, fields, fences, etc.

In fact it was more of an effort to train them not to follow us everywhere, e.g. to the shops, work, etc. They would often follow neighbours’ children to school and back (and sometimes follow the wrong child home and get lost!).

Maus are also more amenable to being on a leash than most breeds, although you need to get them used to it early in life.

The main problem is if they decide to run away from something they are blazingly fast and near impossible to catch and recover from whatever inaccessible perch or hidey-hole they run to. My gf’s cats had been trained to return to the sound of jangling keys, but that only worked most of the time.

Thanks, appreciate the detailed info.

That’s some decent extra pocket money! What are the other apps, if you don’t mind saying, and how much time/effort would you need to spend say in a week to earn that much?

Over what time period? How many hours did you need to grind to earn that amount?

You respect scientists? Yet you reject science and scientific thinking when it hits you in the face.

You are wading in with extreme arrogance in an area you clearly know very little about.

Many of the most prominent ideas in the field of consciousness are from physicists, biologists, and other scientific fields. The issues are in some cases fundamental to the philosophy of science itself. This is the very bleeding edge of science, where hard physics and metaphysics collide.

Why do you think consciousness remains known as the “hard problem”, and still a considered contentious mystery to modern science, if your simplistic ideas can so easily explain it?

Do you think your naive ideas have not already been thoroughly debated and explored by scientists and philosophers over years of debate and research? The extremely simplistic and basic points you have raised (even ignoring the fallacious ones) are easily invalidated by anyone with even a basic grasp of this field (or indeed basic logic or scientific methodology).

Besides the above, you have clearly not understood the main point of my comment, not engaged in any actual logical debate or analysis of the issues raised (indeed you don’t even to comprehend or recognise what these are) and demonstrated a near total ignorance of modern theories of consciousness.

You had a chance to open your eyes to a whole realm of knowledge and discovery in a fascinating field at the cutting edge of modern science and reason and you just utterly failed to engage with it, handwaving it away with ignorance and stupidity.

Petroleum is what makes cars move, obviously. That’s it!

All those engineers and mechanics who waffle on about physics, laws of motion, and engines and stuff are all a bunch of idiots. I have no respect for them. I don’t need to know about that stuff to talk about how cars work!

You just put petrol in it, it burns and it moves. Burning petrol is what makes cars move. That’s all we’re talking about here! The extent of our debate is whether or not petrol makes cars move. Not how it makes cars go, that’s a wider debate for non-idiots.

(Electric cars? Nonsense. Where’s the gas tank?)

(Boats? No, they’re completely different. I mean yes you put the same fuel in them, but they’re clearly not cars, so it’s not the same.)