Wes (Neoman)

@Philip_Goff If only I could do that from Tokyo :(

Want to study MA in philosophy in the Oxbridge of the North??? Deadline for our scholarships is rapidly approaching 29th May.

@2Philosophical_ Illusionism is idiotic.

Proof that illusionism is false: 1. If it’s like something to be me, then illusionism is false. 2. It’s like something to be me! So, 3. Illusionism is false. Not exactly rocket science.

@sbuehler lol

Consciousness is likely an emergent property of sufficiently complex, embodied, self-modeling biological systems interacting dynamically with environments across time.

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff I argue that perceiving counts as evidence. I interpret your view, having read your book and listened to Mind Chat (a lot!), to be a kind of physicalism. I am enjoying this very much but don't think this limited format is helping us very much...

@Wescp @Philip_Goff Ah. So perceiving it doesn't count as evidence?

No one expects physicalists to explain why physical reality exists.

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff Do we have evidence of such a world? No we do not. Sounds like a fantasy, or a true intuition to me.

@Wescp @Philip_Goff To the richness of the world beyond my mind.

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff Limited compared to what Keith?

@Wescp @Philip_Goff The first-person perspective is limited, selective, and distorting. It's a perspective that is adaptive but not always truth-tracking. Science is the project of trying to overcome its limitations and collectively create a richer, less distorted image of reality.

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff Although, I dont think I can conceive of anything outside of a first-person perspective. So perhaps we are not.

@Wescp @Philip_Goff I don't have that intuition -- in fact I don't understand it. By 'intuition' here I mean a claim that can be verified/falsified only from a first-person perspective. I don't think it's good science to take such claims as gospel.

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff I think we’re in agreement there!

@keithfrankish @Philip_Goff Personal intuition? The only intuition here is yours, that because causation applies to phenomena within a first person perspective, it must apply to one’s own first-person perspective itself. This is unscientific.

@Wescp @Philip_Goff and the idea that personal intuition is a reliable guide to fundamental reality is *not* shallow? I'll go with collective scientific theorizing

@Eshaygel @avramidou @carlorovelli Indeed he’s completely confused.

@avramidou @carlorovelli Totally wrong on all counts. A conscious perspective isn't remotely like a reference frame in spacetime. If you add looking then you've presupposed consciousness, that which Rovelli seeks to reduce.

Interesting essay that is physicalist in spirit and inspired by @carlorovelli's relational view of the world. In summary: - The mind is the behaviour of the brain, properly described in a high-level language. - Neither my own experience of myself nor an external experience of me is primary: They are two distinct perspectives on the same events. - “Subjective experience,” “qualia” and “consciousness” are names of phenomena that of course appear differently from different perspectives. It would be strange if they didn’t. They affect the body and the brain embodying them differently from how they affect something interacting with them from the exterior. This is not due to a mysterious “explanatory gap.” “Red,” as a qualia, is the name of the process we generally undergo when we see or remember or think about the color red. We do not need to explain why it looks red for the same reason that we do not have to explain why the animal that we call “cat” looks like a cat. - The source of the confusion about consciousness is treating consciousness and qualia as something to be derived from a scientific picture understood to be about something else. In fact, the scientific picture is a story about them.

@Philip_Goff @keithfrankish As our scientific theories presuppose mind, it is inaccurate to call reality physical. You cannot get a first-person perspective out of an appearance within a first-person perspective.

@Philip_Goff @keithfrankish Hard disagree that our scientific theories define reality. Seems like a shallow idea of metaphysics, which Quine certainly had in my opinion. He just took physicalism as his faith, as he stated elsewhere.

@muellerberndt @YangseonYeob Yes indeed. Dark matter is a physicalist abstraction.

OPH(관측자 패치 홀로그래피)에서는 우주의 대부분을 차지한다고 여겨지는 ‘보이지 않는 암흑물질 입자’가 실제로 존재하지 않습니다. 우리가 관측하는 약 6%의 일반 물질은, 관측자들 사이에서 정보가 완전히 동기화되고 서로 합의(consensus)에 도달했을 때 비로소 물리적 현실로 고정된 결과입니다. 그렇다면 왜 은하들은 눈에 보이는 질량만으로 설명할 수 없는 방식으로 회전할까요? OPH는 이를 설명하기 위해 새로운 암흑물질을 가정할 필요가 없다고 봅니다. 은하의 평평한 회전 곡선(flat rotation curves)은 우주 자체의 내부적인 오류 수정(error-correction) 과정에서 자연스럽게 나타난다는 것입니다. 서로 겹치는 관측자 패치들의 경계에는 ‘기록 복구 잔여(record-repair remainder)’가 남게 됩니다. 이것은 단순한 계산상의 노이즈가 아니라, 실제로 중력 효과를 만들어내는 물리적 스트레스로 작용합니다. 그 결과 안정된 은하에서는 추가적인 중력이 자연스럽게 발생하며, 숨겨진 질량을 전혀 도입하지 않고도 관측된 은하 회전을 설명할 수 있게 됩니다. github.com/FloatingPragma…

암흑물질을 어떻게 파악할 수 있을까? 현대물리학의 최고의 화두다! 우주의 94%가 암흑물질이다 정체가 무엇일까?

@IntuitMachine Conciousness does not appear.

Consciousness is what appears when matter achieves the semiotic closure required to describe itself — the triadic mediation of its own quality and causation — and it necessarily underdescribes what it mediates.

@TrueAIHound @edzitron The era of physicalism, yup.

@edzitron Yes. We live in the age of bullshit. The dark side of the force is strong with the bullshitters. Will there be a rebel alliance?

So…lying?

@DaveShapi Hell yeah David! You now see the problem :)

Sure, if you handwave away phenomenology and say "it's just math" but then that doesn't answer "why do we have qualia?" I mean just say that you're a monist or a materialist. But you literally cannot make the assertions that you're making, it does not follow. Every phenomenon of the human brain is explainable by physics *except* consciousness.

@MichaelQiu14 @goingawoll @DouthatNYT You fail to understand the argument.

@goingawoll @DouthatNYT Even just reading this paragraph already makes me realize it’s crap. Conscious experience corresponds to physical environment because if it didn’t, your lineage would have died out. It’s also why optical elusions exist because the visual system evolved for certain patterns

Psychophysical harmony in the New York Times! 🔥🔥 @DouthatNYT is cooking today.

@jratcliff @DrBrianKeating @Plinz Exactly

A worm with 309 neurons. Mapped completely since 1986. Forty years later, no simulation reproduces its behavior. Joscha Bach (@Plinz) on what that means for BigTech's plan to upload a human brain. youtu.be/CzjWGkXlK8k

@AStrasser116 @waldenpod I’ll be uploading an essay and YouTube video on this shortly. I’ll share it here of course.

@Wescp @waldenpod Hm, how does that work?

Update: no it's not any good. There's gotta be a better one than this Here's my response to the causal closure argument 1/9