Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: JEB_4_PREZ_2016 12 May 2017 10:57:33AM *  0 points [-]

I'll sleep when I'm dead

-Warren Zevon

Comment author: Laoch 28 May 2017 06:36:26PM 0 points [-]

No you won't... ...because the configuration of life that refers to itself as you will be gone.

Comment author: Yvain 19 May 2010 09:16:39PM *  8 points [-]

To anyone who really suffers from doubt about the physical nature of consciousness (...only sometimes, and I'm not proud of it) this line of thinking is pretty exasperating. Yes, the easy problem is easy, and most responsible dualists are happy enough admitting that the mind operates through physical means detectable on an MRI and we gain information about our own mental states through physical neural function...

...none of which makes any difference to the question that non-physicalists actually worry about, the so-called hard problem. Even calling consciousness a "sense" is admitting the lack of a solution to the hard problem: senses are the modalities by which objects are perceived. So our inner states are the objects, consciousness is the modality, and then who's doing the perceiving? More consciousness? Who's perceiving that? Hofstadter's solution of the strange loop is interesting but so nontechnical as to be useless.

Calling consciousness a sense, insofar as it's not just an equivocation on the term "consciousness", passes the recursive buck. The subjective level at which the senses bottom out remains just as poorly understood as before. This is more of an argument that thinking is purely physical (and a good one). I'm hoping you'll get to what I think of as "consciousness" later on in the series.

On the other hand, thanks for that link to the voice recording made in 1860. Getting to hear the oldest accessible human sound in the world? Pretty neat.

Comment author: Laoch 28 May 2017 06:32:46PM *  0 points [-]

Whenever I come across a conversation concerning the mind and it's relation to physics I think of what a Cognitive science lecturer of mine had to say on the subject.

Physicalism is a form of insistence that there is some mind-independent description of the world. Any definition of the physical brings with it the concomitant necessity to define the mental. I'm sorry if my writing is unclear on this, but it attempts to point out that there is no "easy route" through an appeal to the physical, as any appeal to the physical necessarily depends on some view of the mystical, magical, never to be seen, mental. Physicalism is thus not any kind of plausible metaphysics.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 14 March 2012 04:47:16AM *  26 points [-]

My country?! I'm not American. I haven't even been to the U.S. in several years.

(That said, you're Australian, right? I've definitely seen stuff written on LW that is technically illegal in Victoria -- google for "serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule," with the quotes.)

The fire analogy must be understood in the context of the legal test of "clear and present danger" that the court was upholding. The theory is that just as the shouting "fire" in a theater creates a clear and present danger of a stampede in which people get hurt, so does the anti-war agitation create a clear and present danger of subverting the war effort, in this case by inciting resistance to conscription.

Of course, you may reply that this "clear and present danger" stuff can be stretched this way without limit, but that is the point. (By the way, in U.S. jurisprudence, this standard has in the meantime been superseded by a much clearer one of imminent lawless action, which, whatever its overall merits and faults, has shown in practice to provide for a very strong Schelling point.)

Comment author: Laoch 24 May 2017 01:50:12PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Laoch 06 December 2012 11:10:34AM 0 points [-]

Me too considering I've been on an SSRI for 2.5 years and I've just gotten progressively worse. I've asked for a consultation with a psychiatrist so hopefully he or she can shed light on the matter.

Comment author: Laoch 28 April 2017 03:58:47PM 2 points [-]

4.5 years later still on SSRI's, a bit suicidal. Seeing a therapist, looking for a psychiatrist. Feels like I'm going to lose my mind and believe any old thing, return to a community and a way of life I despise (because of mind loss). So I came here to see what LW's have to say on this and noticed my old post. This has been going on for a while, no resolution in sight.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 April 2013 09:01:24AM 10 points [-]

The map of languages of Europe (as most such maps I've seen) has some very weird things. Why the hell would “Toscan” [sic] be considered a separate language from Italian and Neapolitan wouldn't? Describing most of Ireland as a “bilinguism [sic] situation” sounds like wishful thinking -- Irish might be official but very few people speak it regularly (not counting school classes and the like) except on the west coast.

Comment author: Laoch 27 November 2015 12:24:51PM 1 point [-]

I live in Ireland. Ireland is definitely not a bilingual country.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 February 2014 03:44:39PM 2 points [-]

It's just my experience of Doctor Who has been that it's a well of irrational story lines.

There does seem to be an awful lot of arbitrariness involved in the plotlines. For whatever reason it doesn't seem to contain much of the particular kind of irrationality that I personally detest so for me it is just a fun adventure with increasingly pretty girls.

For example why would the TARDIS have a soul?

It is closer to an extremely advanced horse than an extremely advanced car. That doesn't bother me too much. Some of the arbitrary 'rules' of time travel are more burdensome.

Comment author: Laoch 03 February 2014 04:19:53PM 0 points [-]

It's all burdensome to me.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 February 2014 12:50:08PM 2 points [-]

isn't Gaiman the guy who wrote Doctor Who episodes?

Many, many writers have written for Doctor Who. Gaiman has done many, many things in his writing career besides writing for Doctor Who. And Doctor Who is a cultural phenomenon larger than any trite dismissal of it.

Comment author: Laoch 03 February 2014 01:59:34PM *  0 points [-]

Whether or not it's a large cultural phenomenon has nothing to do with how sensible the material is. It's actually probably brilliant fantasy I would agree, but if I'm looking for good sci-fi it's a bore fest.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 February 2014 12:46:46AM 2 points [-]

I know this is probably an ad hominem but isn't Gaiman the guy who wrote Doctor Who episodes? The worst sci-fi show ever.

Doctor Who is one of my favourite shows (top five, higher if we count only shows that are still running.) I don't know to what extent knowledge of our different preferences regarding Doctor Who could be used to predict differences in our evaluations of the rationality of a given Gaiman quote.

Comment author: Laoch 03 February 2014 09:10:45AM 1 point [-]

Oh I completely agree. It's just my experience of Doctor Who has been that it's a well of irrational story lines. For example why would the TARDIS have a soul?

Comment author: wedrifid 31 January 2014 09:09:39PM 5 points [-]

The more accurate the map, the more it resembles the territory. The most accurate map possible would be the territory, and this would be perfectly accurate and perfectly useless.

This quote hides a subtle equivocation, which it relies on to jump from "you have X" to "you do not have X" without us noticing.

If I have a map I can look at it, draw marks on it and make plans. I can also tear it to pieces and analyse it with a mass spectrometer without it damaging the territory. Make the map I start with more accurate and I can draw on it in more detail and make more accurate analysis. Make the map nearly perfect and I can get nearly perfect information from the map without destroying breaking anything in the territory. Moving from 'nearly perfect' to 'perfect' does not mean "Oh, actually you don't have one territory and also one map. You only have this one territory".

As a practical example consider a map of a bank I am considering robbing. I could have blueprint of the building layout. I could have detailed photographs. Or I could have a perfect to-scale clone of the building accurate in every detail. That 'map' sounds rather useful to me.

Imprecision is not the only purpose of a map.

Comment author: Laoch 31 January 2014 09:19:53PM 0 points [-]

I know this is probably an ad hominem but isn't Gaiman the guy who wrote Doctor Who episodes? The worst sci-fi show ever.

Comment author: Laoch 14 January 2014 12:04:42PM 0 points [-]

As an update, I've read the the Free Will Solution sequence. It doesn't seem like there is any punchline to the sequences, I'm found the area of timeless physics interesting but I'm not sure how it helps. I don't think I'm any better off intellectually from the sequences.

View more: Next