It would be a stretch to call this an article, but the answers that can be addressed by the questions it poses are potentially far-reaching with regard to revealing possible reasoning flaws, either in my own philosophy, or perhaps even yours. The flaws under my suspicion are caused by the...
I personally have a tough time filtering out inputs, and find my attention forcibly split between paying attention to nearly everything whether I want to or not. This makes me act and plan more linearly than is optimal, and is horrible for crowded rooms, but otherwise doesn't disable me. Also,...
I also had that same experience on the higher levels of Rock Band. I am not talented with any real-life musical instruments, but you say you feel that with guitar; for you personally, is that an episodic thing, or does that consistently happen when playing serious guitar? Is that something that most musicians know about, because it was exquisitely bizarre--is that the secret allure of musicians? Or does one build up a tolerance that drives one toward excellence in the hopes of catching the "high of accomplishment"?
What is it that makes consciousness, or the thing that it points to (if such a thing is not ephemeral), important? You already said that knowing the exact quantities negates the need for categorization.
Well, now it sounds like you found a useful definition of life; at what point on this spectrum, then, would you consider something conscious? Since it's processes you are looking for, there is probably a process that, without which, you could clearly classify as un-conscious.
It seems to me, though, that there are quite a few axes on which it would be hard to disturb a star's equilibrium. That still keeps it included in your definition. Also, since tungsten is not disruptive to the star's homeostasis, it has no reason to expel it. I appreciate your rational answers, because I'm actually helping you steel-man your theory, it only looks like I'm being a dork.
I agree with your correlation, but I think your definition would make stars and black holes apex predators.
Which is basically the same phrase, but without spaces between words.
You're trying to ad-hom me as a fuzzy-minded irratiolanist. Please don't.
No need, you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.
I take it that you're nitpicking my grammar because you disagree with my views.
As for what topic I am talking about, it is this: In the most practical sense, what you did yesterday has already happened. What will you do five minutes from now? Let's call it Z.. Yes, as a human agent the body and brain running the program you call yourself is the one who appears to make those decisions five minutes from now, but six minutes from now Z has already happened. In this practical universe there is only one Z, and you can imagine all you like that Z could have been otherwise, but six minutes from now, IT... (read more)
I will answer your question, but I do not understand your last statement; it looks like you retyped it several times and left all the old parts in.
I meant that with a sufficiently detailed understanding of physics, it would be meaningless to even posit the existence of (strong) free will. By meaningless here I mean a pointless waste of one's time. I was willing to clarify, but deep down I suspect that you already knew that.
It would be a stretch to call this an article, but the answers that can be addressed by the questions it poses are potentially far-reaching with regard to revealing possible reasoning flaws, either in my own philosophy, or perhaps even yours. The flaws under my suspicion are caused by the modularity of the brain's systems, and the ability to hold to conflicting beliefs when they are not held directly against one another.
These particular ones escape notice, I think, because they tend to only be given reflection in specific situations; my thought experiment here should help to hold them near each other.
The Setup: Julian finds himself in the waiting-room of the Speedy-dupe office.... (read 745 more words →)
I personally have a tough time filtering out inputs, and find my attention forcibly split between paying attention to nearly everything whether I want to or not. This makes me act and plan more linearly than is optimal, and is horrible for crowded rooms, but otherwise doesn't disable me. Also, I have a strong dislike of the action of chewing gum. I was recently joking about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and I wonder if it might actually have some truth to it? I would like to know everyone's (but especially people with similar filtering issues) habits regarding gum.
How often do you chew gum?
(The poll is in the first comment.)
I was kind of going off on a speculative tangent on that last sentence. I was wondering if that feeling was somehow reward-system related, and would fuel a musician's drive to excel. Like they try to play better and better to achieve that euphoria which only comes on when they do better than they ever have, with diminishing (dopamine?) returns, but, as a side-effect, increasing their practical talent to ever higher levels. So the musical prodigy over time becomes motivated more by the tangible rewards (fame, increased income), which will never compare to the feelings that made him choose that path in the first place. It would apply to many careers if it was a valid theory.