DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
(But -on your reading, Obama would be liable, too! What a can of worms...)I'm not @ersi but I'm pretty sure Obama being liable too is hardly a can of worms for either of us.
This section allows you to view all Show Posts made by this member. Note that you can only see Show Posts made in areas you currently have access to.
(But -on your reading, Obama would be liable, too! What a can of worms...)I'm not @ersi but I'm pretty sure Obama being liable too is hardly a can of worms for either of us.
Making traffic uncomfortable for cars (à la hollandaise)Driving is much worse in every other country. The Netherlands is the best country as a driver by a surprisingly large margin.
Do you remember the times when even bicycles had to have licence plates?Another example of weird authoritarian Soviet power abuse?
Yet when I emerged from the train station in Shibuya, blinking jetlagged in the morning light after a night flight from Amsterdam, what actually caught me off guard was not the bustle but rather how quiet the city is. When you see cliched images of Tokyo, what invariably is shown are the enormous crowds of pedestrians crossing the roads, or Mount Fuji in the background of the futuristic skyline. I expected something like Los Angeles in Blade Runner, I suppose — futuristic and overwhelming. From photos, Tokyo can look almost unplanned, with neon signs everywhere and a huge variety of forms of architecture. You expect it to feel messy. What I experienced, however, was a city that felt almost like being in a futuristic village. It is utterly calm, in a way that is actually rather strange.
Since the advent of the automobile, architects and urban planners worldwide have found it almost impossible to resist building cities around roads and an assumption that most people will drive. Tokyo somehow managed not to. It rebuilt in a much more human-centric way.Reminder that much of the Netherlands was bombed to pieces too. It's not clear to me from the article if this is actually true as written because I've seen the major improvements in Antwerp and Brussels over the past decade first-hand, comparable to what happened in the Netherlands from the '70s to the early '90s. In any case it's never too late to convert.
For one thing, cars are far more enthusiastically inspected than in America or most of Europe. Cars must be checked by officials every two years to ensure that they are still compliant, and have not been modified.Er, hold on, every two years isn't standard everywhere?
But unlike America, the idea of making them free never seemed to cross politicians’ minds, probably because Japan in the postwar era was not the world’s richest country. Capital was not freely available. To build the roads, the national government formed corporations such as the Shuto Kōsoku-dōro Kabushiki-gaisha, or Metropolitan Expressway Company, which was formed in greater Tokyo in 1959.Just a quick note that I've experienced more tollways in America than anywhere else including France and Italy.
What that meant was that, from the beginning, roads did not have an unfair advantage in their competition with other forms of transport.This though, is awesome.
Most infamously on this crossing the railwayThat looks exactly like how you'd imagine the Soviet Union might build things. I remember similar constructions from when I visited former East Germany in '94, except in typical communist fashion it wasn't just horribly designed but also full of potholes and otherwise collapsing. So this is just communist design with EU funds you say, just better asphalt? When I went again around 2000 most of that communist junk had been replaced by slightly saner West German designs, although they should've gone straight for Dutch if you ask me.
In my view, effective traffic planning is largely achieved by restricting just one group: Cars. What is most needed is restrictions on car purchase and taxing their usage. This automatically leaves breathing space for all other road users. […]With that strategic element omitted, you're simply describing exactly what the Netherlands (and to a reasonable extent also Belgium) does.
Regulating road construction for different traffic is secondary. Netherlands has gone very far in special-purpose building for bicycles. It is far more straightforward to just tax cars, if you are really into environmentalism and safety etc.
This is in fact how it used to work in USSR. Getting a car was bureaucratically a very difficult, arduous and long project. As a result, even though roads were built for cars one might say, the cars on the roads were so sparse that pedestrians could walk anywhere. Something similar is in place in Japan: Before you can buy a car, you need to prove that you have a parking spot for it, and tax brackets are prohibitive for larger vehicles.However, this shows a clear difference between what we would consider an authoritarian dictatorship and a consensus-based ("democratic") society. When you build what inhabitants want you get this.
This is in fact how it used to work in USSR. Getting a car was bureaucratically a very difficult, arduous and long project. As a result, even though roads were built for cars one might say, the cars on the roads were so sparse that pedestrians could walk anywhere.Note that this is also how it was in America a hundred years ago and the rich people who could afford cars invented the ludicrous concept of "jaywalking" so they could race around. So I'm hardly convinced that having a few rich and powerful as the only drivers is a good thing. Here in Belgium the rich were also notorious for making the roads unsafe back in those days.
The solution is to slow cars down so that there is just one speed, and even the opposite-direction traffic isn't provided a separate lane on the same road.That's bog standard traffic calming, like here. If you're correct about railways crossings we just prefer people to cross railways as quickly as possible, but note that in more built up areas crossings will often look more like this.
But the teacher should not rely on students' self-learning. It's part of the teacher's job to verify that the concepts have reached the student by giving tests that are different than the introductory examples were.I still remember how I was one of the few who managed to add something like 97+6, whereas there were many who made up random answers or just gave up. They either didn't think a number over 100, which we'd never explicitly learned about, was allowed, or they somehow couldn't conceive of it despite knowing about 1–9 and about 10–99. I'm not sure why I particularly recall that example, but it's illustrative for pretty much every subject.
It's not like they tell you about picaresque novels or something when you're six years old.But, I might add, perhaps you've already read some.
But I mean the concepts. Why else teach vocabulary than to elucidate concepts?To a very large extent you learn vocabulary to be able to talk about things with other people. The concepts are something you'll generally have figured out by yourself years prior. If you're lucky there'll be some deeper analysis, but the steps in school are slow and late. It's not like they tell you about picaresque novels or something when you're six years old.
Well, thanks for the clarification attempt. I'm rather thick on some things when in philosophy mode. I still cannot parse the original statement after many readings. In philosophy you in fact cannot define terms for or against reality, as if reality were something different than yet another term to be defined. In philosophy, all you can do is define the terms, "reality" among them, starting from premises and elaborating from there. Not joking, by the way.I used it as shorthand for our model(s) of reality. It's not the same thing as reality of course, mea culpa.
Darwinianism as a philosophical school of thought has been waning for a while now. I did not come up with it. In Soviet Union it went rather strong, even though in my times there emerged a new exciting semi-replacement to it - postmodernism, another theory that never deserved to enter the realm of philosophy. Darwin's a theory in biology, postmodernism is a style of art and art critique. Both broke out of their specialised limits into philosophy and made philosophy look worse. Anyway, if you are not a whole-hearted Darwinian philosopher, all inconsistencies are forgivable.Is that Darwinism as in the rather peculiar Social "Darwinism"?
Okay, so that's your main rub, I guess, that the terms appear to be defined against reality. It is the wrong rub, fundamentally wrong. First, we are talking about a thought experiment, for cryssakes. Second, any argument or statement by a competing philosopher who does not share your own supposedly real-world-grounded common-sense presuppositions would more or less appear to be defining some or all terms against reality. Throwing whatever one thinks is reality out of the window for the purposes of entertaining an alternative train of thought is an everyday affair in philosophy.I said literally the exact opposite of what you somehow think I said and what you keep incorrectly claiming I base my argument on.
And you do not call them incoherent, do you?Weak zombies aren't incoherent.
Snowflakeness is inconsistent with Darwinianism. Straightforwardly so, nothing subtle about it. Ethics, empathy etc. may be compatible with Darwinianism in the confines of the in-group, but no further. On Darwinianism, there is no way to advocate for truth and decency as universal norms. But I'm not surprised. Every philosophical Darwinian is inconsistent. Darwinianism should have remained a theory in biology. It did not deserve to become a school of thought in philosophy in the first place.To summarize, Darwinism should be what it is, and not what you came up with. Got it.
On the defined terms, shouldn't they react only to plastic and otherwise just idle in standby mode? They would start eating other things only if plastic is ambiguously defined in the system or there's also the priority of survival that would make them nibble at something else in the absence of plastic.That's a thing that is obvious in words, but not in the actual construction and programming of robots. We all have microplastics in our body, so an obvious potential failure state is that in the absence of what we think of as plastic, it detects microplastics as plastic. And in any case it's very much not a thing to offhandedly dismiss while you create such a robot.
For me the distinction is important. It is quite a difference whether military robots decide to take over the world as in the Terminator movie or a human pushes the buttonThe Terminator may well be a weak p-zombie though, and I mean that even within the confines of the movie. Regardless whether it gained consciousness and decided to kill all humans or whether it suffered from the proverbial y2k bug and its programming decided to kill all humans, its actions will be extremely similar if not identical. You'll be in for a bad time.
It should have been clear a few posts ago by now that this is irrelevant. You are again talking about real-life possibility versus conceivability. As I have pointed out, conceivability is fully there. Even real-life approximations are there to illustrate the point. Nothing is incoherent in the thought experiment. And it's a thought experiment, not a physics/biology lab experiment.It was obvious literal decades ago (I guess I'm getting old) that this is what the thought experiment claims. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. This has nothing to do with possibility. Something incoherent can easily be possible and something coherent can be impossible, unless you define the terms against reality.
For example, everything that you see in dreams can be "perfectly incoherent" in some sense (namely in some idiosyncratic sense that would not fly in professional philosophy) but it is not inconceivable - you just conceived of it in your dreams! As to philosophical zombie, sleepwalker is a real-world example of someone in a zombie state, so it's not just conceivable, but there are also real-world examples that work as functionally close analogies. There was not a single successful objection to the philosophical zombie thought experiment.There are much closer real world analogies than sleep walkers. People who lack some qualia are a dime a dozen, and they usually just don't realize it.
Yes, I keep sincerely wondering how materialist epistemology can be something else than junk. How do you define abuse? For example, when a male lion becomes the leader of the pack, he eats the cubs of the previous leader. Natural in the animal world. As a Darwinian, what objections do you have if humans behaved the same?At its most base level you would despise yourself as a hollow villainous shell of a human being, depriving yourself and others of our desire to live a fulfilling life in a safe environment. Any rational being would realize they're sabotaging their own chance at satisfaction states by living like that, and in this case it requires no thought at all because you'll be afraid for your life until someone manages to kill you. It's hardly subtle, is it.
In some way the point has been all along whether movies like Terminator and Ex Machina represent a possibility that we should take seriously or we can treat them as mere fiction. Based on my metaphysics, concluding that there is exactly zero chance of AI waking up and taking over, I can calmly treat them as mere fiction.You can rest easy knowing that the autonomous self-duplicating machines programmed to and crucially capable of destroying everything aren't conscious? You might want to think that one through some more. The distinction between "gained consciousness and decided to kill all humans" and "didn't gain consciousness, was programmed to kill enemies and started identifying everybody as enemies due to an error" or "didn't gain consciousness, but some maniac decided to program it to kill everybody" is hardly the point there.
Whereas you have trouble even following the timeline of AI. It has been with us for at least half a century or so. It is not hypothetical.They may buzzword label it AI, but it's just some statistics and algorithms. You were talking about an AI on the level of a human. Pay attention to yourself and take the things you say seriously please, otherwise what are we even talking about.
They are not identical to humans in every way, as I explained. Clearly, p-zombies are impossible for you to imagine despite explanations.One can imagine perfectly incoherent things. But the purpose of thought experiments is not the same as the purpose of science fiction. The problem is inherent and it has absolutely nothing to do with physicalism.
Clearly you have reasons for your stance and to reject other stances. Likely among the reasons is something like that truth matters. Interestingly, the concept of truth as explained by any materialist is internally incoherent. For hardcore believers of evolution, survival should be the value that trumps truth any day. Evolutionarily, truth-pursuers are always a weak minority and extra rare in high places. Th rulers are the powerful. In the animal world - and on consistent Darwinism there is no human world - truth-pursuers are not even a thing at all. On materialism, truth has no value and, for metaphysical consistency, must be construed as non-existent.That's akin to saying the abused child must cherish and perpetuate the abuse just because it happened. It's the kind of reasoning you might get if your epistemology is junk.
The idea that mind is an emergent property of certain kinds of matter's complexity is no better established than the Behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. We know so little true psychology that Freudian Analysis is making a comeback. (But I suppose it should have been expected: There are still believing Scientologists! Their scientific underpinnings are the same...) At least, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy knows its place.I believe zombies were originally posited as a counterargument to Behaviorism, weren't they? Which makes intuitive sense because Behaviorism is somewhat crude at its core, but in that case one also wouldn't be taking the thought experiment seriously. Because you're not talking about a Behaviorist zombie imported through the back door, which could never be anything but unconvincing, but an actually perfect zombie.
I'll leave you pondering the fact that you did not reject, refute or even problematise any of the corollaries that I pointed out to you, such as the ethical corollaries following from the assumption that AI is intelligent to whatever degree.Why would I reject the logical conclusion to treat such a hypothetical AI appropriately as per their level of consciousness and intelligence? That wouldn't make much sense.
And you had nothing to say about the sleepwalker analogy to clarify the definition of zombie for you. So I guess that one works well. The example of hypoesthesia on the other hand was not an analogy, not intended to claim at all that such condition is empirically identical to a healthy human. Rather, it was one in a series of illustrations to get you closer to the concept of philosophical zombie, which you still have failed at.P-zombies aren't hard to imagine. The incoherence comes from the fact that if they're identical in every way, the conclusion must be that qualia are identical to thinking you experience qualia. You disagree, but naturally in my opinion it's you who's importing definitions of qualia from outside the thought experiment. In your example, it's not coherent to say that your hand is in pain from touching a hot stove but that you feel nothing. It's neither or both.
In my opinion the mind and the brain relate more like time versus watches and clocks. I'd like to suppose that you don't think that time is a process created by a watch, but I'm not quite sure anymore.In some sense they do. Clocks fool us into thinking time can be divided into concrete little chunks. But that aside, I do provisionally conceive of time as a process created by all "clocks" put together.
Now, knowing this, why would you assume your approach to how the brain and the mind relate has any resemblance to what is really going on? You just compared the airplane+flying to the brain+mind. Want to give it another shot?I don't understand thought experiments, but clearly you understand analogies. When you think about the context of the discussion it might become obvious why I purposefully picked a man-made machine, but swapping in a bird doesn't change anything about the analogy.
Well, flying is not a process created by the airplane. Certainly there is absolutely nothing in the process that the airplane creates. Rather, it is what the engineers and pilots create based on the properties of air and aerodynamic components. To assume that the airplane creates the process is a horrendously false description of what is going on.Is this even an equivocation fallacy? It's the configuration of the wings and engines that creates the process of flight. That which caused the wings and engines to be isn't an active part of the process, but a prerequisite to it.
The philosophical zombie *is not* identical to a non-zombie. It is identical for empirical purposes, but the point of the thought experiment is to highlight that the empirical is not all there is.Shocking, who'd have thought. Thought experiments can show the opposite of what they claim or they can be logically impossible. I rather doubt that's something you disagree with; you just think this one's decent.
Consider the following. When a healthy human being touches a hot stove, his hand gets burned AND he removes his hand *due to pain*. When a person with hypoesthesia (or whatever the loss of sensation is) touches a hot stove, his hand gets burned, but he does not feel the pain. Now, suppose there is someone who does not feel the pain when his hand gets burned, but since childhood he has learned that it is customary to remove the hand and wince when touching a hot stove, so that's what he does because everybody else does it. This is a baby-step towards the philosophical zombie.Ah yes, the person who's completely identical on account of hypoesthesia clearly demonstrates… wait a second.
In terms of a physical experiment in the current stage of civilisation, I agree with you. But in terms of a philosophical discussion you are frankly not on board what a thought experiment is.Of course thought experiments are useful, but you have to conduct them correctly.
Again, it so happens that the brain is among the physically and biologically less complicated organs. So, assuming that the brain is the mind (or any other fallacious version of the same, such as "the mind is a process of the brain" or "the mind is what the brain does"), complexity is the wrong description of what is going on even from the purely empirical point of view.Saying the brain isn't complex is just downward silly.