I don’t think the Chinese room is a good analogy for this. The Chinese room has a conscious person at the center. A better analogy might be a book with a phrase-to-number conversion table, a couple number-to-number conversion tables, and finally a number-to-word conversion table. That would probably capture transformer’s rigid and unthinking associations better.

No, you’re thinking of the first scene of the movie where a fly falls into the teletype machine and causes it to type ‘tuttle’ instead of ‘buttle’.

Ok. I’m getting tired. You bested me this round. Have a nice day.

You say it’s the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution’s failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois. You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal. You talk big about helping the individual, but cannot see beyond their class. The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the “revolution” over the life of his sick daughter? Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

Communist logix

we need to abolish private property so everybody has equal power.

we class of people to maintain public ownership

After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

Fahernhaters are always like, “nooo!! 40 degrees is so hot!!” Meanwhile, the fahrenchad’s resting body temperature is nearly 2.5 times hotter. All fahernhaters would die at that temperature.

I always find it very funny when someone suggests anarcho-something as a solution to all of capitalism’s problems. How exactly do you plan to enforce that? Do you think social pressure & shunning will do anything more than create a class of extremists with an oppositional philosophy?

What do you mean by offensive?

It’s a poop scooper. The joke is that the snake is long, it has long poops, and so the lady needs a long poop scooper to grab it.

As knowing random facts is second nature to us trivia fans, it’s easy to forget that the average person probably only knows a couple pop cultural references from the 30’s.

This is such a a good visual gag.

I think snakes would probably use tunnels, but I think snakes would probably use just as much concrete as us. We don’t use concrete because we like how it looks, we use it despite it’s looks. Concrete is just cheap and useful. It wouldn’t be any less useful for snakes. Though snakes would probably coat the concrete in something softer & higher friction, like rubber.

All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.

I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.

Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.

Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.

Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.

You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?

In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?

Okay, but what is sparc and pa-risc?

deleted by creator

How is the concept of democracy a scam?

The big issue I have with brain chips is longevity. How long until the electrodes degrade? When will the chips fail? Once they fail, will it be fail safe or fail deadly? Also, what will be the power source? Will it use inductive power, or battery power? They are both awful options. What if the chip overheats? The implementation is the real question here, but neuralink refuse to give any answers because it proprietary.