zero_iq

I wasn’t arguing from a non-scientific point view at all. Reality is there. That doesn’t make the problem any less “hard”. But I think it is “hard”, not “impossible”.

And as any modern physicist will tell you: most of reality is indeed invisible to us. Most of the universe is seemingly comprised of an unknown substance, and filled with an unknown energy. Most of the universe that we can see more directly follows rules that are unintuitive and uses processes we can’t see. Not only can’t we see them, our own physics tells is it is literally impossible to measure all of them consistently.

Yet despite this, physics works. We can use our minds and tools to reveal the invisible truth. That’s why I believe in the scientific method, and why I think consciousness is not necessarily an impossible problem (unlike Nagel).

But subjective consciousness and qualia fit nowhere in our modern model of physics. It’s potentially “nature of reality”-level stuff – and I don’t mean hippy quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo by this, I mean it seems to reach right down deep into the fundamentals of what physics is and seeks to achieve, to a level that we have not yet uncovered.

I don’t think it’s impossible to explain consciousness. It is part of the universe and the universe is there for us to study. But we are not ready to answer the question. We don’t even fully understand what the question is really asking. It sidesteps our current model of physics. Obviously it is intimately connected to processes in the brain somehow… but that somehow is, currently, an absolute mystery.

I don’t subscribe to Nagel’s belief that it is impossible to solve, but I do understand how the points he raises are legitimate points that illustrate how consciousness does not fit into our current scientific model of the universe.

If I had to choose anyone I’d say my thoughts on the subject are closest to Roger Penrose’s line of thinking, with a dash of David Chalmers.

I think if anyone doesn’t see why consciousness is “hard” then there are two possibilities: 1) they haven’t understood the question and its scientific ramifications 2) they’re not conscious.

You should take a look at the game Cold Waters, if you haven’t already.

How many more millennia are needed before you’ll consider graffiti an established tradition?

How do you feel about even newer practices like “farming” and “democracy”? Do you think they’ll catch on too? Or just new-fangled nonsense?

They’ve also benefitted enormously themselves from public domain and expired or pre-copyright works like traditional folk tales etc. exploiting them and their timeless appeal for huge profits, then mired and viciously defended those derivative works with copyrights and trademarks, and refused to allow their own works’ copyright to expire. Take take take, never giving back.

deleted by creator

You respect scientists? Yet you reject science and scientific thinking when it hits you in the face.

You are wading in with extreme arrogance in an area you clearly know very little about.

Many of the most prominent ideas in the field of consciousness are from physicists, biologists, and other scientific fields. The issues are in some cases fundamental to the philosophy of science itself. This is the very bleeding edge of science, where hard physics and metaphysics collide.

Why do you think consciousness remains known as the “hard problem”, and still a considered contentious mystery to modern science, if your simplistic ideas can so easily explain it?

Do you think your naive ideas have not already been thoroughly debated and explored by scientists and philosophers over years of debate and research? The extremely simplistic and basic points you have raised (even ignoring the fallacious ones) are easily invalidated by anyone with even a basic grasp of this field (or indeed basic logic or scientific methodology).

Besides the above, you have clearly not understood the main point of my comment, not engaged in any actual logical debate or analysis of the issues raised (indeed you don’t even to comprehend or recognise what these are) and demonstrated a near total ignorance of modern theories of consciousness.

You had a chance to open your eyes to a whole realm of knowledge and discovery in a fascinating field at the cutting edge of modern science and reason and you just utterly failed to engage with it, handwaving it away with ignorance and stupidity.

Petroleum is what makes cars move, obviously. That’s it!

All those engineers and mechanics who waffle on about physics, laws of motion, and engines and stuff are all a bunch of idiots. I have no respect for them. I don’t need to know about that stuff to talk about how cars work!

You just put petrol in it, it burns and it moves. Burning petrol is what makes cars move. That’s all we’re talking about here! The extent of our debate is whether or not petrol makes cars move. Not how it makes cars go, that’s a wider debate for non-idiots.

(Electric cars? Nonsense. Where’s the gas tank?)

(Boats? No, they’re completely different. I mean yes you put the same fuel in them, but they’re clearly not cars, so it’s not the same.)

My comment just touched the tip of an iceberg that is an entire realm of philosophical and scientific debate that has occupied some of the brightest minds, across multiple disciplines, for decades. But sure, it’s just stupid ridiculous garbage 🙄

You probably think you sounded really clever.

No it hasn’t, and if you don’t see why, and why your explanation is incredibly simplistic and insufficient as an explanation of consciousness, you may not fully realise or understand the problem.

I don’t believe in life after death etc. and I believe consciousness is indeed manifested somewhere in the brain (and tied to those electrical impulses in some way), yet find your explanation utterly insufficient to address the “hard problem” of consciousness. It doesn’t explain qualia, or subjective experience.

Now obviously we do seem to have proved that consciousness is somehow related to such electrical impulses and other processes in the brain… but to say that we even begin to understand how actual subjective conscious experience arises from this is simply not true.

For starters: your logical steps from brain uses electricity -> consciousness is in the brain -> therefore consciousness is in the electrical impulses is a non-sequitur.

To illustrate: CPUs are made up of logic gates that utilise electricity to perform many operations. We know mathematical calculations are done in the CPU. Therefore mathematics is in the logic gates. Does that sound right to you? Is that in any way a satisfactory explanation of what maths is, or where mathemarical concepts exists or how marhs came to be? Does maths only exist in electrical logic gates?

Doesn’t seem at all right does it? Yet that’s precisely the same leap of logic you just used.

Now before you reply with “ah, but that’s totally different” carefully examine why you think it’s different for consciousness…

In addition, there are more than just electrical impulses going on in the brain. Why do you choose electrical or only electrical? Do you think all electrical systems are conscious? What about a computer? What about your house electrical system? Do you draw a distinction? If so, where is the distinction? Can you accurately describe what exactly about certain electrical systems and not others gives rise to direct subjective experience and qualia? What is the precise mechanism that leads to electrons providing a conscious subjective experience? Would a thinking simulation of a brain experience the same qualia?

If you really can’t see what I’m getting at with any of this, perhaps you might be a philosophical zombie… not actually conscious yourself. Just a chemical computer firing some impulses that perfectly simulates a conscious entity, just like an AI but in meat form. Carefully consider: how do you personally know if this is or isn’t true?

Well, I blame the nails. They’re just asking for it.

One of the first things I did when I started experimenting with SD was a series of “the Muppets attack paris” images, with explosions, crumbling buildings, police and military response, fleeing citizens… The cheeky gleeful looks on those muppets as they flee scenes of devastation are hilarious and some of my favourite images I’ve produced!

And I didn’t assert otherwise. Perhaps improve your own reading comprehension before wading into a discussion of the English language.

Nobody said it was of American origin

I know. Go back and read what I wrote. The only argument here was started by you. The only person putting words in others’ mouths is you.

Language is alive

Where did I say it wasn’t? But language being alive doesn’t change history – the phrase was used by British writers before the USA even existed.

and I can’t see anyone requesting origins specifically.

So? I offered the origin as it was presented alongside a number of phrases that are of American origin, and that one stands out as not (also as being suspected far older in origin than the others). I’ve simply added some additional information to the discussion. If you find it “boring”, you are free to ignore it.

I didn’t request your reply, yet you still wrote it.

Phrases like this can be part of 2 cultures at once.

Where did I say it couldn’t? I merely stated that the phrase was not of American origin. I didn’t say it wasn’t used in the US, or that the UK somehow has some special exclusive licence to it.

and don’t even have hard proof one way or the other

I didn’t post sources because I was short on time, but here, have some… (as I apparently now have time to waste…)

• “Dogs and Cats rain’d in showre”, from the poem Upon a Cloke in Olor Iscanus (1651) by Henry Vaughan
• “…and it shall raine… Dogs and Polecats”, from The City Wit, or, The Woman Wears the Breeches (1653) by Richard Brome
• “it should rain Dogs and Cats”, from Don Juan Lamberto: or, a Comical History of the Late Times (1661) by Thomas Flatman
• “Made it rain down dogs and cats”, from Cataplus, or Æneas, … (1672) by Maurice Atkins
• “When it rains Dogs and Cats in Hell” from Maronides; or, Virgil Travesty, … (1678) by John Phillips
• “raining cats and dogs”, from A Description of a City Shower (1710) by Jonathan Swift
• “rain cats and dogs”, from Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious Conversation (1738) also by Jonathan Swift

You will note that these are all British works by British authors. I can provide even more if you need them.

While the ultimate origin is unknown (there are many theories), any claim to it being American in origin is surely nonsense. There is no evidence for this at all. If you have some, please provide it.

What proof have you provided? Indeed, what has your comment added at all to the discussion? You could have looked up those sources and extensive etymological research on Google with less effort than you took to write your comment.

Pretty boring…

And what about your own comment? It adds absolutely zero additional information to the conversation, is rude, and you clearly misconstrued and misinterpreted my comment (apparently with the most negative interpretation possible), without even bothering to research anything for yourself.

Personally, I think some may find it interesting that a phrase they might have thought was of modern American origin is actually from another country and of far more ancient origins they expect. To me, that is interesting. If it isn’t to you, why do you bother to read and comment?

In the future, I suggest you simply ignore comments you find boring and move on instead of posting insulting low-effort replies.

That’s another one with a British origin (originally “see a man about a dog”). Still widely used in the UK to refer to leaving for any unspecified reason, although this is often to go to the toilet. (Also was used in the US during prohibition to refer to going for a drink.)

“Raiining cats and dogs” is not of American origin. The precise origin is unknown, but the first recorded uses are British, dating from the early to mid 17th century (Earliest uses are raining “dogs and cats” and “dogs and polecats”.) although it’s possible the phrase is significantly older than this.

The phrase is well known and widely used in the UK, and I doubt anyone here would consider it an American phrase.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t…

OMG I can’t believe you had the audacity to write an answer about cats in response to a serious question that is clearly about goats.

Correct me if I’m wrong

Well actually, yes, I’m sorry to have to tell you are wrong. Shannon-Fano coding is suboptimal for prefix codes and Huffman coding, while optimal for prefix-based coding, is not necessarily the most efficient compression method for any given data (and often isn’t).

Huffman can be optimal given certain strict constraints, but those constraints don’t always occur in natural/real- world data.

The best compression method (whether lossless or lossy) depends greatly on the nature of the data to be compressed. Patterns and biases can make certain methods much more efficient (or more practical) in some cases, when they might be useless elsewhere or in general. This is why data is often transformed before compression, using a reversible transformation that “encourages” certain desirable statistical characteristics in the data, so the compression method can better exploit them.

For example, compression software (e.g. gzip) may perform a Burrows-Wheeler transform and other encodings before applying Huffman coding to get a better compression ratio. If Huffman coding was an optimal compression method for all possible data, this would be redundant! Often, E.g. in medical imaging, audio/video data, the data is best analysed in a different domain to better reveal the underlying patterns and redundancies in the data so they cam be easily exploited by compression. E.g. frequency domain instead of time/spatial domain.