code "object-request-error"
msg 'Invalid status 503 Service Unavailable for Some("01/93/da/2e/55/b3/75/2a/84/1c/2ee79309c6b9.jpeg") - {"message":"failure to get a peer from the ring-balancer"}'
lmao so true
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
code "object-request-error"
msg 'Invalid status 503 Service Unavailable for Some("01/93/da/2e/55/b3/75/2a/84/1c/2ee79309c6b9.jpeg") - {"message":"failure to get a peer from the ring-balancer"}'
lmao so true
Speak for yourself. I try not to think.
What if life's evolutionary end point is always sentience?
Then life is even more pointless and cruel than it appears.
That would be poetically fitting for an universe determined to die a heat death.
Depends on what you mean by 'consciousness'. If you mean the actual biological process that is happening in our brains - yes. If you mean something different, it is probably not a scientific meaning but more a philosophical or religious one, which is ultimately not a bad thing but you should separate this from actual science.
If by consciousness, you just mean thinking, then sure.
But if you mean awareness — “phenomena”, if you prefer — then I don’t see why an experiential state would (or could) be entirely secondary to a physical state.
It is, after all, possible for me to write words and perform other physical actions based on my experiential state. In many ways, my mental world is more “real” than the physical world.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think rejecting physicalism necessarily requires embracing the idea of a soul. I’m an atheist, and a neutral monist, for example. But if I had to choose between only physicalism and idealism, idealism makes more sense. Before anything else, I’m conscious.
No, you're the electrochemical interactions happening inside the lump of fat.
I'm still rooting for Idealism or the immortal soul to somehow be a thing.
Go Banana!
"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter." — Karl Marx
presses X to doubt
See for yourself.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
I know he said that, I'm saying his conclusion was incorrect.
So you're saying matter is a product of the mind? Or what "conclusion" are you talking about
Why must matter or mind be the product of one another? Why can they not be separate yet interacting phenomena?
things conform to law, regardless of the subjects awareness of it, we should strive to learn the laws that govern the universe and leave behind obsolete idealism. Modern science has done a lot uncovering how our brain works and the complex processes behind conciousness, at this point arguing for conciousness as something separate is like arguing that rain is caused by deities.
I would like to see a source that says "This is how the brain creates consciousness."
Not about correlations, but as that being the absolute undeniable source of consciousness.
Cause the last I checked it was still a hard problem with no real answer.
Action potential doesn't do thinking. Thinking happens at neuron junctions and that shits chemical and analogue. The electrical part just moves the data to the next synapse. There are some gap junctions but those aren't really associated with thinking.
Sorry Natural Intelligence bros, but meat can't think. You've been duped into thinking human beings are conscious by Big Omega 3. Intelligence can only exist in computers using real electricity. Not that piddly ion pump stuff.
What about photons, hmmm? They're used for quantum computing and don't (technically) need "real electricity".
Hmm, still a boson particle, the same as electrons. Organic neurons don't transmit boson particles, they create a fake electromagnetic field by equalising ions in solution. It's lame and not real intelligence.
Electrons aren't bosons, they're fermions. And ions generally do contain electrons unless we're talking positive hydrogen or negative anti-hydrogen ions. And the EM field isn't fake (was that part of the joke?).
Also I was attempting to reference optical quantum computing but light also seems to be useful for classical computing. Thereby adding to your joke not contradicting it.
Drag was attempting to continue the joke too