What is this guy smoking?
Probably something that's legal in Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Colorado.
Tobacco?
The Case Against Reality
101–110 of 114 posts
Re: The Case Against Reality
#102I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to evaluate his claims--we don't have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs. But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he's mathematically proved that "an organism that sees reality as it is w…
Agreed. When I see such arguments I immediately become skeptical because I start seeing a political argument being made, or at least, an argument driven by political leanings. When I say political, I do not mean party political, but generally being on the left side of the spectrum. I've known enough philosophers who do their level best to bring science down a peg, seeing it as power struggle between the different way…
What exactly does "relativise everything" mean? It seems possibly like a straw man.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#103The article is either really profound or a giant wankathon, and I still can't tell which after reading it twice.
I'm going to start using the Profound vs. Wankathon dichotomy as much as possible from here on out.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "this person is a crank, therefore their argument is wrong". What OP is saying is "their argument is wrong, therefore they are a crank", which is a valid argument.
Being wrong does not directly lead to being a "crank", whatever that means, and the poster did not demonstrate anything beyond that he thought the author was mistaken. Let's be honest - the poster called him a crank because the topic is one the the poster finds distasteful. There was no clear proof of him being a crank. Ironically, the poster is guilty of the same thing the author is being accused of, which is poor r…
There's no solid definition on what makes one a crank, but this does feel very cranky. It's more than just being "wrong", it's being "not even wrong". Saying things that are nonsense and incoherent.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#105The article is either really profound or a giant wankathon, and I still can't tell which after reading it twice.
I'm going to start using the Profound vs. Wankathon dichotomy as much as possible from here on out.
I'm glad that you found the distinction to be profound, and I'd also rather not hear about it in the case that you found it to be otherwise.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "this person is a crank, therefore their argument is wrong". What OP is saying is "their argument is wrong, therefore they are a crank", which is a valid argument.
Being wrong does not directly lead to being a "crank", whatever that means, and the poster did not demonstrate anything beyond that he thought the author was mistaken. Let's be honest - the poster called him a crank because the topic is one the the poster finds distasteful. There was no clear proof of him being a crank. Ironically, the poster is guilty of the same thing the author is being accused of, which is poor r…
Being wrong in particular ways is the definition of being a crank.
I see no evidence of poor reasoning by the poster.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#107I get really suspicious when I see quantum physics used in this way. It seems like a misdirection. Given the information in the article, it's impossible to evaluate his claims--we don't have access to the computer models he uses, or the expertise to evaluate his proofs. But there are a lot of gigantic red flags all throughout. Like when he says he's mathematically proved that "an organism that sees reality as it is w…
I think what he's trying to express may have some value, but I agree that he's misreading quantum physics in a number of ways to try and use it to prop up his philosophical ideas.
The observer affecting the outcome of the experiment is an interesting property of quantum physics, but it only affects very small objects that have reached the point where they are almost at the edge of perceptible reality. And it really has nothing to do with consciousness or anything else he was putting across in the interview.
And of course, since the person doing the interview hasn't even read basic pop-science stuff on this kind of physics, the guy doesn't get called out on this.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't had the time before. And I stand to my claims. Searching for his CV didn't help: now I forced me through both his CV and this article. He didn't study physics but "Computational Psychology."(1) And sadly it shows: Everything "quantum" he mentions in the article is simply invalid, easy to see for anybody with enough knowledge of physics. Quantum randomness occurs on different scales than where he tries to in…
Possible correlation: the last three grants he received were from the "Faggin Foundation" which among other things writes about "A Framework for the Union of Science and Spirituality." http://www.fagginfoundation.org/articles-2/a-conceptual-fram...
Wow, that explains a lot – and fits exactly to my (and your) initial comment :) Thanks for digging this up.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possible correlation: the last three grants he received were from the "Faggin Foundation" which among other things writes about "A Framework for the Union of Science and Spirituality." http://www.fagginfoundation.org/articles-2/a-conceptual-fram...
Wow, that explains a lot – and fits exactly to my (and your) initial comment :) Thanks for digging this up.
At least he honestly lists the grants. I still don't know if the grants came because of the direction he took or vice versa.
Re: The Case Against Reality
#110But when you do a split-brain operation, a complete transection of the corpus callosum, you get clear evidence of two separate consciousnesses.
Is there any evidence supporting that claim?