191–200 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The brain does have the resources to do so, actually. This is variously called dreaming, psychosis, or similar.
Dreaming is a limited simulation, not on the level of reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ancient Greek philosophers could not measure anything, so this idea was at least somewhat plausible. Modern philosophers have no such excuse. We can simply measure the temperature of the water buckets and accept that our hands are very poor thermometers. Leaving aside the very difficult issue of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, the last 200 or so years of science have clearly demonstrated that objective…
>We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just FUD. If reality was difficult to discern, we would long be extinct.
Reality is difficult to discern and we are not extinct. Cognitive bias has a long history of existing. For example, attributing personal flaws to harmless mistakes and attributing the flaws of others to malice or incompetence. This is clearly a distortion of reality, because we cannot assume we know the intention or capacity of all other people who aren’t perfect. (A huge number of other evidences that sober people d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-b…
Of course measurements are always imperfect. The point is that an objective reality exists that can be measured. Which piece of rock we use to compare other masses to does not change that.
How would you know? How do you propose we definitely prove it isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dreaming is a limited simulation, not on the level of reality.
How do you know? We haven't even established what reality is or whether it exists. For all you know, this entire argument could be a figment of your imagination and so could your perception of the rest of reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can tell you: "I'm conscious and aware", but there's no way I can prove to you I'm not a philosophical zombie(someone that acts like it's conscious, but isn't). You can't prove that to yourself either, because a zombie has the same thoughts as you. You can't differentiate even subjectively whether you're a zombie or not.
If you have thoughts, you can't doubt whether or not you have thoughts. In order to do so you need to doubt yourself, which is a thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-b…
Of course measurements are always imperfect. The point is that an objective reality exists that can be measured. Which piece of rock we use to compare other masses to does not change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know? We haven't even established what reality is or whether it exists. For all you know, this entire argument could be a figment of your imagination and so could your perception of the rest of reality.
We established the magnitude of the avogadro number, objects so complex have no chance to fully fit in imagination.
I believe in myself more than that, sorry.
[also again, how do you know the Avogadro constant is real?]
At the risk of being "that guy", it has to be said that this kind of study is unreliable. Posting a bunch of messages to r/drugs and r/psychedelics to come take their survey is going to suffer from all sorts of statistical biases. It is still better than the lowest for the study, the sample size of one: "Well this is what I experienced". Yet here I go. I have always been a materialist, and I've also never done drugs…
You think? Jeebus! Terrance McKenna would call 10mg of psilocybin a heroic dose. Some of the most intense visuals I have ever seen were on 10mg of psilocybin.
So if close relative means that it requires 2.5x more, then okay, but if they are anywhere near 1:1, then that was a freaking monster dose.