StarCraft® II

The tangent thread

Posts: 1,522
This thread is for tangents, specifically when a tangent takes up more than a page in the thread it starts in it is apparently not good (somehow, not quite sure about it myself). So in order to be respectful of original topics across the forum (specifically life after death) this thread is here, because this thread has no original topic and therefore cannot go off topic. Let the games begin!
Just a rule, so that if this thread ever holds more than one tangent things won't get confusing, name which thread and where in that thread (post #) the tangent originated.
Edited by Necromaster on 3/27/2012 1:10 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,739
I see what you did here.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,906
[from]Life after Death:
'Experience, and its cause'

I think that evidence is required to explain the phenomenon of subjective Experience, and that such evidence has not been provided so far.

Opposition has a counter claim that there is something about matter being living (cells etc) that bridges the gap between matter and experience. I could be incorrect.

I'm familiar with the possibility that 'Experience' could be an illusion, like free-will being an illusion, and not a result of a magical 'soul'.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,522
Hmmm, well explain this subjective experience in what way? Explain how it works? Explain why it is subjective? What the cause of experience is? What is the cause to the effect that is experience? or what causes experience to be subjective?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,906
Hmmm, well explain this subjective experience in what way? Explain how it works? Explain why it is subjective? What the cause of experience is? What is the cause to the effect that is experience? or what causes experience to be subjective?


Excellent questions.

Explain why it exists in the first place.
see: 'Philosophical Zombie' (experience being unnecessary for an intelligent automaton to pass as human)

how it's generated, how it works.
What physical laws cause matter to have an experience of reality?
What is the cause of the effect, that is experience?

Of course it's subjective, since it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who experiences and a perfect replica that 'magically' did not. Experience is what we observe, but we don't observe the experience of other people.

I claim Experience is something that can't be properly explained by scientific observation. It's clear to me that I experience, but you wouldn't see any evidence for this, as an outside observer (being able to talk is not evidence).

Modax has claimed that we know what causes Experience etc, and I'm looking forward to finding out what reasoning/evidence led to this conclusion.
Edited by TheCulture on 3/29/2012 5:05 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,522
03/29/2012 05:05 PMPosted by TheCulture
I claim Experience is something that can't be properly explained by scientific observation. It's clear to me that I experience, but you wouldn't see any evidence for this, as an outside observer

ok if you are the only person who truly experiences reality and the rest of us are philosophical zombies or something like that, what would be the implications of us cloning you? I mean like take your DNA and replicate you a dozen times.
Until we start cloning humans we won't have any evidence or answer for this question, however frankly I think if I was the only person who experienced things the world would probably be a lot more boring than it is.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,906
ok if you are the only person who truly experiences reality and the rest of us are philosophical zombies or something like that, what would be the implications of us cloning you? I mean like take your DNA and replicate you a dozen times.
Until we start cloning humans we won't have any evidence or answer for this question, however frankly I think if I was the only person who experienced things the world would probably be a lot more boring than it is.


That's the beauty of the 'Philosophical Zombie' concept, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between living in a world in which other people experienced Qualia/reality and one in which there were merely biological machines reacting to stimuli, but not 'feeling' anything.

It wouldn't be more boring, it would be exactly the same from your perspective.

Implications of cloning someone who was the only one Experiencing reality? the clone could Experience, or it might not. There would be no way to tell.

Cloning won't shine a light on the 'issue' of Qualia/Experience, since a clone is merely a genetic copy. Even if it was an exact replica (cloning someone atom by atom) there would be no way to measure or observe the phenomenon of Experience in them.

Does a nerve 'experience pain', or does it require a brain?
What's the minimum setup we'd need to create for Experience/Qualia to arise, and how would we know either way?

I think it could be scientifically untestable, a mystery that will remain so, no matter how advanced our technology becomes.
But that doesn't mean 'Experience of Qualia' is supernatural or means anything important about an afterlife etc

The phenomenon exists, but it's impervious to inspection...Unless I'm missing something.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,739
TheCulture

Implications of cloning someone who was the only one Experiencing reality? the clone could Experience, or it might not. There would be no way to tell.


It's likely that reactions would be the same, but many disorders and personality traits are altered by experience. That said, it's more of mysticism at this point. Once we understand the nature of conciousness, experience and personality firmly then I'm sure this question will be easily answered.

Cloning won't shine a light on the 'issue' of Qualia/Experience, since a clone is merely a genetic copy. Even if it was an exact replica (cloning someone atom by atom) there would be no way to measure or observe the phenomenon of Experience in them.


I assume it would clone all the genes which have been turned on/off in a lifetime. We are just now starting to understand this. For example, recent studies show that if a man is obese for some time before he produces a daughter, a specific gene will be passed on to her making her almost assured to get diabetes and be overweight. Lamarckianism is making a small comeback! (get it? small? genes?) Hypothetically speaking, if you have two exact copies of the same person, the moment they start being concious will start to see a divergence in decision making and experience. So each one will have a different reality. By this I mean one might find one girl attractive and the other might not, given enough divergence. So they will start off identically, but experience will change things fairly rapidly with what is probably an upper limit, sort of like how identical twins or even siblings often possess similar personality traits.

Does a nerve 'experience pain', or does it require a brain?


The nerve is the conduit, the brain experiences the pain. However, in cases where intense reaction happens (like you put your hand on a burning stove) reaction time is increased as in some cases it only needs to go to the spine in order to react. This just means that the reaction happens, likely based on intensity; no pain will be experienced until the brain interprets it as pain. You can see a fine example of differences in how the brain experiences pain by looking at masochism as well as how sensitive people are to pain meds (not talking about acquired tolerance, I mean at the start of chronic pain).

What's the minimum setup we'd need to create for Experience/Qualia to arise, and how would we know either way?
Impossible to know until we understand personality and its manifestation within the brain, as well as other aspects of conciousness.

I think it could be scientifically untestable, a mystery that will remain so, no matter how advanced our technology becomes.


Then it is non-science. An idea has to be falsifiable in order to be science. So it would be more of mysticism or faith (call it what you will). I'm sure it's testable, we just don't have a test for it or the baseline info needed to even start!

What you are missing is that we don't have the data in order to test this. So it's not untestable, we just can't test for it right now.
Edited by Ponera on 3/29/2012 7:42 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,906
Then it is non-science. An idea has to be falsifiable in order to be science. So it would be more of mysticism or faith (call it what you will). I'm sure it's testable, we just don't have a test for it or the baseline info needed to even start!

What you are missing is that we don't have the data in order to test this. So it's not untestable, we just can't test for it right now.


Awesome! You give me hope. :)
It vexes me when there appears to be a tin, the can-opener of science can't open.

First step is identifying the data needed, the test needed etc
The easy problems of consciousness are a given, but what evidence would give us reliable information about Experience?

Gottfried Leibniz wrote:

Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.

Even with complete mastery & understanding of matter, this argument by Gottfried Leibniz would need to be invalid somehow (I think, could be incorrect). I don't know how to refute it, any ideas?

I think that everything that exists must be physical (Even a 'diety'/Santa must be made of something) and the question 'what causes experience, exactly?' must have an answer.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,522
found something interesting
AngryProbes' Guidelines on Making a Good Buff/Nerf Troll Thread (Beta V 0.6b):
- - - - - - - Obvious troll is obvious, don't you be obvious too! - - - - - - -

1) Avoid common units/structures that everyone uses, particularly the basic units like zerglings, marines, stalkers, etc. Picking less common units makes obvious troll less obvious, and in rare cases may even lead to people thinking you are serious. Here is a list of suggested units:

Terran: Reaper, Banshee, Raven, Battlecruiser ; Sensor Tower, Point Defense Drone
Protoss: Dark Templar, High Templar, Warp Prism, Carrier
Zerg: Hydralisk, Ultralisk ; Nydus Worm

e.g. The banshee should be buffed…

2) Be specific and not too ridiculous. Give a very specific change, when you suggest something specific it makes it sound like you might know what you're talking about, even though you definitely don’t. Keep the change small to avoid obvious balance changes.

e.g. The banshee should be buffed by adding 1 base armor…

3) Explain how it will balance the game, but make sure you are extremely biased and describe a specific situation in which you got pwned (feel free to exaggerate the circumstances by saying you had more units than you really did or that it was completely unavoidable). The example that follows is fabricated, but note how unfair it sounds.

e.g. The banshee should be buffed by adding 1 base armor because they simply don’t stand up in a fight and get eaten up by turrets. 5 banshees can’t even take out 2 turrets with a few SCV’s repairing…

4) Try to preemptively counter arguments against your troll suggestion. If you can expect a certain response, simply acknowledge it in your original post and then respond with a biased explanation as to why you’re right, preferably in the form of a personal anecdote from a bronze league game no one cares about. Omit details that could have drastically changed the outcome, such as microing your units and/or researching upgrades.

e.g. I know banshees are designed for harassing, but it's ridiculous that a player builds 2 turrets and is instantly protected against 750 min/500 gas investment…
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,256
tan=opp/adj
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]