Have you watched:


Demis Hassabis and deep mind are doing some fascinating work on AI.
The alpha-fold2 system for protein folding is incredible. He states that before alpha-fold, an entire PHD could be spent on producing an accurate prediction on how a single amino acid genetic sequence forms a 3D ball structure (protein).
Proteins are of course very important in brain function so must be part of any final description of human consciousness.

Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I was recently reading reports on his stay in a Russian institute to help him with his 'obfuscated' substance addiction and the, imo, suspicious motivations/actions of his daughter.
There definitely is some brand building going on for financial gain but putting all of that 'true intentions' stuff to one side and Jordan's religious and right-wing tendencies. As a left-wing socialist, atheist, I find him a very intelligent and interesting individual.

Philosophers: their porridge is too hot.
Most people(certainly not ordinary, no such thing as an ordinary person imo): porridge gets cold very quickly as most are easily distracted.
Scientists: Porridge is just right Goldilocks! (do we have baby bears to thank for this or the hopes of all our children ?) (The hopes of children! A station where all antinatalists terminate)

Did you type anything significant there? I tried to read it but all that came through was hisssssssssssss and crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Just keep reading your exchange with @DA671 He can save you!! :smile:

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange.

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics. — Enrique

I second this position strongly. I think it's very life-affirming and a celebration of humanism for humans to think about such issues. For me, it shows how insipid viewpoints such as antinatalism are.

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I have enjoyed reading them very much.
I will follow all the links offered by @Enrique

I was familiar with the tiling problem described by Roger and his point that consciousness was not a phenomenon that had a purely computational or algorithmic description/solution.
I don't think electronic computing, based purely on von Neumann architecture, will ever create an AI system, which can pass the Turing test. But I think qubit systems (which can employ entanglement) combined with future advances in biological computing might.
Rogers comparison between the incompatibility of classical physics at the macro size and quantum physics at the sub-atomic and our current inability to explain consciousness as a serial/parallel set of processes sets the scene nicely for me.
I think it is likely that phenomena we are aware of in quantum mechanics such as entanglement, superposition, quantum tunneling etc must be part of the 'mechanisms'/processes involved in consciousness.
Stuart's expertise in anesthetics and the processes of switching consciousness off (at least from the standpoint of 'awareness of time passing' and the ability to be aware enough to memorialise/experience events) is a good in-road to understanding the processes involved.
If we can understand exactly what we are switching off then we should be able to progress in understanding consciousness more. I found Stuart's comment that all creatures from insects to humans and bigger require the same relative amount of anesthesia to render them unconscious a quite astonishing finding.
His comment that entanglement is the most likely candidate for the cumulative effect of firing neurons which 'work in parallel' to produce a 'thought,' was also compelling for me.

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain — Enrique

Fantastic!

but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or. — Enrique

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites?

The most essential aspect of consciousness, if we really want to avoid ambiguity and confusion, is the one that is impossible to talk about: it is your own experience about yourself, your perceptions, your emotions, whatever you perceive inside you. The moment we talk about it, we aren’t talking anymore about it, because we have immediately automatically selected, isolated, those aspects that we can talk about, leaving apart what is impossible to communicate, that is, the real experience of consciousness — Angelo Cannata

It's interesting that I find the above description akin to the 'measurement problem,' described in quantum physics.

Don’t reply or comment if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the subject, which you continually show, you don’t — schopenhauer1

I will reply or comment whenever I like. I have debunked your antinatalist viewpoint and will continue to do so, but you are mostly white noise now as you just engage in denial of truths. As an empty vessel, you will no doubt continue to make loud noises but I will leave you with your ever-decreasing circles.

I don't care what you do bar..tricks, you are just white noise to me now.

Your vile antinatalism should not be allowed on this forum imo.
Go back and read your exchanges with @DA671. Keep reading them until his logic finally lifts the vile fog of antinatalism from your sad life. He is a much friendlier human being than I and he was able to tolerate the BS you type without losing his patience. Your antinatalism just bores me now. You are a little lost child.

You bore me now bar..tricks! You are a lost child.

Just for you @Bartricks I copied and pasted the extract below from wiki:

One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls, writing in the mid to late twentieth century, claimed that a person cannot claim credit for being born with greater natural endowments (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as it is purely the result of the "natural lottery". Therefore, that person does not morally deserve the fruits of his or her talents and/or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary. However, Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents. The distinction here lies between Desert and, in Rawls' own words, "Legitimate Expectations".

Rawls' remarks about natural endowments provoked an often-referred response by Robert Nozick. Nozick claimed that to treat peoples' natural talents as collective assets is to contradict the very basis of the deontological liberalism Rawls wishes to defend, i.e. respect for the individual and the distinction between persons. Nozick argued that Rawls' suggestion that not only natural talents but also virtues of character are undeserved aspects of ourselves for which we cannot take credit, "can succeed in blocking the introduction of a person's autonomous choices and actions (and their results) only by attributing everything noteworthy about the person completely to certain sorts of 'external' factors. So denigrating a person's autonomy and prime responsibility for his actions is a risky line to take for a theory that otherwise wishes to buttress the dignity and self-respect of autonomous beings."

Nozick's critique has been interpreted in different ways. The conventional understanding of it is as a libertarian assessment of procedural justice, which maintains that while it might be true that people's actions are wholly or partly determined by factors that are morally arbitrary, this is irrelevant to assignments of distributive shares. Individuals are self-owners with inviolable rights in their bodies and talents, and they have the freedom to take advantage of these regardless of whether the self-owned properties are theirs for reasons that are morally arbitrary or not.

Others have suggested that Rawls has entirely mistaken the very logic of desert. If justice is getting what one is due, then the basis of desert must ultimately be undeserved. However, desert is a relational concept that expresses a relationship between a deserved and a basis of desert. It simply destroys the character of desert to demand, as Rawls does, that the basis of desert be itself deserved. For example, if we say a man deserves some primary good because of some quality or action "Y", we can always ask, as Rawls does, "but does he deserve 'Y'?" and so on. We then either have an infinite regress of bases of desert or arrive at some basis, some beginning point, which the individual cannot claim to have deserved or to be responsible for, but only to have or have been given by nature. After all, no human being exists causa sui; even to reduce the basis of claims to the very narrow one of life itself reveals Rawls' difficulty: surely no one can "deserve" or "claim credit for" their own existence.

To demand, as Rawls does, that no just claim rest on an undeserved base simply means that we must cease speaking about justice, for on the basis of that demand there can never be any just claims - not even for equality. Rawls' analysis of justice rests on a notion of desert which violates the concept of desert and therefore does not provide a more precise notion of the bases of desert, but rather dissolves entirely the concept of desert and with it justice. The many debates over justice in political life and in philosophy concern the actual substantive question of what are the proper bases of desert. That is, underlying every conception of justice must be a claim of right, a positive claim of desert. The great failing of Rawls' argument is that he provides no substantive basis for a claim right or desert; but this failing is, paradoxically, also the source of the great appeal or excitement about Rawls' theory. His approach seems to avoid the difficulties of the traditional debates and the value questions they necessarily raise and yet seems to enable him to discuss normative questions such as justice.

Do you really think there is anything here that supports antinatalism or is any such connection merely just conflations based on your shallow thinking?

The word is related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also "moral desert". In the English language, the word "desert" with this meaning tends to be a rather uncommon word colloquially; it is almost exclusively used in the phrase "just deserts" (e.g. "Although she was not at first arrested for the crime, she later on received her just deserts."). The phrase "just desserts" is a pun on this original term and is often confused as the correct spelling of the word.

But real deserts contain life and life persists and procreates and reproduces despite your dimwitted protestations.

Oh dear, D for effort. Again, try and engage with the topic. — Bartricks

Do you feel qualified to grade others bar..tricks? Being such a shallow thinker yourself!

Say something about desert. — Bartricks

Deserts contain life!

and that an injustice is what we have if a person does not get what they deserve. — Bartricks

I have been delivering what you deserve for a while now.

if I disagree with you and explain to you why your view is wrong, respond to the criticism rather than say anything about me. See? — Bartricks

If you stick to doing that when you respond to others then I will comply with your request.
If you continue to be the obnoxious p**** you can be towards others then you will keep getting what you deserve in return bar..tricks! Learn little bar..tricks be a big boy now.

Look, you're derailing this thread. — Bartricks

Don't throw stones in the water if you can't handle it when you get swapped by my returned waves.
Anyone who wants to post on this thread will do so. This thread is not derailed as it's about the issue of what people deserve and what they are worthy of. Your insulting and arrogant manner towards others is worthy of my disdain and you deserve to be exposed as the misanthrope you are.

I suspect you do create more laughter than I bar..tricks, especially when you try to type philosophy or antinatalism.

Aw didums! Ask your mommy or a philosopher you like, for a hug, even a virtual philosopher might help!

Grow up bar..tricks, take off your big awkward clown clothes and learn to debate like a man.
Stop preaching your antinatalist BS.

As I expected, you are unable to focus on the question. — Bartricks

I understand your frustration that you cant lead me or direct or manipulate our exchange.
That's why you are reduced to trying to answer your own questions the way the man in your mirror craves them to be answered. The way that allows you to get the jollies you so crave. They are delusional.
The best you could do is learn, as a man does.

I try to understand the person, not their job. Everything you do, and everything you experience influences everything you are. I like the old deep question, 'who are you?'
You could be the most academically qualified ............ ever and still be a vile human being.
You peddle antinatalism so you are not a deep thinker and as long as you advocate for such BS you never will be, no matter what your profession is.
The fact that you just attempted childish wordplay bar..tricks on me shows your sour personality.
You need to think more about who and what you are Mr professional thinker!

What is the philosophical definition of an 'ordinary' person? Anyone who does not call themselves a philosopher? Are some philosophers more ordinary than others?

Christians, Humanists, Buddhists, etc have a lot of common ground in this area. — Paulm12

I think the golden rule is held dearly by all good people. As an atheist, I have met many theists who seem to be humble, decent people who would help you if you needed them. I can never agree with their theism but your religion or lack of it can have little to do with your basic compassion for your fellow human beings. I judge a person by what they do much much more than what they say.
Each of us can justify the value of human life, including our own life by what we do every day.

Keep demonstrating your skewed logic deeply dopey. Your clown underclothing is beginning to show through nicely.
Did you hope that I would type an answer that would fall for your little amateur wordplay?
:lol: Don't try your sad little bar....tricks on me you infant.

Do you think shallow thinkers are good at detecting deep thinkers? — Bartricks

No, you are absolutely awful at it. Don't try to dance with me, you pathetic amateur. It would take you the rest of your life to learn even the basic steps.

Was this because he was lying or was this because his lying no longer worked for the vested groups he represented? — Tom Storm

I do genuinely think authority is scared of 'people power' or even 'the mob' in the UK.
Even a rich and powerful individual can be destroyed in the public domain.
I know the 'big picture' of social forces in the UK are very complicated and often contain a great deal of 'vested interest' and sometime a force of change can contain the strangest of bedfellows. Crazy combinations such as atheists and theists working in common cause against a vile political policy such as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. Sometimes the nefarious trip over each other so much that they all become vulnerable to an ever watching free press (or at least the few good honest reporters which do exist) and the wonderful antinefarious weapon that is the 'whistleblower.'

That’s the problem to begin with. Tastes, manners, proclivities, beliefs, desires, etc. are pluralistic. — NOS4A2

My advice is simple, pick your team/place your vote/plant your flag etc as wisely as you can.
You pay for your learning. You make your choice and you pay the price, good or bad.
Look before you leap!
Trust your friends but secure that which you care about.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
.
.
.
Ad nauseum. Life has many many many flavours (pluralistic) but you must bite/lick etc to know what any single choice tastes like! Those who spend their life sitting on fences will simply go through life with a constant sore arse!

The thing about the golden rule is not everyone grasps it. — Tom Storm

Some posters demonstrate your observation quite definitively.

There are many variations. — Tom Storm

Indeed! Luke 6:31 has "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."
A masochistic rapists dream, no doubt, but none of the more easily twisted versions worry me.
The golden rule is an excellent humanist/socialist mission statement imo.

That said, may all tories rot in hell--gay, straight. groped, or grappled. — Bitter Crank

I second that emotion and I will also back up one of the issues you raised. In my younger days, almost every time I wore a kilt to an event some woman or group of women would come up from behind and lift up the back of my kilt to see if I was a 'true Scot.' Double standards or what?
My own admission must also be that I did not mind at all if I thought the woman doing the lifting was attractive! Still, it's sooooooo true that I would be simply arrested and charged with sexual assault If I lifted up the back of women's skirts to see if they were wearing any underwear!!!!!

Not much of a rule, then — NOS4A2

I think your opinion of the golden rule is a tiny minority opinion and is misguided.

Worse still, it’s self-cantered. You consider yourself before considering anyone else. — NOS4A2

That's just your poor interpretation. The golden rule considers all stakeholders on an equal and balanced basis.

:up: :clap:

The golden rule does not fail, but it is open to abuse like everything else.
A twisting of the rule (such as a masochistic rapist who wants to be raped) does not discredit it or cause it to fail. It's like putting sewage water in your coffee, it's only something morons do.
What a shame you soiled your nice post.
Well said @DingoJones!

:rofl: What a brilliant and accurate rant! An excellent clip. I like this guy, I hope he's a socialist.

If you are then you are way overpaid!

Um, that doesn't mean that you then put them in a situation of harm so that they can be in a situation whereby the offense can take place — schopenhauer1

Um Pocahontas, you suggest that they are in a situation of harm due to their birth and that there exists an intent behind that, which is BS. There is no such intent on the part of the parents or the universe. Misfortune can occur which the majority of parents will try to protect against. You claim their efforts are in vain and you suggest not being born at all is the only protection against 'harm,' which makes you an idiot in my view.
I recall member DA671 making great effort to get through your foggy thinking. He blew your shallow thinking out of the water and you simply could not handle it. Your pathetic petted lip was present in almost every tedious response you made to his posts regarding your antinatalism.
You did not learn then and you are not learning now because you seem to want to remain the fool on the hill.

I don't create an injustice so that injustice can be a "thing" for which I can violate. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism is not a justified solution to the issue of human suffering so you advocate for injustice every time you propose antinatalism as the solution. You can run round and round your little hamster wheel as much as you like, you will still generate no power for your debunked arguments.

You don't handle nuance well it seems, as you admit right here, so perhaps you shouldn't even touch that one as it might overcomplicate your mind. It's already been spewing out a lot of poorly worked out objections (if that's what they are) — schopenhauer1

Is that your best fighting talk? What a powderpuff attack!

if YOU (someone) did something to another person to cause harm unnecessarily, that is what I am talking about. — schopenhauer1

I am perfectly aware that this is your one trick pony but it's already been destroyed. If I harm others it is either deliberate, accidental or unintended consequential so not ever 'unnecessary,' such a term is only applicable to those who decide to judge and such judgements can be utterly rejected on an individual basis so it is completely subjective and AGAIN TOO WEAK to use as a justification for something as extreme and ridiculous as antinatalism. But I know you don't care about such truths you are too busy trying to stay on your hamster wheel.

For some reason you misapply moral decisions with natural occurrences. — schopenhauer1

No, the problem is that your shallow thinking cannot perceive the relationships between them.

You have not shown the supposedly overwhelming evidence for your claim about the IDEA of "I want a baby/I want to procreate" being an instinct. — schopenhauer1

I told you already, I am not willing to re-educate you. Read some books about the powerful instinct to reproduce imprinted on all species by nature. If you won't accept the evolutionary/natural selection evidence or the behavioural evidence from observation past and present then your intellect is impotent.
Probably why you are so easily duped by dimwitted ideas like antinatalism.

I really don't know what you are talking about. — Bartricks

I know you don't. It's just another consequence of your inability to think deeper than you currently do. As long as you are not taken too seriously you and your antinatalist confusions will remain harmless.
Just like the sandwich board people with 'the end of the world is nigh' scrawled on their boards and in their psyche. :death: :flower:

On second thoughts, the fact it has the word 'tit' in it might put the antinatalists off as such words may invoke their natural instinctive imperative to procreate! :scream:

probeautitudonism! You heard it here first folks!!
It has the word 'tit' in it so perhaps it will be a hit for antinatalists. What does it mean you crazy druid? :joke:

Well that just shows the wisdom of not giving you any censorship power.
My hope for your move away from accepting hour after hour of despair persists.
Misery loves company and you can find plenty of fellow desperados if you seek them out.
Btw I am also in earnest. I don't find any value in trying to embellish with French phrases but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

I hope you become more positive in your predictions of the future of our species.
You might be a happier person if you tackle your hopelessness in new ways.
Another hour will still pass, regardless of your decision to live through it with despair as your main companion or hope. Choose life, don't see life as a curse because despair will become all you are or ever will be.

Well, I certainly don't advocate for a continuous population explosion that is unsustainable but the goal of antinatalism is not population control. If it was, I would support it. It's goal is the extinction of all human life with the goal of ending all human suffering. A vile, insipid proposal IN MY OPINION.
There are certain proposals made by people that I find disgusting, fascism, superiority, eugenics, antinatalism etc. I will not be a hypocrite and pretend that I give any credence to such ideas.
Anyone who suggests such ideas have value is not someone I will be nice to when they try to support such ideas. Antinatalism has nothing to do with the need to control human population growth, it wishes to terminate all human existence based on stupid thinking.
Antinatalists are .............. You can add the biggest insult you can think of and it would probably fall short of my low opinion of the idea and the people who peddle it.