Hmm. So you're saying that a "self-replicating molecule" is much less mysterious than a "conscious entity"? — J

Within the framework of materialism, I think it is. I think the materialist story of life is just a story of chemistry, so there's no fundamental incoherencies. The materialist story of consciousness, otoh, goes down some pretty weird rabbit holes: eliminative materialism and mind-brain identity theory.

If we're invoking a "vanishingly remote chain of events" here, why can't we do so for consciousness as well? — J

You can, and you get Boltzmann Brains. But the issue I have with Boltzmann Brains isn't that they're fantastically unlikely. It's the story materialism tries to tell about how consciousness emerges from any kind of brain, and we're back to the issues I raised earlier: a seeming category error, no agreed upon explanation for how consciousness emerges from matter, and it seems to lead to absurdities.

"I have a feeling that the abiogenesis problem only looks different and more scientific because we've made better progress on it. There certainly used to be a Hard Problem associated with it, and it's still no picnic. I expect the same will prove true for consciousness. Chalmers didn't mean the Hard Problem of consciousness was intractable, or a sign that we necessarily weren't thinking about it correctly. He just meant that, at the moment, we don't have a good research program for answering it."

That's possible. We used to think there was some mysterious elan vital associated with life. It seems to me, that at this point in our scientific development, there should be some explanation for consciousness, some agreed upon definition for what it is, some kind of test to see if x is conscious. The consciousness theories should not be all over the place, like they are. You have panpsychists in one camp and eliminative materialists in the other and they're both taken seriously. One of those camps should have been completely disproven by now. It suggests to me that traditional scientific enquiry won't ever solve the Hard Problem. The lack of progress makes me think science won't figure out consciousness.

"But in any case, I do have a better sense of why the whole "consciousness as emergent property" claim could seem extraordinary to you, thanks."

Awesome! Good discussion.

OK, that's helpful. But don't you have to run the same argument against the idea of life emerging? — J

Do you mean the mystery of abiogenesis? That's a scientific mystery, not a philosophical one. Life reduces to chemistry, so the idea that chemicals sloshing around could give rise to a self-replicating molecule in some vanishingly remote chain of events isn't hard to swallow. There's no Hard Problem associated with it. I don't see any reductio absurdum issues.

Can you say why you think it's extraordinary? Not that it could happen -- that is certainly extraordinary -- but why you think the claim is extraordinary. — J

OK, when you unpack "consciousness emerges from matter" you get:

1. There is this non-conscious stuff, and it was created ex nihilo around 14 billion years ago in an event we still don't quite understand. And we don't know exactly what this stuff is. The model used to be that it was simply little building blocks that assembled themselves together to make up everything else, but 100 years ago, that all changed and now matter is excitations of a quantum field and we still don't know what's going on with QM. The only thing everyone can agree on is that it's very counter-intuitive.

So already we have a poorly understood theory with a something-from-nothing origin. And on top of that, we're supposed to assume that this mindless nonconscious stuff, when you assemble it a certain way and run a current through it, conscious experiences emerge from it somehow. Doesn't that sound like a category error? And how exactly does that work? How much stuff do you need? What kind of stuff? Why is electricity necessary? Is it necessary? Could you replace a working brain with a functionally equivalent system of water, pumps and valves and would the system be conscious? If you adjusted the flow of water in this system in a certain way, could you produce the pain of stubbing a toe? As Bernardo Kastrup says, if that system of water, pumps, and valves IS conscious, what about the plumbing in my house? Could that be conscious too? And if materialism has us asking, "is my toilet conscious?" aren't we in absurdity land?

The one where you don’t criticise what Trump is doing and treat him as a credible leader rather than a clown. — Punshhh

I see. So, the NYTimes is drinking the Trump Koolaid. Is that what you're claiming?

Ostensibly for power generation. — Benkei

Lol

Possibly to gain a nuclear bomb. — Benkei

Yes.

But even the latter doesn't give Israel and the US the right to bomb nuclear facilities and risk nuclear fall out. — Benkei

There hasn't been nuclear fallout, there won't be nuclear fallout. Now, do Israel and America have the right to bomb Iran? Depends. What are Iran's intentions? What are they saying? What are their plans? Death to Israel and America! Well, then. What did Iran think would happen?

It's also a totally irrelevant reply to my point that the purported existential threat Israel claims exists isn't there. — Benkei

If someone keeps threatening to annihilate you, and has a clock on display counting down the days to your annihilation, maybe your enemies will take you seriously on that?

The NYTimes has been on the cool aid since everyone kissed the ring last November. — Punshhh

Kool aid, with a k. What Kool aid are you talking about?

Yes, but now there's a UN agency, and the UN is no friend to Israel, backing up Israel's claim.

"Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, a confidential report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday. In a separate report, the agency called on Tehran to urgently change course and comply with its years-long probe."

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c9962c1e4199e951559096bcf5cc0

Why is Iran doing that?

I read the NY Times, but I avoid news otherwise. I just don't want to hear about Trump. — frank

Well, he's the president. And we're attacking another country! How do you avoid it??? The NYTimes is solid, though.

Which isn't much different from what they're doing now, particularly in Israel's case. — Mr Bee

You think you're seeing regime change? We've seen America do regime change. This is not regime change. I don't think Israel is doing it either. I think they could decapitate Iran if they really wanted to, but they don't want that. Yet. Israel could be much more ruthless than they currently are.

Their best strategic move is to not to recklessly anger another nuclear power. North Korea also demonizes the Americans regularly and guess what, nobody is messing with them because they actually have a bomb. — Mr Bee

Nobody messed with N. Korea before they had the bomb. They just kind of fester there on the Korean Peninsula.

Do you think Israel would allow the current regime to acquire a bomb and stay in power?

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious. — Benkei

I don't think it is obvious. Many of you here are having a very hard time putting yourselves in Israel's shoes and seeing the culpability of Iran here. If you constantly threaten the annihilation of the strongest kid on the block, and fund terrorist proxies to go after him, and you're now scheming to get your hands on a new big weapon...might the problem be you?

I think the US knew Saddam couldn't back down. After the war, Wolfowitz explained that the point was to democratize the Middle East starting with Iraq. That was supposed to basically give al Qaeda what they wanted, so no more 9-11 style attacks. — frank

That was undoubtedly part of it, but remember that almost all of the hijackers came from SA, and we haven't done a thing to them.

All that thinking is in the past now. I don't think Trump entertains any middle eastern strategy. — frank

The nonAmericans here don't understand this. They think Trump and Americans are just itching to take out Iran. Instead, we're looking at what Trump is doing like someone watching a horror movie with their hands over their face. It's worked out well enough for Trump so far, but there is zero appetite in the U.S. for another Middle East adventure. Trump's attempts at playing peace maker now are laughably transparent. He doesn't want to invade or keep bombing. He wants Iran to suck up to us so we can make money and build condos in Tehran.

The reason why they won't accept the Iranians getting a nuke is because of their government. — Mr Bee

Yes, because there's a literal clock in Tehran counting down to the prophesized destruction of Israel. Maybe stop doing stuff like that?

Iran getting rid of a nuclear deterrent will make them more vulnerable. — Mr Bee

They don't have a nuclear deterrent, that's their problem! You're arguing that Iran will think, 'if we just had nukes, we wouldn't be getting slapped around like this' but there are three objections to this:

1) The cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon has just been made prohibitively more expensive and dangerous. America and Israel aren't doing regime change, but that can easily change if Iran doesn't mend their ways. Upper echelon military and political leaders now know that their lives are expendable.

2) It's not enough to build a nuke. In order to have a credible deterrent, a nuke has to be successfully tested. So, what happens if it doesn't work right? A fizzile, in other words. Well, now Iran is truly screwed, because Israel and the U.S. really will decapitate the ruling regime and Iran has no credible deterrant.

3) Even if Iran successfully tests a nuke, what is Israel's best strategic move? Prevent Iran from getting more nukes. Regime change. And their buddy Trump will probably go along with it.

If you're Iran, isn't the best move to give up on enrichment and take your chances with diplomacy?

None of that matters to the actual reason the war started. — Mr Bee

Yes, it does. After Gulf War 1, if Iraq had been completely transparent about the end of it's WMD program and destruction of all it's WMD"s, do you think they still would have been invaded?

The US wanted to go to war with Iraq as much as the Israelis do now with Iran, because they perceive the Iranian regime itself as an existential threat.

America did not perceive Iraq to be an existential threat. Condi Rice talked about mushroom clouds, but nobody believed Iraq could end the country. If Iran got nukes, otoh, and took out Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa, could Israel come back from that? There's a case to be made that a nuclear Iran really could end Israel's existence.

I'm not seeing yet what you don't like about my sketch of an extraordinary claim. What might be an example of such a claim for you? - not necessarily about consciousness. I just want to understand better where you're coming from. — J

I think any claim that consciousness can emerge from matter is an extraordinary claim.

I believe that if Iraq had been fully cooperative with Hans Blix and his team, they could have avoided that war. Possibly not, but Iraq is also a special case because they'd already used WMD's and invaded a neighbor and played fast and loose with UN inspectors all through the 90's and then, when they wanted desperately to be believed about not having WMD's, they had no credibility and STILL wouldn't cooperate fully with Blix and his team.

There is a very good chance that the Iranians moved their stockpiles and they have probably decided that getting a nuclear weapon is the only reasonable way to get deterrence. — Mr Bee

Or they can look at their neighbors who aren't getting bombed and just abandon the nuke program.

So the regime change is a fail, the nuclear “destruction” is bullshit media propaganda, and really nothing has been accomplished beyond taking out some military leaders — who will be replaced. This was an Israeli war crime — and they sucked the US in as well. Much like the Gaza genocide (“We’re eradicating Hamas”), this is a total failure and will only make Israel less safe and their enemies more determined and numerous. — Mikie

This goes back to the question of whether Iran is rational or not. I believe they're rational. They haven't disrupted shipping, they made a pathetic face-saving attack on the U.S., and their terrorist proxies have been silent (but that could be because they've been decimated). Rational regimes respond to rewards and punishments and Iran has just been punished severely. I doubt the 85 year old Ayatollah wants to spend the rest of his life in hiding. Other top officials and generals certainly don't want to be killed in future air strikes. Israel has shown that no one is safe. They can get you with a beeper or they can get you with a plane. If you're Iran, at this point, don't you just say, "fuck it, the nuke's not worth it"?

Well, is there something it's like to be an electron? Is that an extraordinary claim? Is there something it's like to be a 3 pound meat blob in a skull? Is that an extraordinary claim? Don't get me wrong. I'm an idealist. I think the whole idea of consciousness emerging from matter (or matter being conscious) is absurd, but presumably, you don't, so...which consciousness claims do you think are NOT extraordinary? Beyond the obviously Cartesian ones. What about Dennett and the Churchlands? Are they making extraordinary claims?

So already a massive win for Iran, even if more Iranians have died. — boethius

:lol:

It appears that there is a very large difference in Solar Energy Potential between summer and winter for latitudes that are not close to the equator.

How will countries that depend on solar energy cope with this situation? — Agree-to-Disagree

They should have a reliable backstop of nuclear energy always available to shore up production shortages from renewables.

You don't think Iran looks incredibly weak and pathetic right now?

Trump extends an olive branch:
"Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured,"

Yes, it is a little different (and I'll avoid the lawyer jokes!). Do you think the difference consists in mastering the kinds of behaviors you name?

And yes, even a glimmer of a theory of consciousness would help us more than hours of debate. I think "implausible," minus such a theory, is still OK (the extraordinary-claim argument, above), but "impossible" or "absurd" -- no, too strong. We just don't know. — J

But I'm not so sure that LLM consciousness IS an extraordinary claim. And if it is, does panpsychism make extraordinary claims? Idealism? Materialism? Dualism? If everything about consciousness becomes an extraordinary claim (other than the fact of our own consciousness), then the term becomes meaningless. Is the existence of conscious minds other than my own an extraordinary claim?

Imagine a possible world where superintelligent conscious machine intelligences come across a human for the first time. Wouldn't they be incredulous that some three pound meatblob of neurons could produce consciousness?

Sure, that's one way to look at it. But would you say the same thing about a CD that, when you put it in a player, declared that it was "feeling good"? I guess, at a certain point, we have the right to deny things that are very implausible -- not for all time, and always with the possibility of being wrong. Yes, it's conceivable that this alleged entity feels something and is telling you the truth, but it's far more likely that it isn't, wouldn't you agree? Especially given that its whole purpose for existing is to convince humans that it is "just like them"? Sounds kinda suspicious to me . . . :smile: — J

It's a little different when the Ai can talk to you like a person, and pass the bar exam, help you with retirement planning, do your homework, be your therapist, etc. Also, how do we know it's implausible? Don't we need a working model/theory of consciousness in order to conclude that?

NBC News’ Richard Engel says the nature of the strike and the well-defended target indicate Iran’s retaliatory strike was a “symbolic attack.” Qatar was also reportedly informed ahead of the attack.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/live-blog/live-updates-iran-top-diplomat-meets-putin-us-braces-retaliation-rcna214428#rcrd83379

"Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan condemned Iran's attack on the Al Udeid military base in Qatar, according to statements from the countries' ministry of foreign affairs."

Ah, I see. Iran wins if they get beaten to a bloody pulp but manage to avoid complete annihilation. Right. Your claims about air supremacy are fantastical. Neither U.S. or Israel have lost a plane yet and I will be very surprised if Iran ever manages to take one down. They have no effective air defenses. And the U.S. is not doing regime change. The attacks so far have been limited and against nuclear sites. We're not trying to decapitate Iran.

If Iran "wins" this war with Israel it is a massive boost for Russia's and China's lead counter-order, further eroding US credibility. However, it's only a proxy failing, like Ukraine, and the US empire could "put it behind us". So would be a big victory for Iran, but further improve Russia and China's position as being able to credibly back opposition to the US.

However, if the US went all in on Iran and then Iran won a conflict directly with the US, that would be a fatal embarrassment to US power and technology, as well as massive damage to US stockpiles, military and domestic moral etc. — boethius

Iran is not going to militarily win against Israel and/or America. They are being bombed at will at this point. Their retaliation against Israel has some bite to it, but it's like the V2 rocket attacks against Britain at the end of WW2: strategically meaningless terror attacks. Iran's retaliation against America so far has been like the weak pawing of a cornered rabbit. Their strongest gambit would be to disrupt shipping, but then they would have the whole world against them.

The stock market is up despite all this. Oil is down. It's priced in that Iran will take it like a whipped dog.

This is Russia-China's opportunity to essentially unseat the US as the world's leading power. — boethius

How would that happen? Nothing going on in the Middle East will change the fact the U.S. military is the strongest in the world, the U.S. economy the richest in the world.

A face-saving attack not designed to do much damage or something worse? They would have to be crazy to hit back hard with Trump in the WH.

They also attacked one of our bases and put a bunch of soldiers in the hospital with TBI's, but it was still very weak retaliation for taking out one of their top guys.

USA, UK and EU need a new approach in that region. — Eros1982

That's for sure. Iran needs to stop being a theocratic terrorist exporting shithole hell bent on acquiring weapons grade uranium. Why are they enriching far beyond what they need for commercial applications? What is the benign explanation for that? Are they not interested in nukes, but trying to run a bluff to get diplomatic goodies from the international community? I think that principles of MAD apply to Iran and they're not suicidal, so a nuclear armed Iran could be lived with, but I also understand Israel not necessarily agreeing with that assessment and concluding Iran really would try and take out Tel Aviv.

I brought this up earlier, but you ignored it: there is a literal clock in Tehran counting down to the predicted destruction of Israel, said prediction made by the current Ayatollah.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iranian-outlet-publishes-footage-of-israel-doomsday-clock-that-idf-said-it-destroyed/

Why on Earth would Israel let the Iranian regime get close to a nuke if they have a decent chance of stopping or delaying them? A ruler of Israel ignoring such a threat would be guilty of dereliction of duty.

We don't hate the Iranians, we hate the Iranian regime which unfortunately has suppressed that beautiful Persian civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

This!

Iran pursues something like the regional foreign policy equivalent of the Soviet Union or US at the peak of the Cold War, while having the actual economic and military strength of... well, Iran. From a realpolitik view it's almost incomprehensible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But they've seemed like rational actors. In the past, they seemed to know where the red line is and walk right up to it without going over. They played us very well during the Iraq occupation. They were responsible for a lot of American soldier deaths and seemed to know how much damage they could inflict without pushing the Bush and Obama Administrations into retaliation.

But this latest move of theirs makes no sense. After 10/7, I don't see Israel allowing Iran to get close to a nuke, and with the election of Trump, Israel now has an ally in their corner capable of just about anything. Why on Earth were they hell bent on uranium enrichment with Bibi and Trump in power?

"Iran has enriched uranium particles up to just short of weapons grade, placing further pressure on western powers to issue a third censure of Iran at a meeting of the nuclear watchdog board next week."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/28/pressure-on-west-to-act-grows-after-report-on-iranian-uranium-enrichment

You don't think Iran shoulders any blame in this? There's a literal clock in Tehran counting down the days to Israel's predicted destruction. Maybe trying to enrich uranium to weapon's grade while constantly threatening Israel and The Great Satan -ahem- America with death isn't the smartest thing in the world to do?

Nothing diplomatic offered to them by Bibi and Trump. — Eros1982

Really? You think the bombings would continue if Iran agreed to abandon it's enrichment program and allow UN inspectors access to any sites at any time? I think Trump would take that deal in a second.

I remember Shock and Awe all too well in 2003, but what is Iran going to do about this? Does the ruling regime take the diplomatic offramp or escalate by attacking US bases that aren't protected by Iron Dome? Do they interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz? Iran's neighbors and allies are not coming to their defense. Iran doesn't seem to have any good options.

NB: AFAIK, the real is ineluctable and therefore inevitably hazardous to everyone who neglects or ignores it. — 180 Proof

Idealists don't play in traffic?