flannel jesus

That's a pretty big problem. Everything else fundamental is also fundamentally causal. It's not fundamental now, causal later - it's causal at a funda...

I read your comment (the one I replied right to) sounded like it was explicitly agreeing with me. That's all

Why does me saying "right" lead to you saying "not convinced?"? "That's right" is the kind of thing someone says when they are agreeing with something...

ah gotcha

based on what?

right

Allow me to risk being idiotic, but perhaps part of the solution lies in thinking "Lois believes that Superman can fly" is not a property of Superman....

you're clearly confused. Just because it's true that there's 100 blue eyed people doesn't mean any individual blue eyed person knows there's 100 blue ...

how does he know there's 100? Nobody said that.

What's the logical deduction?

I'm also curious about this. Effects are measured in physical change. You measure a physical change, how do you determine that it was fundamental cons...

hasa diga eebowai!

because it kinda means you're constantly dying

okay, you've obviously developed your entire unique language for talking about this, that uses the same terms other people use but with entirely new m...

then you're not talking about properties When someone says consciousness is a property of certain complex systems, they're not saying "consciousness i...

I don't know why you think that or where you got that from. You think properties can be exhausted, you think functions can be exhausted, I think you'v...

because the question doesn't even make sense. It's like a Christian asking an atheist, "oh yeah, well how many angels are there?" What the fuck do you...

This is a completely inappropriate question for you to ask me. This is the question YOU have to answer. I never said anything about how the functions ...

you haven't shown that anything is complete though. You say "exhausted", it seems like you just want me to take your word for it. You're not making a ...

I'm failing to see how any of that is an argument for "a function of" meaning a one to one mapping. I think that's just a deep confusion of yours, and...

and who says the functions have to be one to one? Why does it have to be "a specific property that relates to a specific property"? I just don't think...

exhausts all functions? What does that mean? It seems like you think every property of a system has to have a 1-to-1 mapping to a property of the comp...

what I'm trying to get at is, the way you've described both strong and weak emergence, the higher level property is "a function of" what's happening a...

Sure, and I think that makes sense as well

Up here you say experience is strong emergence because it's the result of the properties of matter in the brain only. That's "a function of". Why do y...

ironically though, it turns out studies from neuroscience tell us that our experience of "the present" is constructed with a slight lag, and so your p...

okay, well at least I've done my part in informing you that you're using those words in a way other philosophers who are familiar with those words wil...

I truly think that you've got entirely turned around on what the difference is between strong and weak emergence. In your op, you worded certain thing...

and do you think they're talking about strong or weak emergence?

I don't see how those two questions are related to each other. I'm just saying, strong emergence is absolutely the opposite of saying emergent things ...

I call it "radical lastthursdayism". Lastthursdayism tells you, you should be skeptical that your entire existence didn't start last Thursday, with al...

I've been struggling to fully wrap my head around it, hence why I've been watching videos like the above. It's fascinating and confusing

sure Not so sure about this one though. Why are you sure? Why couldn't space be a thing? Relativity tells us spacetime can be stretched, compressed, a...

that's not what "strong emergence" is saying. I think you might have strong and weak emergence mixed up.

The arena upon which events happen

I don't think this is correct. I don't believe in strong emergence, but if there were strong emergence it would be casual - arguably more casual than ...

I had this thought too but not as clearly worded

since I couldn't find a video, I did ask an ai for a summary. https://g.co/gemini/share/11f0f523d7b3 In short, special relativity had to be derived as...

Hmm I had a look and I'm not sure he has done that for relativity. He has many videos going into depth on many aspects of relativity, but I don't thin...

he has a huge video series that looks at different aspects of relativity. He might have one that goes over the reasons why it had to be thought of, I'...

I think there are small enough intervals of time such that nothing has changed in your brain to make you feel any different than the moment before. Ev...

As if right on cue! After my last post.

EXACTLY! Even without injury, or misplaced atoms from a transporter accident, even thinking about a perfect transporter and the question of continuity...

Honestly I think it's the same question with or without transportation.

Yeah it definitely seems like op is more just assuming it's weak emergence. I mean I agree with that assumption, but I agree with you that he kinda le...

I wasn't entirely sure what op meant by "a function of" in this context, so I (perhaps embarrassingly) asked ai: If the macro property is directly der...

Another aspect is that because it relies on commitment rather than deduction, the easy counter to it is, it's assuming they're committing because they...

Yeah this is definitely an aspect that still bothers me. And it will endlessly make the "guru says nothing" solution distasteful unless it's figured o...

I will say that it's food for thought for me. I might seem dismissive and like I'm refusing to accept it, but I'm running it around in my mind and the...

too much mind reading for me personally. Not deductive.