This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The article says the opposite: for Americans (Stanford AI lab specifically) it's "the ability to adapt to new situations, and learn from experience", which is somewhat related to "prediction", and for "Europe" (Larousse specifically) it's "the set of mental functions whose goal is conceptual and rational knowledge", or in other words explanations and understanding.
To me, it's more of a distinction between the modern and the old-fashioned concept of someone being of high intellect. Nowadays modern schooling trends are all about competencies and skills and tools and the "how", while old-fashioned Prussian style education emphasized lexical knowledge and Bildung, being able to recite poems, knowing many facts and their connections etc. Also in that sense an "intelligent man" is also intertwined with knowing etiquette, being polite and so on. "Smart" has the same duality. Of course the prediction and navigating unknown situations and figuring out solutions in difficult situations type concept is also known to all cultures. If we don't use the word intelligent, English has words for this like quick-thinking, quick-witted, sharp, and perhaps tangentially some sense of "shrewd" with some disapproval.
But the situation with consciousness is a bit different.
Maybe it's just a me thing, but I distinctly remember that it was quite unintuitive for me that I am supposedly having perceptions with qualia in my consciousness and apparently my mind is in there too somehow or whatnot. Like as a teen when getting familiar with these kinds of interesting books in English I didn't intuitively think of myself as looking out some rectangular window from inside a Cartesian theater onto the world, separated by some kind of pane of glass. I think a much more natural notion is that I simply see the things in front of me and it makes me aware of their 3D arrangement and state, color etc. I don't see some kind of red qualia, I just see an object and I perceive that the object is red. There is no intermediate redness qualia. Of course it's a naive view and perception is very active yadda yadda, but no, it feels passive. You open your eyes and the world is there. Not icons and whatnot, it's the things out there in the world. Optical illusions are fun because they reveal that this view is indeed naive and perception relies on lots of assumptions and priors.
Also I think the Anglo-analytical philosophy sees consciousness quite differently from the continental phenomenologists like Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. In the Anglo view it's really like the world as clockwork is basically pretty complete if only it wasn't for this one little puzzle piece here, which we label "consciousness" and we don't quite know what it's for, but we guess it's going to fit somewhere in this complete-seeming puzzle, we just have to look a bit more closely. While in the other view it's much more integrated into all the rest of the things, but I'm quite out of my depth here.
More options
Context Copy link