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 -
A test is literally an operation of the senses in empiricism, it does not needs to be socially operated. Deceit doesn't even factor since the nature of subjective experience makes it invulnerable to it, vis à vis existence. Never mind the fact you're totally ignoring a priori knowledge altogether.
You're just a slave not even to your senses, but to the aggregated senses of others. The real difference is that can buy your conception of the truth with enough money and shiny labcoats, and you can't do it to me.
It wouldn't be grating if you weren't clamoring you're the free one, for denying the evidence of your own mind. But for what it's worth I have no evidence you're not a p-zombie. I just certainly know I'm not. So maybe you're right about what you can observe.
Because the whole idea is not-even-wrong, it's nonsense. You could meet me, talk to me for 100 years and still have no such evidence. You could never have such evidence no matter what you did.
Of course. That's why consciousness is mysterious.
It's still there though. Like the Sun and the stars before we had any ideas of nuclear fusion. So we make up loose explanations and frameworks to fit the phenomenon, all of which are equivalently evidence free.
But we (or rather I) know it's there still.
Once again, evidence doesn't have to be shared socially to exist. It only has to be experienced through the senses. Except in cases of deception, which conveniently do not apply since it's impossible to be deceived about the existence of one's subjective experience.
It's not that qualia is not even wrong, it's that it's inaccessible to science because evidence of it cannot be shared. True things can have this shape: I cannot prove to you that I'm thinking about the color yellow right now, and yet I am.
This isn't a limitation of reality, it's a limitation of science as a tool. Some truths are inaccessible to it, and this should tell you it's a bad idea to ground your entire understanding of the world on it rather than disqualify the world because it isn't cooperating with your preconceptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link