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 -
Okay, one last response and I block you for time-saving reasons.
No, this is a fair nitpick. I mean that p-zombie argument assumes our full model of physics, such that all external observations in it can be explained within physicalism. This means that brains of zombies instantiate a certain computation (computationalism follows). We've come a long way and we can see how a brain operates on information. Some of raw information is sensory, e.g pain that you bring up, starting as raw signals from receptors (usually). Some of the processing is perceptive, such as attending to that pain. This perceptive processing fits the definition of quale, in any definition that doesn't assume the premise of quale being something else. I claim that an information-processing system of such sort "knows how it feels" to see red or feel pain, and that you cannot express or imagine how it might be otherwise. Childish imagery like "light's on but nobody's home" doesn't count. Appeals to "come on you know what pain is" also do not count.
The only thing this sentence communicates is that you have nothing to communicate about pain but would like me to agree.
Wrong. I know what it means when I say it hurts, and I sort of know the biology of pain. But it doesn't follow that I know what pain is. I of course believe that pain is the latter from the first-person perspective where I say "it hurts". But if there's anything amusing to note here, it's that perspectives exist. And from your perspective,
What about logical coherence? Anyway, I disagree.
Quale (as pain from the first person perspective yadda yadda) might seem like ineffable ontological primitives to you, in the way text embeddings might seem to a self-aware LLM trained entirely on text, in the way categories were to Kant. I can't very well formulate why this is trivial and not a valid intuition pump for reasoning about ontologies.
Does a rock encode embeddings? Does a rock encode jpegs? Yes, of course it does, a function is a function is a function, like you say. No, of course it fucking doesn't, as I say – this is only possible with a tortured idea of encoding. Ironically, so says Chalmers (even more ironically, he punctures holes in your defense of crayons-universes).
A rock does not implement anything we can describe as information processing necessary and sufficient for "qualia".
A human brain clearly does, though.
Are you saying that you don't know what it feels like to feel pain?
You claim to know a lot of other things. Most of which seem to have a weaker evidentiary basis than the existence of pain. How are you going to tell me that you know, for example, the necessary conditions for what a possible set of physical laws looks like for any possible universe, but you don't know what pain is?
Ok, but - and I have to keep coming back to this - what is your empirical evidence for this claim? How can you empirically observe that the rock does or does not have qualia, or that GPT-4 does or does not have qualia. Or is it "just obvious" to you? If that's the case, then that's very strange. How can it be "obvious" to you what the necessary conditions are for a system to be able to experience pain, when you also claim that it's not obvious to you what pain even is in the first place.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to block me. Typically people just stop replying to a thread when they don't want to continue a discussion anymore. I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you at any time, if you ever decide that you want to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link