Curious if your stance extends to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Founded in 330AD, it predates all other canonization councils:
The Council of Trent (1545–1563) - explicitly laid out the 73-book canon for the Catholic Church
Council of Rome (382)
Synod of Hippo (393)
The two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 respectively)
Council of Florence (1431–1449)
Applying your standard literally, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Ethiopian Bible are the only true Christian religion and religious text because others have fewer or greater number of books.
It sounds like you're ok with adding books to the bible so long as you're the one doing it. If you're not willing to accept the consequences of your own rules, they aren't rules, they're justifications.
> If you have the privilege of voting by mail then be an adult and mail it promptly so it arrives by election day when all ballots should be counted.
Disenfranchisement - the inability to participate in our most sacred institution - shouldn't be based on the variation of mail delivery speeds. It encourages all the wrong incentives. Responsibility rhetoric makes people feel good, but rule clarity is more important that the good feels. We picked a clear deadline - postmark. It prioritizes participation. No one should be disenfranchised because we want fast election results.
The disenfranchisement bit is such a tired, worn out trope.
They mail them a month ahead of time.
Developing countries where people struggle with food and sanitation have this figured out and California rightfully deserves to be mocked by them.
Voting is for adults and we don't need to cripple the system to cater to people so irresponsible they can't drop a piece of paper in a box on time. If that's too hard you don't deserve to vote or there is something more nefarious at play.
Voting is for eligible citizens. If you are an eligible citizen you have a right to have your vote counted. Full stop.
Stop trying to push a disenfranchisement position. It will never be acceptable. Maybe get therapy to deal with the feelings your have about needing quick tabulations? Solving your feelings through disenfranchisement is externalizing whatever inner demons you're fighting.
You seem to be taking this personally rather than showing any actual problems that exist. Just because you assume something nefarious must be going on with absolutely no evidence to back that up doesn't mean it's true.
Because every time basic fraud prevention measures are brought up, everyone acts all cutesy saying show me proof it's ever happened as if the world is somehow honest by default when it comes to elections.
Do you leave your servers wide open with all ports exposed? Do you ask "prove to me we've been owned before" when you're told to put a firewall in place?
I wouldn't want to disenfranchise people sending ICMP traffic my way.
If it's so common, you should be able to prove it rather than condescendingly dismissing it as "cutesy".
> Do you leave your servers wide open with all ports exposed? Do you ask "prove to me we've been owned before" when you're told to put a firewall in place?
The equivalent in this situation would be that you're freaking out about there being tons of "hackers" currently in the servers despite the firewall already being in place, but refuse to prove it and instead insult people and throw out barely-veiled political jabs.
...and if you had actually seen our ballot for this primary, you'd know that anyone with a semblance of care to know who they were voting for and why constituted veritable weeks of legwork. The governor's race had like 60 people running, not to mention all the judge seats, etc.
Hey Bloom’s 2 sigma problem. So far, (nearly) all conversations about education on HN I’ve seen, have had a naturally point at which Bloom’s 2s should be introduced.
Humanity is now preparing students with a 20 year time horizon, while tech changes much faster. If this was agriculture, the industry would be doomed by that horizon mismatch.
We really need more teachers, if we want the median citizen to be better off.
Strong correlations to actual outcomes. That can be career outcomes or otherwise but actual outcomes people care about. Not test scores.
We have a zillion natural experiments because there are so many schools in the world and within many of them teachers given a lot of leeway.
Does any of it make a damn bit of difference controlling for everything else? We have Waldorf schools teaching woodworking and cram schools shoving AP courses at eighth graders—-that’s a large difference, what do life outcomes show?
Aren't you saying the same thing? It seems like the metaphysical and the map would be analogous here.
Of course both of those suffer from the recursive problem of just kicking the can one level up. But I guess that's fundamentally unsolvable so who cares.
If something happens "on the map" doesn't that imply the map to exist and be some sort of metaphysical thing? As opposed to a purely theoretical construction.
I think you can be a monist and still have a map. To me it's similar in the sense of "all models are wrong, some are useful." A mathematical model (a map) doesn't require a metaphysical foundation to exist. Right?
I agree that a monist can have a map. But you said "consciousness exists on the map" which (AFAICT) would imply the map to be "real" else how would something happen on it as opposed to being an emergent property of the contents of the territory?
For example temperature is an emergent property of matter, it does not happen on the map, do you agree? Assuming you do, what would it mean for temperature to happen "on the map"? (Obviously that's nonsensical so for a second here just don't think about what temperature actually is.) Would such a state of affairs not imply dualism?
Temperature is a classic example of an emergent phenomenon. It can be physically measured using (for example) a mercury thermometer which is an exceedingly simple construction. It is a real thing. You can touch a hot or cold surface and feel it for yourself, no map required.
Anyway even if you don't like the example I chose can you see the point I was trying to make? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory? How would it interact with the world (ie the territory)? Would it not necessarily imply dualism?
I agree, but what does that have to do with what I just asked? What would it mean for a quantifiable phenomenon to happen on the map as opposed to happening in the territory?
You can measure a derived value that appears on your map, but you do so by observing concrete things from within the territory. So in that case the quantifiable things happen entirely within the territory and (as you say) it is important not to confuse the map with that.
So when you earlier suggested that "Another alternative is that consciousness exists on the map" I'm asking what would that entail? How could consciousness exist on the map as opposed to within the territory? If it did, would that not imply dualism - that the map were in fact real?
Consciousness is a label like fat, smart, man, grumpy, cool. Like money, property, or the idea of a week, it's something that we've loosely agreed to out of convenience, not because it's some intrinsic property of the mind. It's a useful label because it determines how we treat things - that's fine.
But insisting on searching for it is like searching for cognitive aether. It's the social equivalent of phlogiston. Like all of these ideas, they exist in our heads as a map - a way of navigating the world, but when we hunt for it's existence in the real world and fail, time after time, we have to remind ourselves that the map is emphatically not the territory. We will never find consciousness because it's like looking for a scientific characteristic of property ownership. It's a category error.
"Car" is a good example of a label that's pretty strictly agreed to. If someone tells me they've developed a new car and then shows me a motorcycle, it's easy to prove that it's not a car, even though many of its engineering principles and functional components are identical to those in cars.
With consciousness, on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any motorcycle-equivalent. Essentially everyone I've discussed the issue with (myself included) expects that any mind which runs on similar principles to ours or has similar thoughts to our thoughts is conscious.
You really don't have much experience in philosophy of language do you? It's notoriously hard to pin down the edges of such terms, even something like car or table.
Is a Reliant Robin a car or a tricycle? If it's a car, why aren't other tricycles? What about a side-car of a motorcycle? What about an APC? What's the distinction between a flying car and a plane?
It's hard to pin down the edges of any term, but there exist things which are car-like and yet universally agreed not to be cars. That's what I claim doesn't exist for consciousness.
Describing something as "car-like" is begging the question. You are presupposing an objective definition for "car" in order to draw a distinction between things that are cars, and things that are almost cars. The reason such a thing doesn't exist for consciousness is that people believe that the offered definitions for consciousness are illegitimate. It would seem logically weird for me to accept that a term is "real" if it crosses some percentage of public acceptance of the definition, and not real otherwise. I would argue that using that heuristic would make it very obvious that computers are not conscious because it's a stance that practically everybody takes outside of hackernews.
If we take the classical position that words point to real things in the world, "useful label, loosely agreed to out of convenience" is kind of just regurgitating the meaning of "word". The first half indicating the function, and the second half accounting for the fact we live in a world with a continuum of linguistic disparity.
Now, this position isn't the only position. But a relational model of language for example takes his assertion to an even more extreme place, and suggests they don't function as labels at all.
I don't have an ability to exhaustively test all words against this assertion. Nor do I have the kind of access memory to draw one if it exists. Sorry.
I guess my question or confusion is that if there exists no readily accessible, easily identifiable example of a noun which does actually serve as something more than "a useful label, agreed to out of convenience", then the critique appears to be stating a vacuous truth, because there are no entities for whom the critique would not apply.
My point was more that we have words for things that don't exist, whose map gets mistaken for territory.
Many of them appear very much like fundamental parts of reality, making appearance an untrustworthy instrument. Reversing cause and effect between reference and referent is something almost everyone does, no one notices, and is the source of endless confusion. We should strive to not confuse our model of the world with the world itself. Consciousness exists in our model of the world as much as red does.
This is rhetorically slippery, and feels like it is restating the thing that I asked to be demonstrated when I asked for example of the opposite. It feels like begging the question.
In either case, the central thing that I was saying is that critiquing an article because it makes a claim about a specific word which also applies to an entire class of words makes that critique feel less informative. What I mean is that if there were an article that said "The Sun is not red" and the response was that redness is a concept of human minds, then I don't know if I would feel informed. If the comment is just limited to point that out, I guess I wanted to point out the limitation.
A standardized unit of measure is almost definitionally a label of convenience, what? Why was there no concept of a meter until the 1790s? It was determined by a council of people, does that sound like a truth of the universe?
A label is distinct from a definition. Contrast that with "tall" or "short", which are entirely context dependent and used entirely for convenience.
Words like "just", "free", "fast", "fuzzy" fall into the second category. Perhaps "conscious" too.
The difference is the presence of a strict definition that depends upon a physical absolute. I can point to a metre. Suggesting that it's nothing more than a label is idiotic.
This is being intentionally obtuse and you know it.
A meter is the same anywhere in the universe. If it's not, it's not a meter.
The defintion of "fat" changes based on any 3 people in the room. A handful of people would struggle to form a consensus on if all people, dogs, mice, worms, and/or bacteria are conscious.
If you take the strategy that you will create a definition, create a label for that definition, and then say that any deviations from the defintion that was chosen makes usage of the label incorrect, then yes, it's the same everywhere in the universe -- according to fiat, and I don't believe that that negates that it is a label, just that validity of usage of the label derives from the perceived authority of the labeller. God didn't come down from on high and say that a meter is the length light travels in 1/299792458th of the time for 9192631770 cycles of radiation of Cesium 133. People in rooms chose that it would be based on the circumference of the Earth with a line passing through Paris, France (how convenient), and if there were an academy in the 1790s that invented the concept of "fat", and "fat" means a BMI exceeding 30, then fat would be true everywhere in the universe too (BMI after all is defined as a ratio of height, measured in meters to weight, measured in kilograms, which are both fundamental SI units), and there would be no ambiguity.
People are still coming up with definitions of consciousness and then those definitions end up being attacked by others who disagree with the foundation of the definition, which is - if you will recall - also what happened with the meter, over the course of centuries, until it was very recently redefined to be "unambiguous", but arbitrary. This was possible because few people had any particular emotional investment in the definition of a meter, and it is probable that consciousness will be eventually defined to mean that only humans can be conscious, which may be dissatisfying but would be true throughout the universe, like a meter. If the question then becomes "what defines a human" and "why a human", then I ask, why 1/299792458 of a second?
A meter is a meter. Over 30 BMI is over 30 BMI. Call those whatever you want, they are objective and measurable.
Concepts like the parent's "fat" example are cultural relatives. Someone can be called "fat" despite actively being proportionally skinnier or having a lower BMI.
But even that has at least a basis in the physical world. A skeleton can't be colloquially fat.
The root problem is that "consciousness" does not even have that. It's metaphysical and has no ability to be measured or observed or confirmed by an outside observer. Because even if it did not exist, the object claiming it would still be claiming it. And objects that do not claim it may in fact have it.
While the top comment may have used poor examples, it feels remarkably uncharitable to actually suggest "what is consciousness" is an equivalent discussion to "how long should a meter be?"
If you define consciousness as "being human", you would just have someone asking a new question - what is "fooblefobble?" Where "fooblefobble" is what we mean when we talk about consciousness today. The question doesn't get answered by being arbitrary in this context, you just necessitate a new word.
We don't know what we don't know. For all we know, there is a missing field in the standard model of physics that might get revealed if we are somehow able to smash two working brains into to each other at relativistic velocities, and record the results through the extreme explosion 1.532 x10^18 Joules or about 7 Tsar bombs /s
What we do know is that conciousness is not binary and that it emerged through evolution. That doesn't entirely rule out your magic tsar bomb particle but it gives a strong indicator as to it's likeliness.
reply