More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
Yep, and that goes for really nebulous things like relationships and mental health too, not just the physical world.
This sentence hit me:
seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules
I wonder how many past situations I could remember where I had anxiety and panic over not knowing the rules to follow in a situation. But that’s like asking the wrong question if the reality is that there are no rules, and you need more of a guiding philosophy or purpose than a rule book. For me, I think you do what you can to make the unique experience of life things better for yourself and others. We nerds do have a tendency to focus on “number go up” which has its benefits, but has to be in moderation as with everything else.
Also so much of how we talk about CS/software dev is cribbed directly from, not just real engineering, but also philosophy. Abstraction, concretisation, instantiation, etc.
I believe individuals choose the worldview that comforts/benefits one the most, and that is why programmers often think in discrete units. It helps them identify issues and handle them well. Is there a reason to introduce discomfort, when the worldview works quite well?
I got into building agents for an overpowered discord bot. I leard a lot about my own through process because the research papers were too hinged to be fun.
I mean this just means that it is not the objects that have those traits, it is the relation between the object and the human sensory organs that do. This is not really anti rules, just anti overly primitive rules.
“Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.”
nothing is real do what you want
That is a fallacious conclusion from this observation. Don’t use this philosophy as an excuse to act like an asshole.
While everyone perceives reality slightly differently, apples do have a specific light absorption and reflection spectrum.
Our limited perception of it doesn’t make it “not real”. Same is true for other senses as well.
Thank you.
But you’re not real!
Descartes proved to me that I was!
Shrimp have multiple color recptors because their brains are too primitive/rudimentary to combine input from more than a single receptor into a composite color. The result is that 12 colors (or however many receptors it is) is the total number of colors they can see.
They also see in UV and can see polarized light
and can see polarized light
So can we. It’s also like to point out that seeing polarized light is different from being able to tell that it is polarized. Which we can still do, just not as well
How can I tell when I’m seeing polarized light?
nothing is real do what you want
This is what they take away from it? Discussing qualia is fascinating, and natural philosophy of the mind in general is an amazing field, but if your takeaway is that nothing exists, your understanding is about as deep as a puddle
guess that’s just a wishful thinking
Are there atoms tho? Is there void?
Fancy words for “there’s something and there’s nothing”. So, yes.
:)
I have come to think of it as all being probability fields.
When studying a particle, one cannot know both the energy and position of that particle with certainty (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). When chemists think about the 3d “structure” of atoms and molecules, they represent the nucleus as a tiny little ball and the electrons as bubbles of probability:
.The nucleus itself is in constant motion as well, and compared to the size of the actual protons and neutrons, there is much more empty space - kind of like planets in a solar system. And each of these protons/neutrons is composed of tiny particles called quarks, which again are in constant motion and thus make up probability fields that we call protons and neutrons.
The term “atom” at that point was a placeholder, not a specific measurable phenomenon.
What colors can mantis shrimp even see? Having 16 different cones doesn’t mean anything if they’re all slightly different variations of green, for example.
Edit: Okay, they can see more colors that us. They can see 300 nm to 720 nm and we can see 400 nm to 700 nm.
*Epistemology
Physicists: spend hundreds of generations empirically proving objective science
Philosophers: yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man
Philosophers: It is what it is.
Physicians: We need to be a bit more specific than that. Can we measure it?
You are the only thing that’s real in this world. YOU’RE IN A COMA．ＷＡＫＥ ＵＰ！
The lights flickered when I read this. I think that means I’m the real one and they upped my sedative to keep me stuck here. Oh well. Maybe I’ll get fun dreams out of it tonight, at least.
Quick Guys… he’s onto us!
Wait, you guys are distinct consciousnesses? I though we were all just aspects of his
We are. Just let em keep thinking it’s the real world. This comment is deep enough they’ll never see it.
Now think about the fact that we lock people up based on eyewitness testimony…
That’s ridiculous. Our perspection is fully acceptable as proof of reality. The fact is that as our perception is limited, we are limited in our knowledge of the reality of things. Somehow mantis have an access to the reality of things we don’t have and that dog don’t have. And through their sense of hearing dogs have an access to the reality we don’t have.
Well yeah, that thought is important. While apples do have an objective color in the sense that physics teaches us that electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency is more or less likely to be absorbed/reflected, we can only perceive a subjective color.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality. But also, most people mostly act on emotion and not based on real data.
But also, this isn’t a meme. It belongs in the philosophy or science memes community.
Remember kids that you don’t feel matter; you feel the electrostatic repulsion of electrons that occupy part of the 99+% of empty space of each atom is composed of. The vibrational frequency of those atoms create heat that radiates through that void to be detected by other atoms as more or less heat energy. Over 99% of you is empty space and radiant energy, which means that mathematically you barely even exist.
Materialism is believing chemicals in your brain are chemicals in your brain because that’s what the chemicals in your brain told you they were, and that what you can personally measure is all there is despite the fact that we keep finding shit we literally cannot measure.
