i translated; the physics statement; "for every action..."; into my poetry; which sometimes flows like this; for every reaction; there are equal and opposite reactions; unless i'm wrong;
Chalmers states one's views can change, and they should. I use to be very non deterministic, no hidden variables, HUP sucker etc,. and now i have changed my mind radically, or at least i think Determinism/non determinism isn't a constant, it can be environmentally and genetically "tuned" one way or the other.
@@user-xs2si3zu9p I did not mean that it was unusual, but that it could, in theory, serve as grounds for assigning the status of intelligence to, say, AI.
this was funny, because Mr Brown appears somewhat fascinated by classifications but appears to not logically understand of the positions he appears to take, tis hard to tell what he believes in what he doesn't. Chalmers catches this issue, serial logical incoherency, and takes the piss mercilessly i think Brown was too daft to notice.
@@onemorebrown Mr Brown, i know you yanks have problems noticing sarcasm but Chalmers hardly veils it. You claim you need biology for "thought", then revert to consciousness is basis of "thought" which would imply consciousness is also therefore dependent on biology. As David summarises this position of yours, At 1:00 one can see you aren't even sure of your own argument :-) But then when David suggests (quite naturally seeing your position so far) that one needs biology for any mental activity, you say no..."just thought"... you are incoherent. Also as David points out this "championing of views" without committing to a position on said theory is BULLSHIT science, go do something else34 like become a fcukign lawyer, because that is your approach to what should be SCIENCE. I can come up with a decent argument for most things if i wanted to but it would have no scientific value, just blagger value. In fact your idea that one can sort semi advocate for a theory without believing it really, is itself INCOHERENT from a scientific process. Either you KNOW what you think or you don't. But i just gave you a thumbs up for at least engaging with criticism, that's pretty rare these days. :-)
well, I know you non-Yanks have your own way of doing things but I see charitable interpretation isn't one. I agree that I wasn't sure what he was asking at first (whether about what I believe or what I think a certain view is committed to). As for championing a theory without believing it, I don't see your point at all. What is wrong with taking something as a working hypothesis? Have you ever met a scientist before?
@@onemorebrown Science shouldn't be charitable, there'a other better fields or topics for that. I have met a few scientists, i don't know what that has to do with it. If you are trying to suggest they are open minded and will consider all theories and even advocate something they don't believe in really, well that is highly selective in practice, because certain fields are welded down and padlocked. Have you seen all the peer reviewed papers (epidemiology) which because they challenged the esTupido and vextor par-shot crap they were banned from most of the journals and scientific doc servers? please don't hold "scientists" up to some bullshit standard which doesn't exist. And that was from so-called "hard sciences" (don't laugh).
