Enkrod

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Steven Crowder, the assshole from Louder with Crowder. If you don't know about him you're lucky.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (6 children)

The louder one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We Are Bob

(Great SciFi novels btw.)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

Every. Single. Day.

My cars bluetooth is broken, so I connect my phone via headphone jack. This way I can still use my cars speakers and mic to receive phone calls and listen to music or audiobooks on my one hour drive to work.

I also despise bluetooth headphones. My phones batteries last longer since I don't use bluetooth anymore and I can't be bothered to not lose them and always have them charged when I want to use them.

With my good wired Bose headphones I pay a third of what the wireless crap would cost, have better sound and they are always ready, easily to take care of and at worst slightly tangled from being crammed into a jeans pocket.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I donated 266€ (250 plus me covering fees) and I don't like how my money is used.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Basically every great and complex work ant colonies are capable of is an emergent property of simple rules that are simple instinct in simple creatures, yet the interplay of lots of individuals following these simple rules begets complex behavior. This is the easiest to grasp example imho.

Flocking birds, schooling fish, hell we can write computer programs where complex behavior emerges from simple rules, Conway’s Game of Life is the best example for how simple the rules can be and how complex the emergent systems.

But emergence is everywhere, the cells of your lungs don't breathe, but they arrange themselves in a way and are embedded in a system that can exist because lung-cells do arrange the way they do.

Life itself is an emergent property, the atoms that constitute us themselves aren't alive, they don't run, breathe or think, all of those are emergent properties from the right collection and arrangement of atoms into molecules into cells into a multicellular organism.

Thinking is no different than running, it is something that happens through the complex interplay of matter but transcends the single building blocks.

A single ant can't be a colony, a single cell can't breathe or run and a single neuron can't think, but if you bring them together in the right amount and arrangement, new properties emerge.

And most importantly, if you disturb that arrangement, if you destroy some of that constituting matter or rearrange it, the emergent properties change or vanish. That it can simply stop to emerge is imho the best prove that it is an emergent property.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

"An emergent phenomenon of the way our biological hardware works" is one possible, entirely rational and most importantly sufficient answer. And even if we did not have an answer, that doesn't mean that there is not an entirely materialistic explanation for the phenomenon, even if we didn't find the answer yet.

Because we have hundreds of thousands of examples of previously unexplained phenomena being sufficiently and completely explained by purely naturalistic, materialistic causes.

On the other hand we have exactly zero previous examples of a phenomenon being sufficiently explained by anything supernatural.

Since we observe consciousness solely bound to the existence of, reliant on the configuration of and changeable through the change of physical properties of physical matter, we can conclude that it is an emergent property that has arisen like other properties emergent from biological matter through the well known, well defined and observable process of evolution.

Could there be an alternative explanation? Yes!

Is the god-hypothesis in any way an explanation for consciousness? No! In fact it would raise more questions. It is neither sufficient, nor rational. What it is, is a god-of-the-gaps argument, another turtle on the way down.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Margerine under Nutella!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Oh no... I had hoped very much that they would have been googly-eyes

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (44 children)

Yeah well, one can be anti-oppression and anti-apartheid as well as anti-terror, anti-killing-civilians, anti-bombing-hospitals, anti-using-civilians-as-shields, anti-hostage-taking and anti-warcrimes.

The israeli Government is not the only one with blood on their hands and while nothing can excuse what the IDF is doing, nothing can excuse what HAMAS is doing too.

Both sides fucking suck, the only difference I can see is that HAMAS is bad for Israelis and Palestinians moreso than the Israeli Government is also bad for Israelis.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

380 million, if you're talking about the US.

view more: ‹ prev next ›