Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

andrewcellini's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. Sure, but the most common forms of female genital mutilation involve either the partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans along with the clitoral hood, and some practices involve sewing the labia majora together on top of what is essentially the complete destruction of the external genitalia. Thus it may not be fair or accurate to say
  2. That's not an argument from authority at all actually. Raider did not allude to any specific expert in psychology in his claim that you are wrong - if he did then he'd have been in argument from authority territory - but rather (what I presume he meant is) the set of knowledge that has been accrued by psychology. Though he didn't substantiate his claim with anything specific, neither did you. You told a nice story though. Put into the form of a rhetorical question: when did psychology become a person?
  3. Are you then sick of yourself? You are (I think) human. Do you think you're violent, sadistic, and a bully as well? Or are you above all that?
  4. That's not the full quote: "We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious - not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." which is pretty important unless you want to misrepresent his view as a denial of consciousness, which it's not unless you accept qualia in general or in the epiphenomenal "side effect" sense. To provide a bit of background, if you were to study consciousness with the heterophenomenological approach (the one Dennett promotes in Consciousness Explained), there's nothing which tells you the "lights are on and someone is home" other than their reports, correlated physiological changes etc. If qualia (from the epiphenomenal account) are to have no function, arise from changes in our brains without themselves having a sort of measurable effect on other brain states (causally inert), then we cannot falsify them and so "we're all [empirically] zombies." Dennett is a compatibilist. What did you mean by this, the typical libertarian free will? He doesn't, his theory just attempts to avoid the "hard problems of consciousness" by explaining away the hard part. Consciousness is still a thing to be studied, otherwise his whole "heterophenomenology" would be pointless, no?
  5. a single artist with auditory hallucinations disproves this. here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis Edit: I am in no way implying that Schizophrenia, or any mental illness for that matter, is necessary for creativity or that creativity is somehow a symptom of Schizophrenia (it's not).
  6. wavenumber in this context is given by 1/λ assuming the op means v is frequency rather than velocity otherwise he just "redefined" velocity by accident.
  7. i always hear about bayes but never laplace, poor guy

    1. Function


      That's because physicians usually get a heart attack when hearing "Bayes", when concerning probabilities and medical decision making. And who doesn't love bullying a physician every now and then?

  8. I'm gonna be the wild card and say no, it's a reptile.
  9. "I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist." - hoffman https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ edit: woops too late , you mean to tell me there's a page 2!
  10. with the amount of spam lately i've been tempted to report with this video

  11. Excuse me if I say something wrong. AFAIK, they are predictable insofar as you can take some initial conditions and forecast the systems behavior at an arbitrary future time, but in practice because the initial conditions used in the prediction only approximate their actual values the predicted trajectories can be very different from reality. The rate at which the two trajectories diverge is governed by a lyapunov exponent. That's about where my understanding of sensitivity of initial conditions in chaotic systems ends lol.
  12. Chaotic systems are deterministic and unpredictable, at least after some time has elapsed as the uncertainty in the prediction grows exponentially.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.