Your opinion is a possibility but it is not grounded by any proof, as such it is nothing more than an assumption. I think the more intellectually healthy approach is to list out the possibilities and figure out what they entail, rather than to throw all your eggs in one basket blindly, which amounts to a leap of faith or a retreat to commitment.

But that's just my two cents, take it or leave it.

Maybe it's a matter of whatever works well for 95% of the population, but as someone with more highly attuned senses its a little annoying.

Is there something Apple can do to isolate the charges/currents a bit better, or are there other models on the market that don't have this problem?

I've been a loyal Apple user since like...forever, but it's getting hard to go along with their engineering choices lately.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815484

Points: 2

# Comments: 13

Today I tried to make a few light banter comments and all of them got blocked by auto-moderators with insane rules.

What is going on at reddit?

Speaking as a former Amazonian who ran oncall for LSEs and high-impact events on my teams systems responsible for $130B/year GMS.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47760665

Points: 1

# Comments: 2

I'm just curious, do you know what the opinions about this stuff are from people that work in these fields, or that have dedicated their lives to it?

It’s a serious stance, but the really interesting thing to me here is that its not a settled fact. What’s quite surprising and unique about this field is that unlike physics or chemistry where we generally agree on the basics, in consciousness studies you have some quite brilliant minds totally deadlocked on the fundamentals. There is absolutely no consensus on whether the problem is 'solved' or 'impossible,' and its definitely not a matter of people not taking this seriously enough or making some rash judgments or simple errors.

I find this fascinating because this type of situation is pretty rare or unique in modern science. Maybe the fun part is that I can take one stance and you another and here there's no "right answer" that some expert knows and one of us is "clearly" wrong. Nice chatting with you :)

> then isn't the experience just of "a surface attribute, of given spatial extent".

I don't know why this seems to be so hard for me to think about and even put into words, but isn't "the experience of the surface attribute of a given spatial extent" something other than the experience of the surface attribute of a given spatial extent itself?

I mean that the words we use to describe something aren't the something itself. Conceivably, you can experience something without ever having words, and having words about a phenomenal visual experience doesn't seem to change the experience much or at all (at least for me).

Maybe another way of phrasing this would be something like: can we talk about red blotches using red blotches themselves, in the same way that we can talk about words using words themselves? And then, supposing that we could talk about red blotches using red blotches (maybe the blotches are in the form of words or structured like knowledge, I dunno), can we talk about red blotches without ever having experienced red blotches? I learned this idea from Mary's Room thought experiment, but I still don't know what to think about it.

For me, I can turn off all the thinking and associations and just... look. And there's something there that the looking is of or like, if that makes sense. It's hard to put into words because it's prior to words, and can possibly be independent of them.

But maybe that's not something universal? I know some people don't have visual imagery or an inner voice, so maybe phenomenal experience varies more than we assume. Does that distinction between the experience itself and your ability to think/talk about it track for you at all?