<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: unparagoned</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=unparagoned</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 23:55:06 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=unparagoned" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>No I don't think the GP was talking about that, and that's the problem. The hard problem by definition is a frontier that science will never be able to solve. So I can be sure because that's how it's described in the Chalmers paper introducing the hard problem. The hard problem is Chalmers proof that physicalism could never be true.<p>Like I said if science can explain something then that by definition is an easy problem.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 17:55:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48183020</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48183020</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48183020</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Funny enough Chalmers thinks a computation can be conscious. I believe he thinks that there are like special laws of computation that give rise to consciousness and that makes it dualism.<p>Makes no sense to me, to me if a simulation of physics gives rise to consciousness that’s pure physicalism</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 16:38:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182045</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182045</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48182045</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>No the hard problem is impossible to solve using science even a billion years in the future.<p>If science can in theory explain consciousness ever then it’s an easy problem.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 08:53:35 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176989</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176989</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176989</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>In the original paper about the hard problem, Chalmers does say all that stuff is explainable by science or the easy problems.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 08:50:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176965</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176965</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176965</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think you are misunderstanding illusionism and the hard problem.<p>Illusionism does say that there is a conscious experience. So illusionism is convincing to many people who have conscious experiences.<p>The alien would be able to look at the computation and describe the conscious experience it has.<p>You could put human consciousness on an excel spreadsheet and it’ll still be conscious. Even Chalmers accepts a simulation would be conscious. So no that’s not a. Argument for p-zombies. Even people that use the pz argument don’t think that pz could actually exist.<p>But your conclusion is right, the simulation example does suggest that the consciousness in the hard problem doesn’t exist. Which just leaves the consciousness you experience explainable by easy problems. Which is the illusionist position.<p>Edit: and the hard problem isn’t just why there is consciousness. But why consciousness is impossible under physicalism. So in your post you are just actually referring to the easy problem of consciousness when suggesting it exists.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 05:53:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176002</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176002</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48176002</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I have a feeling like the lay person wouldn’t have made a comment, it’s only the people that think they are an expert that wouldn’t have confidently said why this painting is worse.<p>Also experts in an art competition have the award to an ai art piece. It was only because they didn’t know it was ai. So no, even experts are susceptible to these issues.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 16:34:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161653</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161653</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161653</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It’s perfectly fine to like cheap wine and not like expensive wine.<p>Those that like wine just because they think it’s expensive just have objectively bad taste.<p>So your defence only works for people with objectively bad taste. It’s not something that applies to everyone.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 16:28:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161607</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161607</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48161607</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I feel really sorry for people that find context is key for art.<p>For them often context is more important than the actual art. Lie about the context and their view of art changes completely. I would say these people have objectively bad taste in art. These are the worst kinds of people.<p>In respect to your point about jpeg, you could have had a jpeg marked as real and one ai, and you would have had all the same comments about how the real jpeg was much better for all kinds of reasons. There is going to be almost zero chance anyone commented how they did due to it being a JPEG, vs them thinking it was ai.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 13:24:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48160064</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48160064</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48160064</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think we know enough that consciousness acts at the neuron/brain level new physics isn’t going to provide any more insights</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 18:59:02 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013291</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013291</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013291</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>We know the physics at which the brain operates, a deeper uncomputable foundation theory isn’t going to change that. An analogy is we know if you drop a ball it falls down, knowledge of some deeper quantum gravity theory isn’t going to mean ball’s actually fall up.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 18:53:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013208</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013208</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013208</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is mainly god of the gaps style argument.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 18:48:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013144</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013144</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013144</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Sure if that’s what you are brought up to say. If you want a real life example you have kids that were isolated and never taught to speak. They probably worldn’t even understand the question</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 18:40:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013012</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013012</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48013012</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Qm is described by maths. You have fully deterministic qm interpretations, which are fully determined by maths</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 09:30:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006395</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006395</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48006395</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It’s the opposite, if AI and computations are conscious then that’s a win for functionalism and not panpsychism. Panpsychism is about the physical substrate having a conscious experience. But a LLM can have a completely different substrate but works have the same conscious experience.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 08:01:41 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48005913</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48005913</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48005913</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Anthropic installed a spyware bridge on my machine?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Well someone might have had perfectly good reasons to trust them before. But after this they might have perfectly good reasons to not trust them.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:17:32 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47839201</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47839201</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47839201</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Iran-linked hackers breach FBI director's personal email"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It’s all fine since he didn’t use it for official business right, right…</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 22:34:32 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47549274</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47549274</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47549274</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>And when you combine that on top of dark mode and dimming screen that does make a real difference.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2026 11:59:41 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110326</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110326</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110326</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Blue light filters don't work – controlling total luminance is a better bet"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yep, when you expose night owls to just natural light they go to sleep earlier like early birds.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2026 11:57:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110316</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110316</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47110316</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Colorado proposal moves age checks from websites to operating systems"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think it’s pretty ignorant to think the average parent has a chance against companies spending billions of dollars</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:26:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109341</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109341</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109341</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by unparagoned in "Intermittent fasting may make little difference to weight loss, review finds"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>That was never the question or point. It was that’s it’s easier to adhere to intermittent fasting and consume less calories. So if you simply did a study comparing intermittent fasting vs general calorie restriction and didn’t control for calories then intermittent fasting would win. Controlling for calories completely misses the point</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 18:40:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051237</link><dc:creator>unparagoned</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051237</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47051237</guid></item></channel></rss>