To hardware or the general theory?
-
-
-
Replying to @AMK2934
Here's the latest version. http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2015/09/morality-1-subjectivity-and-objectivity.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous
I'm always hesitant about any proof that depends on definitions for abstract words like "objective" and "subjective." Normally I just dismiss them out of hand because they aren't rooted in process, but I will give your writing more consideration because it come from you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AMK2934
Thanks. They are rooted in process, though. It's understandable that you would doubt that, as I probably didn't make it clear how and in what way.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous
Just realized that I don't do mind/body philosophy for a reason
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Alrenous
It's a rabbit hole of confusion and I don't care enough about the topic to invest cognitive cycles in it. Might even be slightly above my IQ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
That's what makes it fun.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
FYI: You don't need either epiphenomenalism or its opposite, the mind can simply work like a computer, cycling through a computational process the way an operating system cycles through it kernel. Such a system doesn't need external input
-
-
Replying to @AMK2934
Sure, but you would never be able to observe such a mind. The theory itself is epiphenomenal.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.