/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14642873
>Do you consider my point >>14640173
>ignorant?
More... not related to anything?
>It seems to my under-educated ass that we may not need a consciousness, but also we cannot know whether that is so.
You've reversed the burden of proof on the problem. The burden if proof is on the claimant, all anyone else need say is "We do not find that in evidence". Anyone can make a claim. It has no value nor bearing on the discussion. Hence my annoyed stance regarding that renninger 1960s misrepresentation of QM explained here >>14641468

I'm not a quietist. If there were a philosophy about philosophy one can also call misanthropy, that is what I am. The better you are at navigating truth claims the less people care about truth "coincidentally", because it's ultimately a lie with the vast majority of people caring about irrelevant things merely using truth as the trojan horse to get at them. That includes "liberating the mind" or claims to the contrary, by trying to reject the reason of inference or conflating truth with certainty, depending on your view of quietism. If you're really exceptional at navigating truth claims you will swiftly find yourself being accused of all manner of character faults invented in the minds of legions of narcissists, and supported by those who wish to get rid of you for being too good at the game. Up to and including inventing all manner of just-so stories to make up for imaginary faults to salvage the ego of the participants. Truth matters, humans just don't respect it when it's inconvenient.

If anything, I am Schopenhauer on steroids. I would have no issue wagering a kingdom to find an honest man, because I know you won't find one.

>>14602432
It's flat earthers all over again. Everything they don't like is fake because it's fake. If you question how they know it's fake, "It's fake and you're a shill". Don't question the narrative just believe.