What do yall niggas think of dis nigga?

[Anonymous No.11414911]

I saw him kinda sperg out at an audience member asking an end of the universe scenario question. Made me definitely wanna ride his dick

[Anonymous No.11415035]

god damn nobody even wants to shit talk this cunt?

[Anonymous No.11415060]

One of the only scientists who isn't a dumbfuck about philosophy. Still though, he's pretty bluepilled on consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11415176]

>>11415060
>Still though, he's pretty bluepilled on consciousness.
how so fwend?

[Anonymous No.11415202]

>>11415176
He takes the same spineless "science will sort it out in the future don't worry about it" approach as every other physicalist who doesn't like that consciousness doesn't fit neatly into their metaphysics. He often seems to downplay the strength of the hard problem by not really addressing the core of it, maybe because he doesn't fully understand it or because he doesn't like where it leads.

[Anonymous No.11415211]

>>11415202
holy shit that was a good post. thanks fwend

[Anonymous No.11415223]

>>11415035
It irks me that he is pushing _any_ interpretation of QM. The best interpretation is no interpretation at all.

[Anonymous No.11415227]

>>11415223
ya i found it odd how adamant he is about the many worlds interpretation

[Anonymous No.11415314]

>>11415223
the virgin philosopher who spends all day thinking about a problem that is fundamentally unknowable and useless vs the chad shut up and calculate-er that solves real problems

[Anonymous No.11415702]

>>11414911
some of the best notes on general relativity but other than that irrelevent

[Anonymous No.11415704]

all "interpretations" and quantum spook bullshit should be thrown out with the bath water. All that which bears weight is the math and calculations

[Anonymous No.11416010]

>>11415704
>All that which bears weight is the math and calculations
But the math says there are multiple universes. That’s why Carroll says “let’s take the math seriously”.

[Anonymous No.11416028]

>>11415202
I’m afraid you’re the one who’s blue pilled about consciousness, friend. The reason Daniel Dennett always talks about optical illusions in relation to consciousness is to demonstrate the introspection fallacy. The red pill is that each part of the brain is that the brain will believe anything it is made to believe and it just so happens that the brain has evolved to stubbornly believe in “experience” and the “self”, because that is evolutionary advantageous.

[Anonymous No.11416032]

>>11416028
Mangled my post a bit there, but you get the idea.

[Anonymous No.11416046]

Where is he in the expertise hierarchy of scientists that explain stuff?
1. Feynman, Hawking etc (nobel prize level)
2. Middle
3. Sagan, Nye etc (high school teacher level)
Is he legit one of the top experts in the world?

[Anonymous No.11416226]

>>11416028
The brain's ability to meta-analyze information and construct a self are still easy problems of consciousness. They are already explicable by physical mechanisms. On the other hand, known physical mechanisms do nothing to address the hard problem. The true causal connection between neural information and experienced conscious states remains unknown, and merely denying the reality of the latter does nothing to address the issue.

[Anonymous No.11416234]

>>11414911
Arrogant idiot. Wrote a book talking of relativity in a convoluted manner and thinks he is a super scientist for it. He has a completely shallow and materialistic worldview which would make physicists from 100 years ago cringe.

[Anonymous No.11416266]

>>11416234
Also he gives me this constant feeling that he has something inserted into his anus when I see him speaking or interacting with other people. It's not natural, he is insecure and always trying to prove something. It's disconcerting.

[Anonymous No.11416994]

>>11416226
There is no evidence that the hard problem exists besides the belief of some that it exists, which is explained in the post you replied to.

You have to take into account that you cannot view reality from an Archimedean point. You really are your brain and your brain is physical. It is physically possible for you to really believe that 1+1=3, just as it is physically possible for you to really believe that you’ve seen something before when you haven’t (deja vu), just as it is physically possible for you to really believe that it is normal to have a dancing gorilla in your living room (e.g., during a dream). Our brains are very fallible.

[Anonymous No.11417042]

>>11416994
>It is physically possible for you to really believe that 1+1=3, just as it is physically possible for you to really believe that you’ve seen something before when you haven’t (deja vu), just as it is physically possible for you to really believe that it is normal to have a dancing gorilla in your living room (e.g., during a dream).
Again, these are all easy problems, which offer nothing to explain the hard problem.
The sense of self is a belief, but qualia are not a belief. Qualia essentially form the entire reality of a subjective perspective. Saying we are "tricked" into experiencing qualia is akin to saying a bird is "tricked" into staying suspended in the air. It doesn't make any sense. The bird really does fly, this cannot be written off as some illusion on the bird's behalf.
There are perfectly valid physical mechanisms for the processing of sensory information, but there is no established mechanism for the rise of qualia. If the ability to experience qualia is inherent to matter, so be it, but we should be able to elaborate and investigate further than "it just is," especially considering the interplay between qualia and nervous perception.

[Anonymous No.11417187]

>>11416994
>haha there is no evidence that I exist as a free willing agent! I'm so rational for having this thought!