(Un)consciousness of breathing?

[stratos]

You still are claiming material (I am using "material" from now on to mean any non-conscious process) processes give rise to "aha moment" at some point in this causal chain, and that "aha moment" is qualitative meaning, so you still have to overcome hard problem of how material process gives rise to qualia of meaning.

They precede it and they are someway connected but i don't speculate as to how, so i am not engaged in the hard problem.

Like I said above, there must be a point in your view in which the NN communication becomes meaningful in our experience, because we are, in fact, talking about our experience. You can say it is added on to material processes later, or is identical to the material processes, etc., but that does not matter at all - there is still hard problem of how that meaning is qualitatively experienced. The NN can build a bridge because our shared meaning of the geometrical concepts have been instilled in them. In that case, is still our shared meaning which allows the building to happen, only then we are building it using more fancy tools than we had before.

Our geometrical concepts are not necessary for the NN to build a bridge. They could very well in principle acquire the behaviour of building bridges due to a natural selection of some sort. Have in mind that chess NN learn to play chess and employ what would seem as meaningful strategies and tactics to humans, WITH ZERO human shared experiences as an input, just the rules of the game. Robots can generalize and think and build, without the need of human consciousness as a source of "meaning".

What you, like many mystics, are forgetting, is that the "liberation from searching for meaning" is itself a meaningful concept. It is a concept rife with meaning, but you still cannot explain where that meaning comes from.

There is no such... "meaning" to be found. We do not under...stand anything in a supernatural way. We understand in a natural way, meaning like Neural Networks understand, meaning we just BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY in order to do things the APPROPRIATE way. We understand concepts of <big> and <small> the same way Alpha Zero understands concepts of <king safety> and <pawn structure>. The difference is that our training happened through natural selection. And we call this process <understanding>. There is no magic involved. As for the "aha" sensations that follow the understanding of something, these are ordinary bodily sensations that are misinterpreted as indicating the magical understanding that i spoke before when in reality they don't.

[AshvinP]

You still are claiming material (I am using "material" from now on to mean any non-conscious process) processes give rise to "aha moment" at some point in this causal chain, and that "aha moment" is qualitative meaning, so you still have to overcome hard problem of how material process gives rise to qualia of meaning.

They precede it and they are someway connected but i don't speculate as to how, so i am not engaged in the hard problem.

That just means you are ignoring the hard problem, which is epistemically much worse. No one will ever be satisfied with an explanation for meaning which completely ignores its own flaws.

Like I said above, there must be a point in your view in which the NN communication becomes meaningful in our experience, because we are, in fact, talking about our experience. You can say it is added on to material processes later, or is identical to the material processes, etc., but that does not matter at all - there is still hard problem of how that meaning is qualitatively experienced. The NN can build a bridge because our shared meaning of the geometrical concepts have been instilled in them. In that case, is still our shared meaning which allows the building to happen, only then we are building it using more fancy tools than we had before.

Our geometrical concepts are not necessary for the NN to build a bridge. They could very well in principle acquire the behaviour of building bridges due to a natural selection of some sort. Have in mind that chess NN learn to play chess and employ what would seem as meaningful strategies and tactics to humans, WITH ZERO human shared experiences as an input, just the rules of the game. Robots can generalize and think and build, without the need of human consciousness as a source of "meaning".

What are "rules of the game" if not inputs with meaning? You are really trying to escape from something which cannot be escaped from, and that is why my responses are brief and probably sound very trivial. It is just a fool's errand to argue that anything orderly occurs without meaning at its core. Interestingly enough, I have no problem saying that "laws of nature" can evolve meaning from within themselves - in fact, I believe that is what happened with humans. But that just goes to show that what we call "laws of nature" are inherently living and meaningful activities, rather than the activity of deadened, mindless, random, etc. processes. It goes to show that everything human is also "natural", and that Nature has within itself, via humans, the potential to evolve its own laws.

What you, like many mystics, are forgetting, is that the "liberation from searching for meaning" is itself a meaningful concept. It is a concept rife with meaning, but you still cannot explain where that meaning comes from.

There is no such... "meaning" to be found. We do not under...stand anything in a supernatural way. We understand in a natural way, meaning like Neural Networks understand, meaning we just BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY in order to do things the APPROPRIATE way. We understand concepts of <big> and <small> the same way Alpha Zero understands concepts of <king safety> and <pawn structure>. The difference is that our training happened through natural selection. And we call this process <understanding>. There is no magic involved. As for the "aha" sensations that follow the understanding of something, these are ordinary bodily sensations that are misinterpreted as indicating the magical understanding that i spoke before when in reality they don't.

Like I explained above, I am not arguing for anything "supernatural". I know that's how materialists (or mystic materialists) think everyone other than them conceives of the world, but that's simply not true. Meaning in perfectly natural and pervades all activities in Nature. Everything you wrote above is filled with meaning, including the conclusion, "there is no such... 'meaning' to be found". That meaningful conclusion immediately refutes itself.

[stratos]

You still are claiming material (I am using "material" from now on to mean any non-conscious process) processes give rise to "aha moment" at some point in this causal chain, and that "aha moment" is qualitative meaning, so you still have to overcome hard problem of how material process gives rise to qualia of meaning.

They precede it and they are someway connected but i don't speculate as to how, so i am not engaged in the hard problem.

That just means you are ignoring the hard problem, which is epistemically much worse. No one will ever be satisfied with an explanation for meaning which completely ignores its own flaws.

Some things i know, some things i don't know. And the fact that i do not know the solution to the hard problem doesn't mean that i don't know the solution to all other problems too.

Like I said above, there must be a point in your view in which the NN communication becomes meaningful in our experience, because we are, in fact, talking about our experience. You can say it is added on to material processes later, or is identical to the material processes, etc., but that does not matter at all - there is still hard problem of how that meaning is qualitatively experienced. The NN can build a bridge because our shared meaning of the geometrical concepts have been instilled in them. In that case, is still our shared meaning which allows the building to happen, only then we are building it using more fancy tools than we had before.

. Our geometrical concepts are not necessary for the NN to build a bridge. They could very well in principle acquire the behaviour of building bridges due to a natural selection of some sort. Have in mind that chess NN learn to play chess and employ what would seem as meaningful strategies and tactics to humans, WITH ZERO human shared experiences as an input, just the rules of the game. Robots can generalize and think and build, without the need of human consciousness as a source of "meaning"

What are "rules of the game" if not inputs with meaning? You are really trying to escape from something which cannot be escaped from, and that is why my responses are brief and probably sound very trivial. It is just a fool's errand to argue that anything orderly occurs without meaning at its core. Interestingly enough, I have no problem saying that "laws of nature" can evolve meaning from within themselves - in fact, I believe that is what happened with humans. But that just goes to show that what we call "laws of nature" are inherently living and meaningful activities, rather than the activity of deadened, mindless, random, etc. processes. It goes to show that everything human is also "natural", and that Nature has within itself, via humans, the potential to evolve its own laws.

Oh nice... at first you said "the shared meaning of "triangle" is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges, etc."

i responded with the example of NN that DON'T experience anything but STILL are able to talk about triangles and build bridges,

then you said "but it is MAN that instilled all these to them"

and after my last response that man did NOT instilled anything to them, other than letting them survive in a death and fitness process, you come and say that even these basic rules are inputs with meaning and not only that, but natural laws in general are meaning and every activity is meaningful. So give me an example of input that is NOT meaningful In other words, how to say much and say nothing...

If every natural phenomenon has meaning apriori then how you define meaning in the first place? And why did you exclude Neural Networks from having one by their own? Considering they can in principle be product of natural laws which they are meaningful as you said... You lost your track of reasoning resorting to meaningless generalities. ​

Everything you wrote above is filled with meaning, including the conclusion, "there is no such... 'meaning' to be found".

Thank you.

That meaningful conclusion immediately refutes itself.

No. I said there is no SUCH meaning. There are other meanings though.

[AshvinP]

They precede it and they are someway connected but i don't speculate as to how, so i am not engaged in the hard problem.

That just means you are ignoring the hard problem, which is epistemically much worse. No one will ever be satisfied with an explanation for meaning which completely ignores its own flaws.

Some things i know, some things i don't know. And the fact that i do not know the solution to the hard problem doesn't mean that i don't know the solution to all other problems too.

It does mean that, because if you cannot get around the hard problem, then you have no explanation for how conscious experience occurs, and all other "problems" are only solved through that conscious experience which you cannot explain the existence of.

. Our geometrical concepts are not necessary for the NN to build a bridge. They could very well in principle acquire the behaviour of building bridges due to a natural selection of some sort. Have in mind that chess NN learn to play chess and employ what would seem as meaningful strategies and tactics to humans, WITH ZERO human shared experiences as an input, just the rules of the game. Robots can generalize and think and build, without the need of human consciousness as a source of "meaning"

What are "rules of the game" if not inputs with meaning? You are really trying to escape from something which cannot be escaped from, and that is why my responses are brief and probably sound very trivial. It is just a fool's errand to argue that anything orderly occurs without meaning at its core. Interestingly enough, I have no problem saying that "laws of nature" can evolve meaning from within themselves - in fact, I believe that is what happened with humans. But that just goes to show that what we call "laws of nature" are inherently living and meaningful activities, rather than the activity of deadened, mindless, random, etc. processes. It goes to show that everything human is also "natural", and that Nature has within itself, via humans, the potential to evolve its own laws.

Oh nice... at first you said "the shared meaning of "triangle" is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges, etc."

i responded with the example of NN that DON'T experience anything but STILL are able to talk about triangles and build bridges,

then you said "but it is MAN that instilled all these to them"

and after my last response that man did NOT instilled anything to them, other than letting them survive in a death and fitness process, you come and say that even these basic rules are inputs with meaning and not only that, but natural laws in general are meaning and every activity is meaningful. So give me an example of input that is NOT meaningful In other words, how to say much and say nothing...

If every natural phenomenon has meaning apriori then how you define meaning in the first place? And why did you exclude Neural Networks from having one by their own? Considering they can in principle be product of natural laws which they are meaningful as you said... You lost your track of reasoning resorting to meaningless generalities. ​

Exactly! That is idealism in a nutshell - nothing (no-thing) and everything is meaningful, and actually all is process rather than 'things'. There is no experience without meaning. So actually if we speculate there are natural processes without meaning, we are adding assumptions which cannot possibly be verified, because all experience is meaningful (if you can think of an experience that is not meaningful, please share... and take your time, I can wait). The only reason you find this hard to accept, despite all of your experience verifying it, is because, in the last few hundred years, the "common sense" of abstract intellectuals has declared the mind is an illusory product of "matter" and the former has no role to play in the world you perceive around you. That simple yet flawed assumption is unconsciously influencing all of your arguments.

If we arbitrarily divide up the world into this "thing" and that "thing", like NNs, we reach all sorts of absurd conclusions. No "things" exist isolated from contiguous processes which give rise to all of our experience. Modern physics, biology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. have definitively confirmed that conclusion, and so does our everyday experience. NNs are engaged in meaningful processes by virtue of their continuity with the rest of the meaningful Cosmos. So, yes, of course "basic rules" of natural selection inputted into NNs are meaningful. Evolutionary systems are actually a very complex network of meaningful activities if you reflect on it for a bit. We have no basis to deny meaning to such inputs.

[stratos]

Some things i know, some things i don't know. And the fact that i do not know the solution to the hard problem doesn't mean that i don't know the solution to all other problems too.

It does mean that, because if you cannot get around the hard problem, then you have no explanation for how conscious experience occurs, and all other "problems" are only solved through that conscious experience which you cannot explain the existence of.

So because i don't know the solution to the hard problem of consciousness i cannot know that earth is round? I cannot know that Santa Claus is imaginary? That's some deep philosophy here... And how you deal with the problems of hard problem?

Oh nice... at first you said "the shared meaning of "triangle" is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges, etc."i responded with the example of NN that DON'T experience anything but STILL are able to talk about triangles and build bridges, then you said "but it is MAN that instilled all these to them" and after my last response that man did NOT instilled anything to them, other than letting them survive in a death and fitness process, you come and say that even these basic rules are inputs with meaning and not only that, but natural laws in general are meaning and every activity is meaningful. So give me an example of input that is NOT meaningful In other words, how to say much and say nothing... If every natural phenomenon has meaning apriori then how you define meaning in the first place? And why did you exclude Neural Networks from having one by their own? Considering they can in principle be product of natural laws which they are meaningful as you said... You lost your track of reasoning resorting to meaningless generalities. ​

Exactly! That is idealism in a nutshell - nothing (no-thing) and everything is meaningful, and actually all is process rather than 'things'. There is no experience without meaning. So actually if we speculate there are natural processes without meaning, we are adding assumptions which cannot possibly be verified, because all experience is meaningful (if you can think of an experience that is not meaningful, please share... and take your time, I can wait). The only reason you find this hard to accept, despite all of your experience verifying it, is because, in the last few hundred years, the "common sense" of abstract intellectuals has declared the mind is an illusory product of "matter" and the former has no role to play in the world you perceive around you. That simple yet flawed assumption is unconsciously influencing all of your arguments.

How brave of you that you can wait!... I guess not everyone has the guts to wait for a counterexample to an undefined triviality such as the statement that everything is meaningful, and without ANY reference to what evidence could refute it.

You said NN operate as they do because we instilled them our shared experience. This is something specific about NN, and it is wrong, and i correct you on this. Then you changed your argumentative narrative and resorted to the view that NN operate as they do because they are in... nature. If you said it from the beginning i wouldn't disagree (it would still be a useless truism though). Therefore I ask you again: WHY you mentioned at the beginning that "the shared meaning of triangle is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges" ? It doesn't follow.

If we arbitrarily divide up the world into this "thing" and that "thing", like NNs, we reach all sorts of absurd conclusions. No "things" exist isolated from contiguous processes which give rise to all of our experience. Modern physics, biology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. have definitively confirmed that conclusion, and so does our everyday experience. NNs are engaged in meaningful processes by virtue of their continuity with the rest of the meaningful Cosmos. So, yes, of course "basic rules" of natural selection inputted into NNs are meaningful. Evolutionary systems are actually a very complex network of meaningful activities if you reflect on it for a bit. We have no basis to deny meaning to such inputs.

There is nothing to say about these kind of statements because they are all over the place. It sounds like word salad to me. So we are supposed to not differentiate between things now?... And again claims about specifically NN (that they divide up the world etc). I guess, if i press you will follow again with a statement about how... "actually everything (and not only NN)" divide up the world? [/quote]

[AshvinP]

Some things i know, some things i don't know. And the fact that i do not know the solution to the hard problem doesn't mean that i don't know the solution to all other problems too.

It does mean that, because if you cannot get around the hard problem, then you have no explanation for how conscious experience occurs, and all other "problems" are only solved through that conscious experience which you cannot explain the existence of.

So because i don't know the solution to the hard problem of consciousness i cannot know that earth is round? I cannot know that Santa Claus is imaginary? That's some deep philosophy here... And how you deal with the problems of hard problem?

You cannot explain how you know that the Earth is round. That is what philosophers and metaphysicians try to do... explain how these things are known. And yes, eventually, without knowing how we know things, we end up in a relativism where we question whether there is any such thing as true and objective knowledge... whether one person's claim that the Earth is round can be deemed any more objectively valid than another person's that the Earth is flat. That sort of relativism has already taken root in much of the Western world.

Oh nice... at first you said "the shared meaning of "triangle" is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges, etc."i responded with the example of NN that DON'T experience anything but STILL are able to talk about triangles and build bridges, then you said "but it is MAN that instilled all these to them" and after my last response that man did NOT instilled anything to them, other than letting them survive in a death and fitness process, you come and say that even these basic rules are inputs with meaning and not only that, but natural laws in general are meaning and every activity is meaningful. So give me an example of input that is NOT meaningful In other words, how to say much and say nothing... If every natural phenomenon has meaning apriori then how you define meaning in the first place? And why did you exclude Neural Networks from having one by their own? Considering they can in principle be product of natural laws which they are meaningful as you said... You lost your track of reasoning resorting to meaningless generalities. ​

Exactly! That is idealism in a nutshell - nothing (no-thing) and everything is meaningful, and actually all is process rather than 'things'. There is no experience without meaning. So actually if we speculate there are natural processes without meaning, we are adding assumptions which cannot possibly be verified, because all experience is meaningful (if you can think of an experience that is not meaningful, please share... and take your time, I can wait). The only reason you find this hard to accept, despite all of your experience verifying it, is because, in the last few hundred years, the "common sense" of abstract intellectuals has declared the mind is an illusory product of "matter" and the former has no role to play in the world you perceive around you. That simple yet flawed assumption is unconsciously influencing all of your arguments.

You said NN operate as they do because we instilled them our shared experience. This is something specific about NN, and it is wrong, and i correct you on this. Then you changed your argumentative narrative and resorted to the view that NN operate as they do because they are in... nature. If you said it from the beginning i wouldn't disagree (it would still be a useless truism though). Therefore I ask you again: WHY you mentioned at the beginning that "the shared meaning of triangle is the only reason we can discuss it now and have a solid understanding of what sort of object the other person is referring to. It is the only reason people can employ geometrical objects to develop technology and build bridges" ? It doesn't follow.

It is not wrong, rather it is plainly obvious. Instilling something with natural "rules" that allow for recognition of meaningful patterns is quite obviously our meaningful agency acting through a technological tool for expressing our agency. One must do all sort of unwarranted mental gymnastics, like you are doing, to avoid this simple truth. My bolded assertion holds true in your NN example.

If we arbitrarily divide up the world into this "thing" and that "thing", like NNs, we reach all sorts of absurd conclusions. No "things" exist isolated from contiguous processes which give rise to all of our experience. Modern physics, biology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. have definitively confirmed that conclusion, and so does our everyday experience. NNs are engaged in meaningful processes by virtue of their continuity with the rest of the meaningful Cosmos. So, yes, of course "basic rules" of natural selection inputted into NNs are meaningful. Evolutionary systems are actually a very complex network of meaningful activities if you reflect on it for a bit. We have no basis to deny meaning to such inputs.

There is nothing to say about these kind of statements because they are all over the place. It sounds like word salad to me. So we are supposed to not differentiate between things now?... And again claims about specifically NN (that they divide up the world etc). I guess, if i press you will follow again with a statement about how... "actually everything (and not only NN)" divide up the world?

[/quote]

Well if you come on this forum with absolutely no intention of learning anything about why your materialist-dualist worldview is wrong, then obviously everything will "sound like word salad" to you. Soon, when you look out at the natural world, if this has not happened already, all its forms will look like word salad to you. That is because we have forgotten how to read the language Nature is written in. The first step to overcoming that is recognizing it is true, and you have not yet made it to that first step and refuse to consider any helpful advice on how to take it. The very fact you feel compelled to join a forum where you know everyone disagrees with you means you are searching for meaning you cannot find in your natural experience. A world of 'things' is a world which lacks any interior depth and therefore clings to only the most superficial meaning which can evaporate at a moment's notice. I will make one last attempt by quoting my most recent essay:


viewtopic.php?f=5&t=419

It is seldom considered in the modern era how every form in Nature we can perceive arises from imperceptible activity related to our practical aims in life; our missions and journeys. Those meaningful aims, in turn, also enrich the meaningful aesthetics of Nature. Much of what we call "objects" in the physical world are mere pixelated icons of this hidden depth of meaning residing in the World Soul. What we see in the world around us is nothing like what gives rise to what we see. In fact, every modern science has realized, in its own way, that the "boundaries" of these various "objects" in the world are completely arbitrary. They do not reflect any similar boundaries in the realm from which they travel to our sense organs.

For some, that underlying realm consists of inconceivable mindless fields of "energy", for lack of a better word, and for others that realm consists in psychic processes not unlike the inner processes we always experience. Everyone must admit, though, that "everything flows" - we are always dealing with ceaseless processes in Nature. Quantum mechanics, at the turn of the twentieth century, led to the dematerialization of physical matter, as atoms could no longer be construed as particle-like objects. This resulted in the demise of Newtonian physics, which had been one of the pillars of substance metaphysics since the scientific revolution. What had been considered "matter" then became "statistical patterns" of quantum activity. Similar metamorphoses in our conceptual space have since occurred in most other fields of 'hard' science, such as biology, and it would be very foolish to consider all of these changes occurring at the same time a mere coincidence.

Living beings are no longer thought of as isolated 'entities' but rather densely interconnected communities which, in theory, can provide all that is necessary for the existence of its "members". Science has been steadily progressing towards this processual, meaning-based outlook for many years now. A further step is taken towards the spiritual essence of Nature when we systematically investigate it and derive its "laws" - the underlying principles of natural processes which make sense of why they appear to us in the way specified ways that they do. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this principle of Nature makes sense of why the billiard ball on the pool table moves in a certain direction and with a certain velocity when hit by another billiard ball. Yet what it means, in its essence, is more along the lines of, "each person's deeds which impress into another person's soul-life will likewise impress into their own soul-life at a later time" At very low resolution, that is what we spiritual types call "Karma".

Just as the modern age of nominalism leads people to consider the physical ball more "real" than the overall process it is involved in, it also leads them to consider the specific manifestation of a principle more "real" than the principle itself. We, however, should remember that, even more real than the principle is the meta-principle which encompasses it and other related principles, or what is frequently referred to by scientists and artists as "archetypes". We must do a 180-degree reversal from the modern fragmenting habit of mind if we are to begin penetrating into the essence of art we seek. We cannot stubbornly resist the progression of philosophy, science, and art, but rather we must flow with it wherever it leads. Bergson intuited this progression as well when remarking, "the more the sciences of life develop, the more they will feel the necessity for reintegrating thought into the heart of nature."

We must now begin to uncover these things from within if we do not want to end up like Sylvia Plath writing,

"O God, I am not like you
In your vacuous black,
Stars stuck all over, bright stupid confetti.
Eternity bores me,
I never wanted it.

What I love is
The piston in motion . . .
My soul dies before it."

[stratos]

So because i don't know the solution to the hard problem of consciousness i cannot know that earth is round? I cannot know that Santa Claus is imaginary? That's some deep philosophy here... And how you deal with the problems of hard problem?

You cannot explain how you know that the Earth is round. That is what philosophers and metaphysicians try to do... explain how these things are known. And yes, eventually, without knowing how we know things, we end up in a relativism where we question whether there is any such thing as true and objective knowledge... whether one person's claim that the Earth is round can be deemed any more objectively valid than another person's that the Earth is flat. That sort of relativism has already taken root in much of the Western world.

So i ask you again, how do you solve the hard problem of consciousness (in order to know how you know things in order to know things).

It is not wrong, rather it is plainly obvious. Instilling something with natural "rules" that allow for recognition of meaningful patterns is quite obviously our meaningful agency acting through a technological tool for expressing our agency. One must do all sort of unwarranted mental gymnastics, like you are doing, to avoid this simple truth. My bolded assertion holds true in your NN example.

Humans intervention is NOT needed for Neural Networks to operate. Wake up. Why you insist on this obsolete philosophical view that you too retracted from by accepting that natural selection suffice. Your... "agency" is unimportant. The process of selection according to fitness has happened to life itself before any human ever existed and is still happening to inanimate matter in general.

Well if you come on this forum with absolutely no intention of learning anything about why your materialist-dualist worldview is wrong, then obviously everything will "sound like word salad" to you. Soon, when you look out at the natural world, if this has not happened already, all its forms will look like word salad to you. That is because we have forgotten how to read the language Nature is written in. The first step to overcoming that is recognizing it is true, and you have not yet made it to that first step and refuse to consider any helpful advice on how to take it. The very fact you feel compelled to join a forum where you know everyone disagrees with you means you are searching for meaning you cannot find in your natural experience. A world of 'things' is a world which lacks any interior depth and therefore clings to only the most superficial meaning which can evaporate at a moment's notice. I will make one last attempt by quoting my most recent essay:

If you have any arguments to offer, i would be glad to discuss them, but please resist this tendency to patronize and psychoanalyze a fellow member. It is tiring and pathetic. Thank you.

As for the essay, i can't help it but it seems like word salad to me. You sound like Deepak Chopra.

salad
/ˈsaləd/
noun
a cold dish of various mixtures of raw or cooked vegetables, usually seasoned with oil, vinegar, or other dressing and sometimes accompanied by meat, fish, or other ingredients.

Which is exactly what you do: you mix some unrelated philosophical and scientific terms, understanding neither, and you serve it in a soppy inspirational poetic prose: the Newtonian mechanics as connotating the more general law that includes the act of a schoolgirl bulling her classmate and calling her fat... What should we expect in the new issue, Einstein's relativity as a part of the more general law that includes the liking or disliking of putting pineapple in a pizza?

[Ben Iscatus]

Stratos, you seem a bit pissed off. What are you looking for? Something hardheaded and irrefutable?

[stratos]

Stratos, you seem a bit pissed off. What are you looking for? Something hardheaded and irrefutable?

Ben Iscatus can you be more specific? In general i look for good reasons to believe something, not irrefutable necessarily. What were you referring though? And what's your opinion on that?

[SanteriSatama]

how do you solve the hard problem of consciousness

Very simple. Stop creating the problem.

How do you create the hard problem in the first place? By making metaphysical hypothesis (materialistic reductionism) that is inconsistent with empirical reality of qualia. Stop sticking to the falsified hypothesis, and the hard problem goes away. Without hypothesis of materialistic reductionism there is no hard problem.

You sound like Deepak Chopra.

Nice compliment.

Einstein's relativity as a part of the more general law that includes the liking or disliking of putting pineapple in a pizza?

Einstein's theories are as stupid as physicalism gets. They are ridiculously wrong. Eating pizza without pineapple can be forgiven. Taking Einstein seriously, not.