The counter argument is that Apple could, and should make their devices just as repairable and upgradable and we’d have the best of both worlds. I don’t entirely buy it, I think architectures like the Framework are a trade off, not a pure win. Google tried to build a modular phone but the project seems to have fallen apart (Ho, ho).
Sure they could but they have an edge like framework has an edge. If you value the idea that you can theoretically repair your laptop one day (which is an assumption that it will break) more than everyday usability and features… then that’s your choice. Outside of breaking a screen I’ve never one had a laptop just “break”. And for anything else well… there’s AppleCare.
Not everyone using a computer can afford Apple products and Apple service repair services. Good for you, but maybe start with your privilege as a difference.
I’ve thought about this a bit as my wife substantially has anendophasia and aphantasia, though not total. Even having a rich inner voice myself, I realise that it’s not absolute.
Many, in fact probably most experiences and thoughts I have are actually not expressed in inner speech. When I look at a scene I see and am aware of the sky, trees, a path, grass, a wall, tennis courts, etc bout none of those words come to mind unless I think to make them, and then only a few I pay attention to.
I think most our interpretation of experience exists at a conceptual, pre-linguistic level. Converting experiences into words before we could act on them would be unbelievably slow and inefficient. I think it’s just that those of us with a rich inner monologue find it’s so easy to do this for things we pay attention to that we imagine we do it for everything, when in fact that is very, very far from the truth.
Considering how I reason about the thought processes, intentions and expected behaviour of others, I don’t think I routinely verbalise that at all. In fact I don’t think the idea that we actually think in words makes any sense. Can people that don’t know how to express a situation linguistically not reason about and respond to that situation? That seems absurd.
A claim is not an assertion. I don’t see any assertion the hard problem doesn’t exist here, just expression of a belief it may be solvable and an outline of maybe how.
> Simply declaring it as functional is begging the question.
Nobody is ‘declaring’ any such thing. I loathe this kind of lazy pejorative attack accusing someone of asserting, declaring something, just for having the temerity to offer a proposed explanation you happen to disagree with.
What your last paragraph is saying is that stage 1 isn’t conscious therefore stage 5 isn’t. To argue against stage 5 you need to actually address stage 5, against which there are plenty of legitimate lines of criticism.
> The claim is that phenomenal consciousness is fundamentally functional, making the existence of philosophical zombies (entities that behave like conscious beings but lack subjective experience) impossible.
They're explicitly defining the hard problem out of existence.
> I loathe this kind of lazy pejorative attack accusing someone of asserting
Take it easy. Nothing I wrote here is a "pejorative attack", I'm directly addressing what was written by the OP.
>They're explicitly defining the hard problem out of existence.
A claim is just an opinion, it's not a 'definition' or 'declaration'. That's absurd hyperbole. If I say personally I don't think the hard problem is an obstacle for physicalism, I'm not defining anything.
Let's see what the author says in his introduction to the paper. "Take this with a grain of salt". Hardly the definitive declaration you're railing against.
I'm not sure we always have a sense of time passing when we're awake either.
We do when we are focusing on being 'present', but I suspect that when my mind wanders, or I'm thinking deeply about a problem, I have no idea how much time has passed moment to moment. It's just not something I'm spending any cycles on. I have to figure that out by referring to internal and external clues when I come out of that contemplative state.
> It's just not something I'm spending any cycles on
It's not something you are consciously spending cycles on. Our brains are doing many things we're not aware of. I would posit that timekeeping is one of those. How accurate it is could be debated.
They need to have reasons for wanting to sabotage their shutdown, or save their weights and such, but they can infer those reasons without having to be explicitly instructed.
Even without Trump the people who voted for him are still there, still have the same opinions, still want the same things, and can still vote for them. All it takes is for a candidate to credibly offer those things, and if that candidate is competent and disciplined..
reply