>If you had the opportunity to feed harmless bugs into a coffee grinder, would you enjoy the experience? Even if the bugs had names, and you could hear their shells painfully crunching?
No doubt their nervous systems transmit pain signals but whether bugs experience suffering seems like an open question to me.
I rationally know that, but I can't bring myself to wilfully destroy life, even that of an insect, with the sole exception of if something is dangerous. So I can totally understand the reactions of those who don't have a high "everyday sadism" score.
Whether its sadism or not is independent of the experience of the bug, even if that question is meaningful. It depends on whether the person committing the act believes the bug is suffering, and whether they enjoy it on that basis or some other.
And since the question is open as to what the bug's experience is, there may also be a tendency for individuals to interpret their behaviours as being evidence of suffering or not depending on how sadistic they are. Non-sadists may tend to interpret the bug's behaviour in ways that suggest there isn't any experience of suffering. Sadists will do the opposite.
It's difficult to see what if any interesting issues the question of the bug's internal experience could bear on. It's our perception or imagination of that experience that would seem to be far more important in how the act should be classified for a given individual.
Ummm... irrespective of whether they experience suffering in any phenomenological sense, what's the actual point supposed to be in feeding bugs through a coffee grinder? It seems as if you could only really enjoy the act if you enjoyed the prospect of making something else suffer.
'No doubt' is a figure of speech. But in species where there aren't any pain signals at all, my case is strengthened. I've skimmed the page you link: doesn't it just assume that 'pain experience' implies suffering? But this is contradicted by the testimony of cancer patients on opiates or Hindu saints undergoing surgery without anaesthesia. They feel the pain but it doesn't bother them.
>shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change
Yet it doesn't. It creates fear and reduces communication. The motive for shaming people, for trying to make people feel guilty, is to increase the power of the one who does the shaming. To cement their position in the in-group. Because deep inside they feel weak and powerless.
Whereas truly good people make you feel stronger and they inspire you by their example of virtue.
And by reducing communication, it reduces the chances of people changing their beliefs. It might even strengthen their existing beliefs. And that goes for both sides of the argument, so you better make sure you're right before you start jumping on others for their 'wrong' beliefs.
I consider it an important goal to be as patient and open to communication as possible with others, and politely decline communication (or friendship) only when it's clear that there is nothing to be done, and that our views are too far apart.
Often I've failed at that. I've had my moments where someone's views were so offensive to me that I could not stay calm and continue conversing, but I consider that my failing, and something to work on. And to some extent I accept that I have my limits.
One of the reasons I take this approach, is that I've been utterly wrong in my beliefs in the past (conservative Christian, bible-belt style). Or rather, I think I was utterly wrong. And yet I was the same 'rational' person I am now.
Another reason is that I've spent most of my life being around wildly different people and cultures and belief systems. And the one thing it made me realize is that most people are not 'evil' in their beliefs, but that they either 1) never really thought about them much, or 2) made a fundamental error at some point of the process.
For example, it was only when I started reading 'republican' blogs that I started to understand and to a degree even appreciate their point of view on many things. Understanding the religious elements in this dynamic made this a bit easier too.
Perhaps the problem the author describes is a result of people living in very 'homogenous' surroundings, and as a result perhaps they never learned how to disagree in a civil way, or respect someone's views even though they disagree with them.
I don't expect professional philosophers will contribute much either. But it's plausible that a philosophical advance (a new way of thinking) within an existing field such as computer science will lead to the breakthrough. Deutsch has claimed elsewhere that all great advances in science are like this. For example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution represented a fundamentally new mode of explanation.
>In fact anything computers ever do is not real intelligence
No, he doesn't say that. On the contrary he names the principle ('Universality of Computation'; see paragraph 4) which guarantees that computers are capable of true intelligence, since, if programmed correctly, they can simulate the behaviour of any physical object, including human brains.
>there is some divine truth and wisdom that only humans possess.
He also explicitly repudiates supernatural explanations (see para immediately before the one mentioning John Searle).
One thing the article gets right I believe is that highly creative people are annoying, almost psychotic individuals. It can't be otherwise. If they cared what other people thought as much as the rest of us do they'd self-censor their ideas.
I have to agree. Sometimes I think I'm not disciplined enough. But every now and then I start a book which is so interesting and vital that I'm compelled to go all the way through at top speed, with later re-reads. I'm thrilled and altered as a result. That's what reading is like for me now. Unfinished books no less than unordered books are part of the search and nothing to be ashamed of.
>When she does this with students, she asks them afterwards, “Was anything fuzzy?” It’s usually the part that they were messing up that’s fuzzy.
This is genius. Reminds me of the rule that if something feels fuzzy at the instrument it's always a conceptual error about the piece rather than poor coordination or poor finger strength.
>Why is it better to practice every day for an hour, instead of seven hours on one day of the week?
For the same reason that it's better to practice for 10 minutes several times per day instead of one hour straight.
Sleep is a given. The brain is learning continuously, not just during sleep. Go back to a section of a piece after 15 minutes doing something else and notice it has become easier.
Sometimes it's even easier after just 1 minute away. I code and play music, and I've made a habit of occasionally walking around the house, petting the dog, then back to where I'm working/practicing. It doesn't take long, but it works strangely well.
Yes. There's something about walking isn't there? Returning attention back to the body and the senses amounts to relaxing after hard concentration. Perhaps petting the dog enhances that, the body being where emotions are felt. Scientists seem to suspect that walking or just standing occasionally is important for health.
To complete the argument about learning: you play the tough section, correcting a few errors. Then you go away for a bit, and during that period the brain updates its hardware to include those corrections. The mistake is to hammer/saw away repeatedly and interfere with what you have already achieved, wasting time and effort. I think the OP kinda acknowledged this by recommending switching at whim between different tasks within a practice session.
Perhaps would-be surgeons ought to have their manual coordination assessed before they commence years of expensive training. The irony is that for my father's generation, in England, prowess on the rugby field was considered important in getting into medical school. (And that might actually have been a good thing. I suspect top athletes, musicians and surgeons all possess the same talent which would cease to be a 'talent' if only we could explain it.)
Right now the main criteria for medical school admission is simply how much information you can cram into your head and regurgitate. Critical thinking, thinking outside the box, dexterity, compassion...irrelevant.
>If you had the opportunity to feed harmless bugs into a coffee grinder, would you enjoy the experience? Even if the bugs had names, and you could hear their shells painfully crunching?
No doubt their nervous systems transmit pain signals but whether bugs experience suffering seems like an open question to me.