the following exchange reveals that Trump is the one with the low IQ, and that he is depending on his supporters being low IQ as well

Reporter: "Hakeem Jefferies called you a wannabe king."
Trump: "Low IQ."
Reporter: "Why won't you just work with Congress?"
Trump: "I don't have to."

huh? Then ... that sounds like a wannabe king.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DU_scR7kWwV/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Can a machine have ANY mental states? Or is that something only brains are capable of? — RogueAI

I'm not an expert on AI - I wish I could remember the details of an article I read some time ago - that describes how neural networks function quite differently than computers - that these vast networks in a brain cannot be replicated in a machine.

Long story short - a machine will never approximate what a human brain can do

a machine has thoughts at all using the scientific method — RogueAI

I machine does not have thoughts the way I understand them.

How would you go about proving that with the scientific method? — RogueAI

Two different structures with two different functions processing information in different ways

Do machines have thoughts? — RogueAI

Not like I do

Trump's sweeping global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court — Michael

Apparently, Trump has a melt-down during the Governors meeting, flying into an uncontrolled rage, yelling out, "These f*cking courts!"

How dare they be a check on him.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DU_NNV2kZmf/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

then you are assuming that the hard problem is tractable by third-person methods. — RogueAI

I don't need to think your thoughts to know you have them

But you have faith science will eventually solve the hard problem? — RogueAI

I put my faith in the scientific method, but I can't make predictions about what discoveries might be made in the future. But there is a significant body of knowledge about brain function that I do accept - notice I used the word "accept," not "believe in"

I was looking for a bit more of a deep dive than 'crazy auntie'. So, what is it about a 'crazy auntie's' behaviour that makes it crazy? What is the craziness? What other ways may this present? — I like sushi

Lighten up

Good point. I'm sure the function of oxytocin is complex. Its negative effects are mitigated in the presence of women. I did find this -

Similarly, estratetraenol, a pheromone found in female urine, exerts a calming effect on men and heightens their sensitivity to female facial expressions. Studies examining the impact of estratetraenol exposure on men’s social cognition suggest that emotional reactions to touch are intensified under its influence. This indicates that exposure to estratetraenol might reshape men’s social cognition, particularly in sexual contexts, and potentially boost sexual motivation, thus facilitating behaviors associated with seeking a sexual partner.

3 Subliminal Impacts That Pheromones Have on Relationships

I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

Let’s begin with the recognition that there exists variation within the human species, as well as within the female sex and the male sex. It is never one size fits all.

But there is biological evidence to show significant differences between males and females that translate to differences in attitudes and behaviors.

As an instance, let’s consider the hormone oxytocin, the mother-baby bonding hormone. A key “social molecule” active in the central nervous system, it’s found at similar plasma levels in males and females, but has evolved sex-dependent roles. It functions differently at the male vs. female amygdala, causing sex-dependent outcomes -

… oxytocin treatment produces sex- and valence-dependent increases in amygdala activation when women view individuals identified as praising others but in men those who criticize them…

… oxytocin may act differentially via the amygdala to enhance the salience of positive social attributes in women but negative ones in men.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661324001700

(Oxytocin) has evolved some sex-specific functions at both neural and behavioral level -

In women, oxytocin facilitates positive social judgments, social approach, kinship recognition, and altruism

In men, it facilitates negative social judgments, social avoidance, competitor recognition, and selfishness

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4941426/

These lists of sex-specific behaviors based on hormonal action do tend to support a natural, biological basis for the idea that females are nurturers and males are protectors.

Meaning, what do men do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

Lol, a woman should bever be considered a "gap" to be filled.

Meaning, what do women do instead to fill this gap? — I like sushi

Become that crazy auntie that everyone loves

I've really enjoyed my time here. It's been great interacting with so many different personalities, sometimes frustrating, always enlightening, and I look forward to many more adventures in learning at the new place! See all of you there! Emojis arise!

Mate, you are not reading clearly and I have requested that you do read more clearly. Please do so, to avoid these situations. I said nothing about what you think, feel or care about. Point blank, period. I said you come across this way. — AmadeusD

But I didn't. I asked you to quit with the judgments. Your incorrect speculations are not appreciated.

Is this like a new-agey thing? — AmadeusD

No. What produces your reality?

happy to receive your updates. Just giving disclosure, i guess lol. — AmadeusD

I'll give you disclosure as I read

Very weird reading, i have to say. — AmadeusD

My favourite kind!

I think her point, and it's a decent one, is that this whole situation sucks. — AmadeusD

You were right when you said this. There is no positive side to girls getting raped and murdered.

Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, — AmadeusD

You were wrong when you said this. Turns my stomach to think that anyone might think I have any empathy for any sexual predator. My concern is wholly focused on the victims.

Besides, i don't give a shit about Clinton. Don't know where you got that idea.

This seems a total non sequitur. — AmadeusD

Consciousness makes our reality - as does matter and energy - so it may be pertinent to see what physics has to say about it all. I'm not that familiar with quantum theory, but I want to learn more.

The talk about brain structure and function doesn't get to the point we're on, though, you have been right about all that. This is why we're still trying to tease it apart. — AmadeusD

Okay, I will try to be more open-minded

I'm not sure what you mean by 'science of mind' — AmadeusD

I am currently reading The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self - I'll fill you in as I read. Right now, I just started Chapter Two - The Science and Philosophy of Mind

I can understand how Questioner comes across as someone who might think its sad Clinton got caught, — AmadeusD

A totally unfounded assumption, and I take offense to it

That's why these questions keep cropping up — AmadeusD

Philosophers have been concerned with the questions surrounding consciousness for hundreds of years. All those questions really boil down to the nature of reality itself. Science may have something to contribute and to limit one's investigation solely to philosophy ignores a large body of knowledge.

Many philosophical questions will remain, no doubt. Any serious exploration of consciousness concerns itself with both the philosophy and the science of mind.

Science does not always offer absolute truths on all their claims. — Corvus

Correct, science does not. They offer best explanations based on the evidence.

There are always prevalent and possible errors on their observations, experiments and their reasoning for establishing theories. — Corvus

That observations are always in error is a dubious claim.

There are also possible frauds and fabrication on data collections and unjustified research methods for making up fake claims just to secure grants and donations. — Corvus

Philosophers are saints, and scientists are sinners?

Blindly revering, adoring, admiring and accepting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent attitude. — Corvus

Of course.

But blindly rejecting claims just because they are scientific is naive and unintelligent, too.

Tell me, do you think that the philosophical zombie is a possibility - a human being physically identical to human being (acts like a human) but has no conscious experience?

How could that process result in conscious, first-personal experience? — AmadeusD

Clearly, science has not solved the hard problem, but it is difficult for me to accept explanations that are supported only by faith, not evidence. There's like this science-epistemophobia going on

One way to help is to point to those involved in his orbit, like the Clintons. You could also point out that Epstein was coaching a congresswoman in a House Oversight Committee hearing, Stacey Plaskett, proving his influence on the highest seats of power. — NOS4A2

Yes, fine, get them all, but I don't understand getting pleasure from it

it is not about a contest between political sides.

I just find it hilarious that it exonerated those who you hated, but exposed those who you support. — NOS4A2

You don't get it. My only feeling from it all is great sorrow for the suffering so many girls went through

It’s the gift that keeps on giving. — NOS4A2

How can you characterize anything to do with the Epstein files as a gift? That's sick.

One thing clear is that it is not physical. It is a perception in higher level, which perceives all the other perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations — Corvus

I never claimed it was. You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending what is meant by the function of a biological structure. Here are a couple of quotes of things I previously posted in this thread -

Consciousness is the function of the structures of the brain. Consciousness consists of the "content" produced.

Consciousness is not physical. It is the function of the physical. It is a function of the structure operating in highly complex electrochemistry.

***

If I understand correctly, you are talking about a unified consciousness that connects fragmented perceptions, emotions, feelings, sensations, memories and imaginations, etc., into a singular experience of consciousness. This is achieved through the coordinated functioning of the brain. Brain mechanisms integrate, synchronize and model information, transforming individual mental processes into a coherent “stream of consciousness”

There is a rage growing in women.
— Questioner

Speak for yourself, Questioner.

ancient instincts awake
— Questioner

To attend protests? LOL. — AmadeusD

I am specifically talking about the highest reaches of government covering up for the rape and murder of girls

the theory is immature — AmadeusD

of accepting scientific knowledge as valid?

isn't particularly mature. — AmadeusD

Quit with the judgments. It really makes me not want to discuss with you

But I'd like to. So, address the issue

science — AmadeusD

the only substantiated knowledge we have

Now that's a good question - but this would apply to your own, no? — AmadeusD

Lol! Good observation! that's why I defer to science

But where did your so-called "own morality" come from? — Outlander

From my own experiences and internalization of 60+ years of living, and a commitment to do the right thing. I wasn't just an observer in my life.

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself. — Ecurb

When I make decisions, i abide by my own morality, not the morality of others

Am I currently apologizing for my soul's integrity, or am I honoring the gold standard of my self-respect? — RadicalJoe

It's hard, when there are so many judges out there, ready to condemn you, for taking a stand. It's tough to be true to yourself, but I hope in the end, your will

Thanks. Looking forward to it.

Appeception — Corvus

How about you just explain to me what it is?

And it is called the hard problem of consciousness. Hence reading all the neurology books wouldn't tell us what consciousness is. — Corvus

Why should I accept a theory of consciousness produced by that very same human consciousness?

Read on Apperception in Kant's terminology, and you might change your views. — Corvus

Kant made some important contributions to the understanding of cognitive science –

1. The mind is a complex set of abilities (functions)
2. The functions crucial for mental, knowledge-generating activity are spatio-temporal processing of, and application of concepts to, sensory inputs.
3. These functions are forms of synthesis. Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for synthesis) are central to cognition.

Where I disagree with Kant is in this -

He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience.

It might seem a reasonable explanation to an 18th century philosopher, but a modern understanding of evolution and neuroscience undercut the notions that consciousness exists not only separately from, but before, the organism experiencing it.

I reject Kant’s statement that - “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, … in order to make room for faith.”

So, instead of reading more of Kant, I have just downloaded the following book. Read it, and you might change your views.

The New Science of Consciousness: Exploring the Complexity of Brain, Mind, and Self

https://www.amazon.ca/New-Science-Consciousness-Exploring-Complexity-ebook/dp/B01C1LBNQA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0

That's close. — Corvus

I gave the feeling that some want to separate consciousness from the person who is experiencing it, and for me that is an impossibility, a non-starter

They are not consciousness. They are just mental states and activities. You can do all those without knowing you are doing them. Consciousness means you are aware of what you are ware of. So it is the perception higher than normal perception. So, it appears that you did not know what consciousness is, but thought you did. — Corvus

Okay, let's add to the list self-reflection

Tell us then. — AmadeusD

A coordinated set of mental capacities that include awareness, emotions, rationalization, analysis, synthesis and responsiveness