Jevon23

It might be correlated with neurodivergence. But it’s also just correlated with high verbal ability in general, presumably. I find it quite natural to think in complete structured sentences, and it’s often perplexed me why other people seem to find this concept so alien. And no I’m not schizophrenic.

> The thought that was comfortable as a vague impression has to become a sentence, and sentences have structure. They have a subject and a predicate.

I already think in sentences so idk what this guy is on about, sounds like a skill issue.

In order to get into Zuckerberg’s position in the first place, you need to have a highly competitive personality type. And competitive people want to win at EVERYTHING, all the time. It’s a constant compulsion. Even if they might intellectually understand the distinction between “just a game” and “actual serious time”, they don’t “feel” that distinction in their bones. They have no off switch.

Why bother with research into fundamental physics? Is there some deeper truth about the prime numbers hidden in the universe?

>1) It's certainly not unheard of for theories have observational or experimental data appears that sends them back to the drawing board for reworking and do eventually get to a consistent state

Sure. But when the socially dominant theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “a temporary setback that calls for some reworking”, and when a heterodox theory doesn’t fit observations, it’s called “falling flat on its face”, as you can see in another reply below. That’s not a healthy dynamic.

> There's not some shadowy cabal of cosmologists doing everything in their power to keep the cult of dark matter alive.

No… but curiously, you will get your comment flagged and removed on HN for making such a claim!

There are some specialized terms here that you're unlikely to encounter outside of an academic philosophy paper, but there's nothing complex about the meanings of any of the individual terms. Once you know what the words mean, it all makes sense.

>eliminativist

Eliminativist claims in philosophy are claims that deny the existence of some class of entities. You can be eliminativist about all sorts of things - numbers, objective morals, countries, tables and chairs, etc.

>qualia

First-person conscious experiences. Pain is a qualia. The way the color blue looks, as opposed to say the color red or green, is a qualia. The sensation of hot or cold is a qualia.

When someone stubs their toe and says "ow", you can infer that they're in pain based on their behavior and your knowledge of how pain works, but you can't actually feel or directly observe their pain. That's the "first-person" part.

>phenomenal consciousness

A synonym for "qualia", because some philosophers started to feel like the word "qualia" had too much historical baggage, so they needed to come up with a new term.

>introspective illusion

Exactly what it says on the tin. An illusion (meaning, an impression that something is real, when it is in fact not) generated by introspection.

So, putting it all together:

>illusionism

Illusionism about consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness is not real. So, to give a specific example, an illusionist would be committed to the thesis that pain is not real. As a corollary, no one has ever felt pain before, because there is no such thing as pain. People have been under the illusion that they feel pain, but they actually don't.

Every field has jargon and specialized terminology. Do you expect to be able to read any random physics or math paper outside your area of expertise and understand every word?

There are… many people who think that cities are worse off because of cars. Maybe not for the same reasons, but still.

You know that ChatGPT writing is still obvious even when you ask it to change its style, right?

Aliens are not woo. Life is a natural phenomenon that is very clearly possible within the known laws of physics. We know life can naturally occur in the universe, because it happened here. Why not somewhere else, too?

Nothing forgotten about him. His work is foundational to modern algebraic geometry and there’s no mathematician who doesn’t know who he is.

ChatGPT comment?