Ste_Evans

6 ms·

1.
by Ste_Evans 4y ago
Nokia's problem was their UI, which was not controlled by Symbian, not the underlying OS. Hundreds of Symbian-OS based phones were on the market from 2001, including in the Japanese market which had the most testing. The p800 and p910
2.
by Ste_Evans 5y ago
This paper is a good example of why mathematicians often ignore philosophy of maths. "When a community of mathematicians is small then our modern standards of truth aren't necessary" Proof is needed to provide confidence in t
3.
by Ste_Evans 6y ago
I think the terms used in Mathematics are a tad more precise than those in natural language e.g. 1 is fairly clear, "moral" is not as clear. The reason Maths works is because it is based on intuitions (counting, space) that are pr
4.
by Ste_Evans 7y ago
These seem like fair points. So there's definitely plenty of room for improvement at NYT. Do you mind me asking if you have a similarly prepared spiel for Fox News? Didn't they claim the American President wasn't actually Ame
5.
by Ste_Evans 7y ago
Yeah, but there's plenty of physicists who don't understand physics among proponents of string theory, multiverses and fine-tuning. The point is who would you trust for basic news among NYT, Fox News, the Post, the BBC, NHK, Russi
6.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
"Let's say a rock is conscious," No, let's not.
7.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
Empirically verified physics , not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter i
8.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
No. Next question!
9.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
It's simply saying that "consciousness" is related to the brain, but doesn't explain the subjective feeling of consciousness. The stuff about the single cell organism's supposed consciousness is just a lame analogy.
10.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
Any links for Americans curious about sarcasm?
11.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
"Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz" Good point - there are so many cranks around I lose track. I had a look at the Grosz article. I have never seen such pure excr
12.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
Excellent! Thanks! Do you have any links for those curious about witchcraft and voodoo?
13.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties o
14.
by Ste_Evans 8y ago
These kind of silly ideas refuted here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-thin... Tl;DR only the physical properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can contribute to consciousness a