Your opinion is a possibility but it is not grounded by any proof, as such it is nothing more than an assumption. I think the more intellectually healthy approach is to list out the possibilities and figure out what they entail, rather than to throw all your eggs in one basket blindly, which amounts to a leap of faith or a retreat to commitment.
But that's just my two cents, take it or leave it.
I understand that technology evolves and not everyone is the same, but the last 3 Macbooks I've had, going back to 2020, all zap me for some reason. I.e. when I move my hands over the metal casing I feel some sort of electronic vibration, and something similar happens when I tap the track pad or glide my finger over it.Maybe it's a matter of whatever works well for 95% of the population, but as...
Today I tried to make a few light banter comments and all of them got blocked by auto-moderators with insane rules.
What is going on at reddit?
Speaking as a former Amazonian who ran oncall for LSEs and high-impact events on my teams systems responsible for $130B/year GMS.
LONG LIVE THE FREE AMERICANS
I'm just curious, do you know what the opinions about this stuff are from people that work in these fields, or that have dedicated their lives to it?
It’s a serious stance, but the really interesting thing to me here is that its not a settled fact. What’s quite surprising and unique about this field is that unlike physics or chemistry where we generally agree on the basics, in consciousness studies you have some quite brilliant minds totally deadlocked on the fundamentals. There is absolutely no consensus on whether the problem is 'solved' or 'impossible,' and its definitely not a matter of people not taking this seriously enough or making some rash judgments or simple errors.
I find this fascinating because this type of situation is pretty rare or unique in modern science. Maybe the fun part is that I can take one stance and you another and here there's no "right answer" that some expert knows and one of us is "clearly" wrong. Nice chatting with you :)
> then isn't the experience just of "a surface attribute, of given spatial extent".
I don't know why this seems to be so hard for me to think about and even put into words, but isn't "the experience of the surface attribute of a given spatial extent" something other than the experience of the surface attribute of a given spatial extent itself?
I mean that the words we use to describe something aren't the something itself. Conceivably, you can experience something without ever having words, and having words about a phenomenal visual experience doesn't seem to change the experience much or at all (at least for me).
Maybe another way of phrasing this would be something like: can we talk about red blotches using red blotches themselves, in the same way that we can talk about words using words themselves? And then, supposing that we could talk about red blotches using red blotches (maybe the blotches are in the form of words or structured like knowledge, I dunno), can we talk about red blotches without ever having experienced red blotches? I learned this idea from Mary's Room thought experiment, but I still don't know what to think about it.
For me, I can turn off all the thinking and associations and just... look. And there's something there that the looking is of or like, if that makes sense. It's hard to put into words because it's prior to words, and can possibly be independent of them.
But maybe that's not something universal? I know some people don't have visual imagery or an inner voice, so maybe phenomenal experience varies more than we assume. Does that distinction between the experience itself and your ability to think/talk about it track for you at all?
Yes, and that's pretty much exactly the point: we don't know of any way of determining whether someone is a p-zombie or a being with conscious phenomenal experience. We can certainly have an opinion or belief or assume that sufficient structure means consciousness, which is a perfectly reasonable stance to take and one that many would take, but we have to be careful to understand that's not a scientific stance since it isn't testable or falsifiable, which is why it's been called the "hard problem" of consciousness. It's an unfounded belief we choose out of reasons like psychological comfort.
With regards to your latter point, I think you are making some sophisticated distinctions regarding the "map and territory" relation, and it seems you've hit upon the crux of the matter: how can we report "what its like" for us to experience something the other person hasn't experienced, if its not deconstructible to phenomenal states they've already experienced (and therefore constructible for them based off of our report)? The landmark paper here is "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by Josh Nagel, and if you're ever curious it's a pretty short read.
With regards to "blindsight" since I'm not familiar with it and curious, how do we distinguish between loss of visual consciousness and loss of information transfer between conscious regions, or loss of memory about conscious experience?
As far as I know, consciousness is referring to something other than self-referential systems, especially with regards to the hard problem of consciousness.
The [philosophical zombie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) thought experiment is well-known for imagining something with all the structural characteristics that you mention but without conscious experience as in "what-its-like" to be someone.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do this, this is a personal and business decision to make more money at the expense of users' well-being. When you're surrounded by lots of people that think a certain way, you start to see it as acceptable and even good.
Though I know lots of people that disagree, I personally don't think it's justifiable. If someone finds it justifiable, they should take responsibility for it.
It's also probably true that a one-day outage would have a negative net present value (taking into account all future sales) far exceeding the daily loss in sales, due to loss of customer goodwill.
We too have manual processes in place, but for any manual process we document the rollback steps (before starting) and monitor the deployment. We also separate deployment of code with deployment of features (which is done gradually behind feature flags). We insist that any new features (or modification of code) requires a new feature flag; while this is painful and slow, it has helped us avoid risky situations and panic and alleviated our ops and on-call burden considerably.
For something to go horribly wrong, it would have to fail many "filters" of defects: 1. code review--accidentally introducing a behavioral change without a feature flag (this can happen, e.g. updating dependencies), 2. manual and devo testing (which is hit or miss), 3. something in our deployment fails (luckily this is mostly automated, though as with all distributed systems there are edge cases), 4. Rollback fails or is done incorrectly 5. Missing monitoring to alert us that issue still hasn't been fixed. 5. Fail to escalate the issue in time to higher-levels. 6. Enough time passes that we miss out on ability to meet our SLA, etc.
For any riskier manual changes we can also require two people to make the change (one points out what's being changed over a video call, the other verifies).
If you're dealing with a system where your SLA is in minutes, and changes are irreversible, you need to know how to practically monitor and rollback within minutes, and if you're doing something new and manually, you need to quadruple check everything and have someone else watching you make the change, or its only a matter of time before enough things go wrong in a row and you can't fix it. It doesn't matter how good or smart you are, mistakes will always happen when people have to manually make or initiate a change, and that chance of making mistakes needs to be built into your change management process.
As far as that goes, there's nothing wrong with that and that's not the part that people actually have problems with (but it's a nice strawman to argue against).
The part that is cruel and abusive is locking them up when nobody is at home so they can't damage your possessions. If there is some emergency like a fire, intruder, something falling down, etc, they can't do anything about it.