RxFlow Robotics

Full pharmacy automation starts with us

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@tszzl “Equally convincing” is absolutely right!

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@chenna1985 Just admit that you ignored that manipulating the physical world needs an understanding of it that doesn’t involve PDEs.

It’s Heidegger’s hammer: knowing all the physics of the hammer doesn’t really help you hammer nails. Practicing hammering nails is what helps.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@chenna1985 I wonder where my dog got his PhD in Physics and who was his favorite PDE professor.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@LogankillsDaken @davidbessis That’s under that assumption that people have a narrow scope for what science can say.

But that’s not the case with hard problem deniers. They’re not claiming that science can never explain it, they’re saying it’s explained perfectly by functionalism or some such.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

Correct.

It’s been removed to make the scientific world made up of little bits (atoms, but not only) moving.

Except now science forgot about this act of removal and it now attempts to limit ontology to just the abstracted bits moving.

But mental phenomena are real. They can’t be defined out of existence by forgetting the original act of removing them from analysis.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

Correct.

It’s been removed to make the scientific world made up of little bits (atoms, but not only) moving.

Except now science forgot about this act of removal and it now attempts to limit ontology to just the abstracted bits moving.

But mental phenomena are real. They can’t be defined out of existence by forgetting the original act of removing them from analysis.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@LogankillsDaken @davidbessis Again, this is part of why experience challenges our methodology.

It’s very Kantian (derogatory here) to constrain ontology from our methodology.

The real world doesn’t owe us a clean methodology.

But ignoring the experience you have is clearly unscientific.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@LogankillsDaken @davidbessis There are differences between electricity and subjective experience: the later is a scientific observation, or anomaly, but it also challenges our methodology (non third party observable).

But it *is* something scientific, not just a word game.

That too is a category error.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@LogankillsDaken @davidbessis 17th-18th century discussion:

“Electricity can be explained by moving atoms. The ‘hard problem of electricity’ arises from grammatical confusion. Once we dispel the confusion, we don’t need extra types of matter to explain electricity.”

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@davidbessis I think it’s incidental from your anti-Platonism or from the deeper thing that led to your anti-Platonism.

I would like to see your thoughts on the hard problem.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@lordshipshaggy @Moleh1ll You don’t have to agree that the Gnostics are bad.

It’s just undeniable that they were much less fond of the body than Orthodox Christians.

Hence why the original tweet was a bit confused about Orthodox Christianity’s attitude towards the body.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@lordshipshaggy @Moleh1ll Plotinus also criticized the gnostics for hating the body and he was a “pagan.”

And I get what you mean “the library of Alexandria situation,” but even that historical reference is misleading, as there were no books/scrolls left there by the time it was destroyed.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@lordshipshaggy @Moleh1ll No dude, they saw the body mostly negatively, they were strongly dualist emphasizing the resurrection of the soul vs the body.

Orthodox Christians attacked them precisely for these reasons.

You may find some quotes vaguely pointing differently, but they’re exceptions.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@EricNewcomer Sure you understand. You understand the hard problem of consciousness therefore you understand that consciousness is substrate specific. You don’t believe that your laptop has emotions therefore GPU farms don’t have emotions either.

Pretty straightforward.

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

Artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. #MagnificaHumanitas

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@patio11 Yet, I can read transaction records from De Medici’s bank, from more than 500 years ago.

The perishable paper medium seems more durable than bits.

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

@QiaochuYuan I like your output here, even if I disagree, so please don’t take this the wrong way.

But did you not publicly struggle with the effects of a philosophy you adopted deeply crippling you?

What’s so hard to understand that equating humans with laptops is a crippling philosophy?

[RxFlow Robotics @RxflowR]

This like the kid caught not studying for the exam, throwing out terms.

Sure, you can provide complex code if you want to. It’s still code.

And like you said, it’s a category error to equate code with experience, no matter how complex the code is.

You can have as many “distributed weights” as you want—there would be absolutely no possible logical inference that that complex code would experience anything.