418
Me next
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
418 points (99.1% liked)
The Shitpost Office
827 readers
60 users here now
Welcome to The Shitpost Office
Shitposts processed from 9 to 5, with occasional overtime on weekends.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Sinister
Treat others like fellow employees, not enemies in the breakroom.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Respect people’s time and space. We’re here to laugh, not to loathe
Rule 2: No Prohibited Postage
Some packages are simply undeliverable. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content
- NSFW content must be properly tagged
If you see anything that violates these rules, please report it so we can return it to sender. Otherwise? Have fun, be silly, and enjoy the chaos. The office runs best when everyone’s laughing.... or retching over the stench, at least.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
I don't disagree. I just don't see any reason for even an esoteric basis to speculate that consciousness is in any way analogous to computer software simply because "we invented this thing so we must apply it's logic to ourselves." It smacks of the "machine" view of how the human body works that became prevalent in medicine after industrialisation - and even today it is still a way of understanding human physiology that causes far more problems than it solves.
Ie, there's no speculative basis for it.
That’s a different point to the one I was replying to. I was replying to your dismissal of the conversation as esoteric, based on it discussing specifically non-organic consciousness.
That's because everybody arguing with me is conflating me saying that consciousness is not software with an attack on their favourite sci-fi genre (cyberpunk). And they're completely missing the whole point of cyberpunk by doing so, if you ask me.
That’s fine but, again, not the point I was responding to
Yes, and I'm not responding to your original point because, again, I don't disagree with it.