nihil architecture blogs

Newsflash

Of course, any remotely sensible mind will see the absurdity of this, based on the now even bigger oxymoron of ‘land of the free’, on that there is no hard criterion on the age of drawings. . let alone that any scientific mind can see the stupidity of putting a hard criterion on children based on how old they are, a sharp line which when they pass it they can suddenly give ‘informed consent’ overnight?

The argument every person seems to overlook though this that despite that people are inclined to see these ‘loli’ as the illustrated equivalent of children, they are not. Loli are essentially beings with a sexually matured mindset, highly, in fact, that simply look extremely cute and child-like. So we have this situation:

1: Drawings have no legally or scientifically testible age.
2: Loli have the mindset and personality of adult women.
3: Loli look some what child like.

And thus it is ruled that they are children? Taking how they look above how they act and what their personality is, again a magnificent example of the hypocrisy of people. Every one claims they judge on personality but quit fooling yourself, the majority of people judge on looks and if you regarded loli to be children then let this be your indicator because their personality on this field is far from.

Nice going.

Consciousness, the defining factor of mankind, according to mankind itself. Philosophy has been stuck for ages trying to define it and to find a proof that shows that humans are conscious, being stuck at square one, defining consciousness to begin with.

So the other angle, let’s just not assume that humans are conscious. A controversial move I’m aware, but really, all scientific evidence seems to indicate that humans are not conscious. The laws of physics for one cannot explain why humans are conscious and effectively humans shouldn’t be according to them. In fact, nothing should.

A human being operates in daily life on its central nervous system. The central nervous system’s basic genetic layout is simply evolved via trial-and-error and keeping what just works by coincidence over a vast amount of time, I’m sure people will know. And then, as a child it again performs that situation by just trying to form random connexions between neurons and keeping those that are used a lot. It’s your basic self-learning system, it just tries out random things, has a way of knowing if a thing pays of, and keeps it if it does. Basic evolution, how last.fm recommends music and how a lot of google algorithms work. There is no reason to assume that the neurons of the human central nervous system induce any form of consciousness, except that clearly we are conscious,  or no, we say we are conscious.

That’s a rather important difference, there is no way to infer if a human being is concious but to ask that human being, and the human being then says ‘Yes, I am.’, but it’s perfectly conceivable that the neuron wiring just causes the human being to say that without any hint of self-awareness in that being. If a simple script operating on a computer causes it to say ‘Yes, I am conscious’ on such a question, does that make the computer conscious? But of course, the person asking this question is most likely human, so that person knows that because it itself is conscious, it is not unlikely that other humans are. But that person just says it’s concious again.

Take this to an outside observer, some being that is running the simulation behind our laws of physics in this universe on a giant computer as an experiment to note what is happening and sees on that insignificant little blue planet that has formed in it that some complex structure there keeps calling itself conscious. Even though the laws of physics clearly exclude it, and the theory of evolution holds no need for a being to be conscious to procreate, that being shall then note ‘Hmm, interesting, they have started to claim that they are conscious, a funny side-effect from that neuron-wiring.’, it’s as if last.fm suddently started to return that after it has found out that people more often use the search function there and thus frequent the site more, as its programming has a level which says to repeat an action which causes more people to visit the site and perfect that. Is Last.fm then conscious?

But of course, there are other ideas that do not make sense per se in physics and biology that are just there, but those are there to answer a question, to provide an answer to a problem, but to remove conscious from the equation of the universe really causes no problem whatsoever, to just say that humans aren’t conscious but operate on some kind of soulless programmed but sophisticated neural mechanism? Furthermore, it removes the complications of A: Why on earth would a being evolve to be conscious. B: how can the laws of physics and philosophy explain consciousness. C: How is can conciousness be defined?

So, rather than a given emprical observation which needs to be explained, it seems to be a far fetched assumption that humans are conscious. Sure, they claim it all the time, but they have been unable to prove it, even to each other, their own scientific laws seem to neither require them to be conscious, nor can they explain why they would be conscious? But they still claim it the whole time. In fact, even before the advent of human science, it seems to be hardcoded in human behaviour and dogma that humans are conscious or ’sentient’, and humans tend to be the scientists and philosophers investigating this, so the assumption of consciousness keeps slipping into their work, while really, scientifically at this point there is no reason to assume that humans are conscious. But humans seem to really be unable to let lose of the idea that they are, and it seems to be pretty hard-coded into human behaviour to act the whole time as if they are not only conscious, but the only conscious thing in the universe. Or at least for some thing for a human to be regarded as conscious, it must be able to use human language. Otherwise humans have a hard time registering it as ’sentient’.

So clearly humans are ridiculously biased to provide an answer to this question.

And it’s not the case that it’s proven beyond a shred of doubt that humans are not conscious or sentient or self aware. It’s simply a far-fetched assumption to make that humans are, as it doesn’t solve any problem by saying that they are, but creates a whole load of new ones. It’s a far simpler model to just say that humans are a basic programming that carries out its complex instructions as a process without really understanding what it does but it’s just evolved to do that as doing that correlelates to the survival of its own selfish genes. And it explains all things just as well, without implying a whole new row of questions like ‘what is consciousness’, ‘how does it work’ that cannot currently be answered.