I wouldn't say that it's a norm, at least not anymore than it is for men to shame women's bodies.
TranscendentalEmpire
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, I had multiple one+ phones for years. The last one I got was literally unusable after the first update and customer services was non existent.
Sounds more like the nurses were fired in retaliation for participating in a strike led by their union and the hospital is trying to make it seem like they did it because AI made their jobs irrelevant.
From what I read it looked like the nurses mainly worked in patient discharge, which isn't really a job that AI could realistically do. Half the time there isn't really a lot of information that would be accessible, a lot of the info would be entered after discharge when the attending provider is doing their notes.
Yeah.... We've got 5-6 different bird feeders in our yard. Our visit to tractor supply for bird seed usually clocks in around 100-150lbs. We've got purple martins, crows, hawks, brown thrashers, and even a wood pecker that all live on or around our property. Then about a dozen other birds that migrate through every year.
You too can live the dream! Just as long as the location of that dream occurs in a state like Oklahoma.
If Americans choose an early grave by eating 6 burgers a day, who are we to judge them?
How dare you insult American culture on their day of independence.
That's stupid, Clark Kent wears glasses......Have you ever seen Batman wear glasses?
perhaps those external stimuli are always present in some form, even if they are extremely minimal, indirect, or invisible to us at first glance.
I still think the connection between external stimuli and consciousness are a lot more glaring than what you realize. After all it is how we medically determine consciousness in humans. Our ability to process and respond to external stimuli is a direct reflection of our somatic and autonomic physiology.
We could even say that it may be impossible to isolate the mind completely from all stimulation in the first place.
You can, it's called anesthesia.
In that sense, the claim becomes less about the absence of stimulation and more about how little stimulation is actually enough to sustain consciousness or mental activity.
Its interdependent on your period of development. In gestation unborn infants produce more grey matter than what is really needed to sustain life and can get by with internal stimuli and the external stimuli provided by the womb. However as we develop we become more dependent on higher and higher levels of interaction with our environment to develop our mental capacity.
If a person were to be put under anesthesia since early development or e acquired a tbi that made them unresponsive at an early age, they would all likely mentally deteriorate to a persistent vegetative state.
One is normal brain development, and the other is consciousness itself. It’s true that a human being needs certain external stimuli for the brain to develop in a healthy way and for mental experience to be normal and stable. But that does not mean that, without those stimuli, consciousness does not exist.
Human beings require external stimuli for any higher brain development to happen, not just healthy brain development.
But that does not mean that, without those stimuli, consciousness does not exist.
Yes.... It does. Any example you would like to share of a conscious individual who lacks access to any and all external stimuli?
A person can still be conscious and yet suffer severe cognitive, emotional, or behavioral changes because of sensory deprivation or an extremely limited environment.
Yes, but they did not develop in that extreme deprivation. And even if they did develop in a way that was restricted, they did not lack external stimuli completely.
Your body literally need to be experience external stimuli to develop the capacity for consciousness.
There's fundamentally not much difference between our brain and a fly's, at the cellular level.
There's fundamentally not much difference between the silicon in an n64 and the silicone in a quantum computer..... That doesn't mean you can make a quantum computer out of an old n64.
However, consciousness is likely just an internal illusion.
Internal..... as it can only be confirmed by the individual self? Consciousness is an ontological term to define the human condition. There is purposely no exact definition, as an exact definition of consciousness would only be utilized to strip rights away from those who do not fall under the exacting definition. There are however generally agreed upon criteria and criteria that have been hotly debated for hundreds of years.
There's no obvious reason we can't scale up from a fly to a human brain, other than difficulty.
To make this claim requires someone to have a limited understanding of what consciousness is, and how it develops. It completely ignores the mind body problem, and treats the human brain as something that can operate outside the body as if it were some sort of computer.
Consciousness in humans develops and sustains itself as we physically interact with the world around us. This is true in both development in childhood and as we continue to age. As we physically interact with phenomena around us we mentally develop, as our senses start to fail us in age we mentally decline. Even if I were to just cut off your arm, there would be a plethora of changes to the physiology of your brain that would alter the way it functions and the way it is shaped.
A person born stripped of all physical phenomena would never develop a conscious to begin with, and a if it were stripped away after consciousness had developed they would lose it. Hell, even sticking someone in an area with restricted physical phenomena for a short period of time can drive them insane.
Consciousness is not purely a metaphysical phenomenon. And from what we currently understand of it can not be recreated purely in a virtual format.
I mean....... He didn't, more than likely he never really existed. That interpretation of the legend is a misconception that was popularized in 1879 by Robert Browning who claims he ran from athens to sparta, back to athens, fought at marathon, and then ran back to Athens where he died.
In reality the first mention of a runner having to do with the battle was made by Herodotus (aka the father of lies) who claimed Pheidippides ran from athens to sparta in two days..... Only stopping to have a quick chat with some gods.
Around 500 years later Plutarch claimed a runner named Thersippus or Eukles ran from marathon to Athens to deliver news of victory.
100 years after that Lucian of Samosata claimed that Pheidippides ran from Marathon to Athens to announce victory and then died.
Over 1500 years later Browing would conflate all the stories into one legend about Pheidippides.
So, the earliest source for the story comes 40 years after it supposedly happened, and from a person who was famous for for spinning up some pretty tall tales.