Ste_Evans

Nokia's problem was their UI, which was not controlled by Symbian, not the underlying OS. Hundreds of Symbian-OS based phones were on the market from 2001, including in the Japanese market which had the most testing. The p800 and p910 had a UI similar to iPhone and Android in 2003, 3 years before the iPhone, on 3G networks. The second version of the Symbian OS kernel from 2003 was real time i.e. a comms stack could be run together with the apps off the one CPU. Are the Linux kernel or iOS kernel real time now even?

Android OS and iOS are hacks of desktop OSes so are optimised for performance rather than battery life or memory usage; Symbian OS was designed as a mobile OS from the beginning optimising power and memory management.

It was the timing of Google's IPO which scuppered Symbian. Google were able to spend billions getting Android in place to capture Symbian's market share and customers as iPhone buzz grew the market.

This paper is a good example of why mathematicians often ignore philosophy of maths.

"When a community of mathematicians is small then our modern standards of truth aren't necessary"

Proof is needed to provide confidence in the intuition. Lots of historical examples of mathematical intuition unsupported by rigorous proof going astray.

Also, on p11 it is not enough just to complete the square and derive the formulae for quadratic roots, the substitution on p12 is also necessary. Otherwise, one has just shown the possible form roots can take if they exist, but not that they exist.

i.e. showing A=>B is true, does not show that B is true.

I think the terms used in Mathematics are a tad more precise than those in natural language e.g. 1 is fairly clear, "moral" is not as clear.

The reason Maths works is because it is based on intuitions (counting, space) that are presumably shadows of the physical world cast on the evolving brain via coarse perception. The effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics is probably not unreasonable at all.

These seem like fair points. So there's definitely plenty of room for improvement at NYT. Do you mind me asking if you have a similarly prepared spiel for Fox News? Didn't they claim the American President wasn't actually American for years? I know this is whataboutery, but I suspect NYT is one of the better media outlets in the US despite the failings you've pointed out.

Yeah, but there's plenty of physicists who don't understand physics among proponents of string theory, multiverses and fine-tuning.

The point is who would you trust for basic news among NYT, Fox News, the Post, the BBC, NHK, Russia Today, China Daily, some crazy Mormon journo?

"Let's say a rock is conscious," No, let's not.

Empirically verified physics, not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter is made of consciousness or chocolate or whatever you like, but you cannot use that assumption in trying to explain consciousness in a brain according to the results of the Standard Model. Got it???

If you think this physical fact is not true, then explain why. Though I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with McDonald's menu for your future career rather than pondering difficult questions about consciousness...

No. Next question!

It's simply saying that "consciousness" is related to the brain, but doesn't explain the subjective feeling of consciousness.

The stuff about the single cell organism's supposed consciousness is just a lame analogy.

This is what you can do if you are a "philosopher" - just sniff some glue and write stuff down.

Any links for Americans curious about sarcasm?

"Except you were not replying to the nautilus article, you were replying to the one i posted by Grosz"

Good point - there are so many cranks around I lose track.

I had a look at the Grosz article. I have never seen such pure excrement in word form. Can I get a job at Duke if I publish used toilet paper?

I think the following waffle in the article is beyond the Standard Model and therefore contradicted by the physicist's argument:

"It will be my claim here that materiality, bare matter, matter not in its simplified form but before being animated by life, is nevertheless always involved in and invested by incorporeal forces, forces of potential sense, forces of virtual significance that living bodies, in elaborating their own ends or finality, affirm and develop"

Excellent! Thanks! Do you have any links for those curious about witchcraft and voodoo?

Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can be appealed to at the energy levels in a brain. According to a professional physicist. Not my argument.

Are you saying the Standard Model is not empirically true???

These kind of silly ideas refuted here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-thin... Tl;DR only the physical properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can contribute to consciousness at the energy levels in the brain, apparently.

These kinds of problems are not going to be solved by "philosophers" who don't know enough neuroscience or physics, as any proposed ontology will have to fit with scientific observation.

When will cranks like the author of this article be booted out of the academy? The article is utter drivel.