Well, first, Karl Marx worked in politics and economics. We have no reason to assume that his Dialectic Materialism was meant to apply to the universe as a whole.
Second: Philip K. Dick was crazy due to neurological damage from doing too much drugs. He shouldn't be taken serious on this topic either.
4:00
Where do these propositions come from? And for their estimated probabilties: These are bayesian probabilities, not frequentist probabilities. How the f**k did he calculate them?
6:00
Proposition Two ignores that intelligence and consciousness are not hard thresholds. They are both sliding scales.
Do we feel bad about killing virtual people in a game? No. So why would we assume that such a civilization would feel bad about the misery of a virtual civilization? Why would we assume that they would even regard us as "intelligent" or "alive" enough to merit their mercy?
6:45
He trusts the scientists up to this point. But when the scientists dare to think that consciousness is a result of our brain-structure and that a similar artificial brain would automatically also have consciousness, that's suddenly a bridge too far.
The maker of this video really wants to believe that consciousness is a hard threshold and that shows his bias.
9:00
Once again playing fast and loose with bayesian probabilities. The odds are not 1 : 1 million. He totally forgot that there are Prior-probabilities. Just like Occam's Razor, they massively tilts the odds of something being true towards scenarios that require little effort to be true.
10:22
Quantum-mechanical experiments do not depend on whether a consciousness observes the results. They depend on whether ANYBODY, INCLUDING ANOTHER CONSCIOUSNESS-LESS PARTICLE, observes them. The consciousness only enters after that, when we, somebody with a consciousness, observe the interaction between the particle and its other observer.
10:30
Light is not either wave or particle. It is both at the same time. Grab a f**king physics-book.
12:00
A BIG claim without any citation.
13:20
That is f**king gravitational time-dilation and it not only f**king happens around f**king stars and f**king black holes, but also around f**king Earth, which is the reason why the f**king clocks of f**king satellites go f**king out of sync after a f**king while.
F**king seriously. Grab a f**king physics-book.
15:00
Okay, now we have to get in really deep. What we understand as "mathematics" is just ony way of doing mathematics. For example, we have a certain kind of trigonometry with angles and ratios and sine and cosine. Recently, an ancient babylonian astrological chart was translated and it contained also trigonometry, but with a mathematical structure that is different from how we do trigonometry. The Babylonians tried to solve the same problem as Pythagoras and Thales, and they found their own distinct way of solving the problem because they write the problem in a totally different fashion. The solutions are the same, but the ways of getting there are different.
Similar with the equations by Claude Shannon that this physicist found in the equations that he uses to describe String-theory: Just because you can use the same kind of math to tackle two problems, that does not mean that these problems are physically related to each other in the real world.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Strings have not been proven yet. So there is no proof yet that String-theory in general (much less HIS version of String-theory) is correct.
17:20
And again with probabilities. Without any explanation where these numbers do come from, whether they are gut-feeling or from calculations or what Priors they are based on.
WHAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE EVEN COMPETENT TO MAKE SUCH AN ESTIMATE? BEING RICH AND FAMOUS DOES NOT EQUAL KNOWING SHIT!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
