So how do you measure qualia? What is it made of? How is it actually defined? How do you detect if qualia is present in something other than your own head?
I stand by my statement that qualia is simply an artifact of our cognitive architecture. You are welcome to disagree but the arguments you are presenting fail to convince me in the slightest.
So our subjective experience must “exist” because we experience it? This seems rather circular. My personal take, consciousness is an artifact of how our brains work. It’s not a thing that exists in any physical sense, it is simply part of the model our brain structures the stimulation it receives throughout the course of our lives.
Your opening statement is incorrect. Observation in the quantum mechanics sense does not have anything to do with consciousness. Observation is really just a form of interaction.
I think the real issue is with the fact that consciousness is not particularly well defined. Something can be more or less conscious than something else but what precisely does that mean? Has there ever been a means of measuring or detecting consciousness in anything?
Interesting but I struggle to see how this hypothesis could ever be proven or disproven. If it can’t actually be tested then I don’t see how it presents more scientific value any other religious or superstitious belief.
Either point break or bad boys 2.
More than one, actually.
My personal take is that intelligence is much like muscular strength. Genetics probably play a role but the more important factor is how you use and train your cognitive strength. A cognitively sedentary person will almost always be less intelligent than a cognitively active person, I doubt genetics play a large role unless we’re talking about people who put similar levels of effort into their development and upkeep.
A healthy office culture and team members to collaborate with. I go to the office because interacting with my coworkers in person is enjoyable and I learn new things faster through those interactions. It helps that we also have free coffee and snacks and the commute is less than 10 minutes but I primarily go in because of the people I work with.
If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.
Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.
That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.
Science is built upon repeatable experiments that can be used to test hypotheses. It is not built on axioms and logical extrapolation- those are used to form new hypotheses but they are insufficient by themselves. We don’t decide something exists, we hypothesize that it exists and make predictions based on that hypothesis. If experimental results line up with our predictions then we call that a theory. If new data contradicts the theory or hypothesis then we revise and try again.