Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk

  • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    8·
    3 months ago

    Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience

    Not very Leninist!!! The brain, per se, does not think. Trying to approach the subject from that purely biological perspective is doomed to failure. Human cognition is nothing without social labor.

    • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      well yes I am a physicalist which probably literally stems from my marxist leninist roots lol. Historical Materialism is how I understand reality… of course humans are beholden to their environment thats Marxism 101 baby.

      • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        51·
        3 months ago

        No, physicalism is absolutely not dialectical. You’re completely discarding activity. Marx didn’t uncover the mechanics of money by studying gold, he studied the process of commodity exchange!

            • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
              33·
              3 months ago

              The only thing I know about commodities is I am effectively one right now…

              Google AI:

              The General Formula of Capital: M-C-M’ Marx introduces the general formula for capital as M-C-M’.

              M (Money): The capitalist begins with a sum of money (M).
C (Commodities): The money is used to purchase specific commodities (C), which include the means of production (raw materials, machinery, etc.) and labor-power (L). This is represented as M-C(MP + L).
M' (More Money): These commodities are then used in the process of production to create new commodities (C') of greater value, which are then sold for a larger sum of money (M'). M' is greater than the initial M (M' > M), with the difference (M' - M) being the surplus value or profit.

              There aint no fucking way Marx was like “Money plus Commodities Plus More Money = capitalism” LOL

              • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                6·
                3 months ago

                That is what Marx formulated, yes. And that is the formula for what capitalist exchange is, and it is a pretty ground-breaking truth, so ground breaking that it feels like basic common sense, but nobody ever actually described this historical phenomena that way before him.

                Traditional commodity money exchange under feudalism was C-M-C with the feudal lord being the primary consumer of commodities. M-C-M means that there is effectively no limit to the consumption, as it is driven not by an end goal of commodity attainment, but by the infinite accumulation of money itself.

                • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  mmm I love having smarter people around than I.

                  I have not read Vol 2 yet… I felt very satisfied with Vol 1 and use it constantly to dunk on libs on reddit… maybe i should read the rest. Or not, theres plenty of other bullshit to read.