www.scholarpedia.com
EDIT: some of you are claiming that scholarpedia is not a legitimate source to cite. I'm going to address some of the concerns raised.
- Scholarpedia is not an academic journal
Scholarpedia publishes a journal. Articles are cited in the same format as any other scientific journal. That being said, it is not as large or reputable as other journals, which may be a problem for some people.
- Scholarpedia is still an encyclopedia, so it's a tertiary source and not acceptable to cite in most papers
Scholarpedia is a scientific encyclopedia, and in scientific disciplines, the distinction between secondary and tertiary is relative. "Depending on the topic of research, a scholar may use a bibliography, dictionary, or encyclopedia as either a tertiary or a secondary source." (Source)
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2021/08/01/19-essays-on-galileos-error/
I think Rovelli and Carroll's papers, with Goff's reply to both in the final article, are particularly worth reading. But all are great essays.
Carroll errs in asserting that Panpsychism alters physical ontology, when, in fact, it is precisely the idea that panpsychism allows you to have weak emergence of consciousness without disturbing physics that makes it attractive. Still, his paper is a fantastic rebuttal to most variants of dualism.
I think Rovelli offers the most interesting retort - i.e. - the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics means the subjective self observation of the universe is the only "essence" that exists - and anything beyond knowable reality is vacuous and nonreal. Ergo, the dual aspect nature of Neutral Monism (AKA Panpsychism) may not fit, since observation is itself the only substance and there is no deeper reality 'behind the scenes'. - Goff then points out that even if we accept the 'thin realism' of RQM, we are still left with a gap between quantitative and qualitative features of reality.
I wish that discussion had evolved further. Rovelli's view of physics at first glance does away with the Hard Problem, but this is then replaced with the division of "self observation of reality at large" and "internal self observation of a subsystem" - As far as I can tell, in order for Rovelli to fully account for apparent reality, an idealist equivalent of combination/decombination must still be invoked, and that it would be functionally equivalent to panpsychism in all but semantics. I may be misreading him, or he may do that in other writings a la Helgoland.
I also enjoyed Goff's response to one of the theologians, differentiating "Minimal Rationalism" from the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" - i.e. - we should be able to tell a singular rational story about the entire contents of reality, but we can do that without necessarily explaining why reality itself exists in that particular manner
Sidenote: The metaphysical opposition in Rovelli and Carroll's ontological interpretations of QM is also interesting - the Relational view versus Many Worlds. Both are adept physicists, but Carroll holds the wavefunction is real, and collaps
... keep reading on reddit ➡Do your worst!
They were cooked in Greece.
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?
Two muffins are in an oven, one muffin looks at the other and says "is it just me, or is it hot in here?"
Then the other muffin says "AHH, TALKING MUFFIN!!!"
For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.
I said "hey look, an escaPEA"
No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!
Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂
It really does, I swear!
Because she wanted to see the task manager.
But that’s comparing apples to oranges
Heard they've been doing some shady business.
but then I remembered it was ground this morning.
Edit: Thank you guys for the awards, they're much nicer than the cardboard sleeve I've been using and reassures me that my jokes aren't stale
Edit 2: I have already been made aware that Men In Black 3 has told a version of this joke before. If the joke is not new to you, please enjoy any of the single origin puns in the comments
They’re on standbi
A play on words.
My daughter, Chewbecca, not so much.
Pilot on me!!
