brighthurst

This article makes me feel really stupid because it is making the case that there is some profound new discovery about consciousness when I see nothing profound whatsoever. To me, the most meaningful excerpt is:

“The babies in our study have revealed something really profound: that there is action in the midst of inaction, and inaction in the midst of action. Both provide meaningful information to the infant exploring the world and its place in it,” said Kelso. “The coordination dynamics of movement and stillness jointly constitute the unity of the baby’s conscious awareness – that they can make things happen in the world. Intentionally.”

Yes, and? So a baby learns from that the mobile directly correlates to its own leg moving and not moving? How is this anything profound and how do it explain anything new about consciousness? I don't mean to downplay novel new experiments (which this is), but I'm not seeing anything "groundbreaking," "profound," or the "birth of purpose." I get that understanding how infants learn is important, but I don't see anything new in these results, we've known about cause-and-effect learning for a long time.

If someone can edify me on any profound implications of this, I would be thankful.

Paying for posts, relays is better incentive alignment for users and maintainers than twitter or the fediverse

While people have a point that it shouldn't matter whether your shit stinks, I appreciate knowing about this now. 🙂

I'm glad that yours is the top response. Have you also noticed that people on the fediverse seem extreme?