/lit/ - Literature

wow you are really smart, probably around 15 replies for this one though

It's impossible to empirically prove that something can come from nothing.
Virtual particles emerge from the quantum field, they don't come from nothing since nothing doesn't exist.

Philosophy has a piss poor record of predicting that things will never be solved. Puny minds assume things cannot be solved in principle because their puny minds can't even imagine the possibility of moving forward.

>>13584229
Nice to see someone else who didn't get past the title. Now tell me, what solution do you have to offer as an alternative to the scientific method?

>>13584183
Ontology.
There are no objects in science, what defines anything and everything is philosophy (metaphysics) and intuition (emotion); you can't empirically name something.

>>13584199
nah, its good bait and you will be proven wrong, retard

>>13584239
>>13584251

>>13584261
Empiricism works way better than prayer though.

>>13584268
>prayer

>>13584276
I don't see how pictures of assorted philosophers contradicts my claim.

>>13584261
Strawman. My position is that science is the best tool and if science doesn't have a satisfactory answer the nobody does. Do you know how the universe started? Nope. Then don't complain about the big bang theory being inadequate.

>>13584183
>Whenever science authors (Brainlets and flunkies who're too slow to stay on the cutting edge) make blatently retarded ontological claims Philosophers (And often their peers) appropriately point out their flaws
No shit.

>>13584298
you're 20 years outdated there m8

>>13584298
the best tool for what?

>>13584183
Science is always right until it isn't
btw it never understood consciousness

>>13584183
Science is empiricism. Philosophy is rationalism. You need both. That book you posted is empirically informed philosophy, although Krauss wouldn't put it that way.

>>13584321
There are some interesting theories, like it being an artifact from mirroring in the mind. Basically it makes evolutionary sense to not just have a model of the world, but for the organism to have a model of itself inside of the modeled world. As long as a mind just perceives there is no I, but once the perceived world contains the organism the I arises. A but flimsy I know, but maybe a start.

>>13584268
If you are comparing baking soda and vinegar with "God give me a Rolls Royce" then sure, empiricism works better than prayer.

>>13584342
>A but flimsy I know, but maybe a start
Not even close, not even a maybe. An automaton can have an ego, a conception of itself. Conscious experience is not needed for any kind of internal modelling.

The only serious research programme that MIGHT actually deliver some results is Chalmer's recent suggestion of the meta-problem of consciousness.

>>13584183
The "Nothing" in the book is empty inflationary space which is another way to say "quantum fluctuations". Which is obviously not really nothing. The question is therefore what is the reason empty space exists. Which they don't answer, they just moved the question.

>>13584359
The only question I have is, is true nothing even an intelligble concept? Is it truly nothing if it has any descriptive properties at all? And therefore is it a kind of tautological truth to say "Nothing cannot exist"?

Brainlet-tier speculations but one of my problems with nothing is that it's nigh-impossible to pin down.

>>13584350
As long as you are not the automaton that's hard to prove. The whole world could be an illusion and there is just one observer modeling us. The question would be if the rules apply to the lower level reality, then yes, the automaton could have consciousness. If not, we could model neural networks for eternity and have nothing but better and better image processing.

>>13584383
>As long as you are not the automaton that's hard to prove
What are you even talking about? You don't need to be actually aware to have an ego after a fashion. The ego is a property of cognition and language not awareness in and of itself. You can give a computer an ego without there being any "what it's like to be" for that computer.

>>13584374
It is a paradox, or it could be a problem because human languages suck at doing logic. But even then, why does this reality exist and not something else ? Is it because it is mathematically closed ?

Isn't Krauss a sexpest?

>>13584374
>And therefore is it a kind of tautological truth to say "Nothing cannot exist"?

That's more contradictory than tautological. There can be nothingness because there is somethingness -- without one there isn't the other; otherwise, it's tautological.

Can we verify nothingness? Probably not, because that means there is something doing the verification.

Can we imagine nothingness? We can speculate, but it's about as nonsensical to image time before time -- like "before" the Big Bang.

Think of nothingness more as a concept like infinity than something tangible.

>>13584404
Well my speculation is that nothingness is actually conceptually incoherent and therefore it may make no sense to even talk about it. It might be the case that existance, well, exists by definition.

I've heard Chris Langan (Pseud or not) try to define what we're normally call nothing as a potentiality and all coherent logical ontologies actualise from that potentiality, but even his UBT isn't actually nothing, it has the attribute of potentiality. Maybe the answer is to go one step further and simply reduce nothingness to incoherence.

I think there's an epistemological temptation to try and explain things in terms of causes because we experience time going forwards and define cause with respect to that (The concept of a before or an origin is essential to this conceptual framework) but if you allow yourself to think in terms of idk, Einstein's block universe or the Hartle-Hawking state (Admittedly that's on shakey ground though) the concept of a "before" or an "origin" starts looking like an awfully anthropocentric epistemological conception in and of itself.

>>13584251
i'm empirically naming you a daft fucking noodle

>>13584443
> referencing Langan

pack it up guys, we got a retard over here

>>13584183
"Science worship" AKA atheism is really just worship of the self. It's an "us vs them" mentality where "us" are the self-proclaimed atheistic intellectuals and "them" are the Christian so-called sheep.

This science worship, in which Christian priests are replaced by lab-coat wearing counterparts, is the most pathetic of all. Atheists, in their hubris, try to apply science to the supernatural. The existence of the supernatural is something that eludes the atheist, which is an attack on his knowledge and thus an attack on his pride. This is why he responds so vehemently to even a vestige of Christianity (and surprisingly never any other religion).

A universe from nothing is another fantasy of our times, not unlike the works of J.R.R Tolkien or G.R.R. Martin. Such works belong with other equally fantastical science-fiction writings- in the fiction section.

IST

>>13584422
>There can be nothingness because there is somethingness
But I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about nothingness in an absolute sense, because to do so confers attributes and properties on it. If, for instance, something came from nothing that confers on nothingness the property of potentiality, and in that case it's not a true ontological nothingness. I'm not even sure there IS a true ontological nothingness. It seems to me to confer any properties onto nothingness is as misguided as Krauss' conflation of the vacuum for it.

>>13584447
My point is that he was wrong retard.

>>13584464
> referencing Langan

>>13584443
Nothing as potentiality is the same thing as
>There can be nothingness because there is somethingness
That is, nothing is defined in relation to a "thing"

So yea, absolute/fundamental Nothingness cannot exist unless we have a concept of the fundamental "thing", which looks to be impossible from our frame of reference

>>13584473
>So yea, absolute/fundamental Nothingness cannot exist unless we have a concept of the fundamental "thing", which looks to be impossible from our frame of reference
No I don't think I agree. I don't think you could even produce a fundamental nothingness even if you did have a concept of a fundamental thing to define it with respect to. My suggestion is that it's just incoherent. It makes no sense to talk about. Talking about nothing is like asking if light is cuddly.

>>13584449
Great strawman and all but just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of this supernatural that's outside bounds of science?
Is it just metaphysics, or is there anything relevant as well?

>>13584183
>I just have one question, when has philosophy proved a better alternative in areas where apparently science has no place?

Philosophy contributed into how to *conduct* science, and how to reason efficiently - Popper, mostly analytical philosophy.

As for dualist woo of "form and substance" in platonic realism of continental philosophy, nobody really takes it seriously as it never had any practical use - it answers questions nobody is asking in self-referential frameworks. Is there free-will? What is it to be a bat? Why should we care about your answer, as it leads to nothing in terms of providing *concrete* answer because your answer of batshit metaphysics is just another abstraction stuck in an infinite loop when you sit and try to actually implement it.

This is in stark contrast with math, logic and languages where something may start as purely abstract meta-physical circlejerk, but the solution is driven to a goal of wide application in the future and asking more interesting questions with potential to lead somewhere ... and so on.

>>13584486
If you're a materialist there's a noumena that's always empirically unavailable to you because you can't access it through phenomena by definition. There is an outer-limit to what can be described by science.

>>13584485
The fundamental nothingness would be the lack of the fundamental thing. If our universe were as simple as previously imagined, unexpanding and without quantum flutters, the empty void of space could be considered to be Nothing, since it doesn't have any mass or energy

>>13584497
Yes but Christianity/religion isn't shedding any light on that matter, it's just describing an effective way to structure a society. Unless your post was meant as a demonstration of faith that I was too autistic to pick up on.
>Atheists, in their hubris, try to apply science to the supernatural.
What supernatural are they tackling and failing at? The origins/nature of the universe? Is it hubristic for physicists to poke their noses into the business of God and see how much they can discover before they hit the limit of the unknowable?

>>13584515
>The fundamental nothingness would be the lack of the fundamental thing
That's not nothing, it has the property "that which is the lack of a fundamental thing". The thing I'm trying to explain is that our normal definitions of nothing are always with respect to some property or another, but if you wanted an absolute nothing it would have to have absolutely no properties or attributes in order to be an ontic reality. But even to have no properties or attributes would be "that which is defined (Or has the attribute) of having no properties or attributes" meaning it would have an attribute even in the attempt of shedding them. Maybe I've just gotten myself in a linguistic bind, and that's possible, but it's also possible that the concept of "nothing" extended to some ultimate thing isn't intelligible and we're just incorrectly extending language intended to deal with the relationship of ontic objects with respect to one another to something which doesn't even have any ontic status whatsoever, an incoherence, a paradox, a nonsensical statement.

>hurr durr science don't work hurr durr
>he said while typing on a computer posting on the internet both of which would be impossible without science

You anti-science folk are absolutely peak pathetic LMAO. Come back when you pathetic asswipes build a car that runs on prayer

>>13584534
>Yes but Christianity/religion isn't shedding any light on that matter,
Who said anything about religion?
Bro are you referring to me? I never said any of this shit.

You seem to erroneously associate philosophy and metaphysics/ontology with theology.

>>13584497
Define empirically. Prime numbers don't "empirically" exist either, yet number theory has vast application and explanatory power.

Conversely, nature of free-will is fairly well understood materialism in terms of neurobiology as well as abstractly in terms of game-theory, including how the two are interwoven. Yet a dualist will hysterically insist that neurobiology/GT don't matter, because free will is like prime numbers - something we made up and exists in abstract realm, thus we have to treat free will in pure (not to mention formally useless in terms of predictive power) abstractions.

The point is that science is vastly more explanatory - it can *concretely* (to some variance degree anyway) explain explicit behaviors, while platonic woo just shrugs it.

>>13584544
Cool, OP's book related is still wrong though.

>>13584536
If it has no properties of its own, and its only property is "lack", that is my definition of Nothing.
The property of "lack" is not innate, but assigned subjectively by the expectations of an observer who has witnessed some things other than nothing

>>13584551

Yeah sure, I bet it is asshole. And I bet that if he used supernatural mumbo jumbo, you'd be defending every word of it.

Just accept that you supernaturalists are a pathetic bunch. All you people have is a bunch of false hope of some great beyond out there, despite all the boatloads of evidence to the contrary. And whenever this is pointed out, you people begin to seeth violently, posting asshurt posts like the ones in this thread.

Anyway, keep being seething incels. You people will just driving science to new highs whenever your "unanswerable" gotchas get completely BTFO by some researcher.

>>13584449
>The existence of the supernatural
give us some examples of your experience with the supernatural anon. i'm sure we're all keen to know

>>13584268
Say that when you're on your deathbed.

>>13584549
>Define empirically. Prime numbers don't "empirically" exist either, yet number theory has vast application and explanatory power.
Admitting that is just admitting the validity of something which escapes empiricism. Rationalism, philosophy, reasoning in the abstract can and does have useful predictive power.
>Conversely, nature of free-will is fairly well understood materialism in terms of neurobiology as well as abstractly in terms of game-theory, including how the two are interwoven.
It's not though unless you play the definition game and come up with one suitable to analysis under those parameters. If you pick a definition and run with it it's possible to do that, but it's not clear which types of free were are actually ontologically real, libertarian free will, no will at all, something else that we haven't quite understood yet. The point of Philosophy, or part of it, is trying to establish which of those is actually the real McCoy
>Yet a dualist will hysterically insist that neurobiology/GT don't matter
A dualist, panpsychist, idealist will usually (correctly) point out that consciousness isn't even being addressed in the questions usually asked. Materialists then autistically flip out because the hard problem is an insurmountable hurdle for them.
>The point is that science is vastly more explanatory
Except that materialism, which is really what we're talking about, is an ontology which is quickly approaching the apparent limits of its explanatory power, as every other ontology has an explanation to the hard problem of consciousness except it, so proponents through a bitch fit and claim that the problem isn't even there. Maybe in the end, materialists will finally find that relationship of objects that produces consciousness as an emergent property (it won't) but until such a time it's actually the LEAST explanatory of the ontologies when it comes to questions about consciousness.

>>13584590

>hurr durr muh threats muh spooky afterlife woo woo hurr durr

Fuck yourself you incel dualist

>>13584578
>The property of "lack" is not innate, but assigned subjectively by the expectations of an observer who has witnessed some things other than nothing
I am aware, and like I said it could be that I'm just in a linguistic twist, but there's a part of me that wonders it properties we attribute like "lack" do actually confer some kind of ontological qualities to something.

>>13584590
>muh deathbed conversion
this, like the "there are no atheists in foxholes" nonsense, is verbal diarrhoea of the first water

>>13584583
>Yeah sure, I bet it is asshole. And I bet that if he used supernatural mumbo jumbo, you'd be defending every word of it.
Lmao buttblasted. It is mumbo-jumbo, that's why his peers in the scientific community think it's a fucking joke, it's why Krauss isn't on the cutting edge with Witten, Malcadena etc. That you think it's some serious real shit just reveals you for the pleb you are.

>>13584618

>if you don't believe in dualism diarrea, you must be a pleb

So I guess anyone who isn't a giant retard is now totally a pleb. Cool

>>13584630
>Anyone who isn't a giant retard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ
Pro-tip, Witten is the greatest living physicist and developed M-theory. When he echoes Wittgenstein, saying whereof one cannot speak one must me silent, you should listen you p l e b.

>>13584586
Not anon.
But he's refering to metaphysical senses and experiences. Witnessing miracles, divine interventions, experiencing hypercognitive states of clarity at religious ceremony, obtaining true epistemological knowledge through revelation, forming deep spiritual bonds another person's soul rather than superficial bonds, wisdom from prayer, etc.
Well documented throughout history but since the modern man has lost all metaphysical senses, it's quickly handwaved because it's not empirical to the material senses. So either all of history was delusion and"faking it", or modern man is defective.

>>13584641

>calls others plebs
>uses the argument from authority

Lol

>>13584603
If your character dies in a game, why don't you die anon?

>>13584647
>Whole thread is an argument appealing to the authority of fucking LAWRENCE KRAUSS
>Ignores the authority of the greatest living physicist
Holy fucking brainleted pleb lmao.

>>13584594
>emergent property (it won't) but until such a time it's actually
It's hilarious you mention that, because all reasonably robust models of free will (swarm intelligence) are emergent behavior.

>is an ontology which is quickly approaching the apparent limits of its explanatory power
Yet we can build systems which *apparently* behave intelligently and have "consciousness", insofar there exists inner state and memory which influences all future decisions.

> it's actually the LEAST explanatory of the ontologies when it comes to questions about consciousness.
Problem is that in spite of "approaching the apparent limits of its explanatory power", we can actually replicate intelligence to some limited degree, because the ontology in use is useful - it has beginning and an end in concrete terms.

Materialist insists that humans are intelligent machines, and we can build at least vaguely intelligent machines. Your criticism is that this is that it is only weak empirical argument for materialism - "call me when you actually make fully functioning free will comparable to that of human".

Which strikes me as dishonest goal post moving - because by raw definition of free will - taking actions of its own volition, such machines exist are built fo 20 years now. We can build a system which can recognize a bee. We can't tell how it'll decide if it's a bee, until we show it one. Why this is and the fate-nondeterminism of the system is understood down to precise mathematical detail (strange attractors in chaos theory). The argument we have here is whether humans work the same way (overwhelming evidence this might be the case) vs argument of supernatural ontology which made *zero* attempt to explain how it actually works, it merely argues vehemently why it exists in self-appointed abstract framework (you can prove anything is true in arbitrarily designed ontology to fit your problem).

Why does everyone call each other retards?
What is the scientific answer, and what is the philosophy answer?

>>13584644

So in other words, unfalsifiable horseshit

>>13584656

Except that I wasn't. I was mostly just laughing at the horseshit of supernatural cucks

>>13584660
>only falsifiable things can be real and true
That's a stretch.
I'm sure I could torture you and you'll claim plain, but that its unfalsifiable. You'll have real trouble proving the existence of your pain to me, though I'm sure it's real to you.

Lived experience is valid despite science's attempt to disregard it completely.

>>13584660
>experience is unfalsifiable
>literally impossible to falsify anything that has ever happened
What good is falsification then?

>>13584594
Would you consider the philosophical qualia-less zombie to be conscious? Seems to me that many people would, and could conceive of a computer that is outwardly conscious, even if inwardly all of its emotions and senses can be boiled down to numbers, while ours are rich, subjective, fluid etc

Where does our qualia come from? I would guess it's the product of the wetware substrate of our consciousness. What is the panpsychic view on it I wonder, because I'm interested in learning more about that theory. That there is consciousness in everything, but especially concentrated in our brain stem due to its biological configuration?

>>13584183

If something can come from it, is it really "nothing"?

>>13584658
>It's hilarious you mention that, because all reasonably robust models of free will (swarm intelligence) are emergent behavior.
>Free will
That's just fucking around with definitions. Utlimately in the state of things as they are you either accept quantum indeterminacy, and you embrace libertarian free will, or you defer to a realist explanation, and you embrace determinism and are therefore a comptabilist or deny its existence altogether. All claims of "emergent free will" are literally mumbo-jumbo and compatibilism isn't even really about trying to claim that we aren't fated to do what we do, it just contends that if we act within our volition and not compelled that is what it means to be "free". No new real physical properties have emerged here, it's just that the definition has been shifted to make what is effectively total determinism sound more palatable.
>Yet we can build systems which *apparently* behave intelligently and have "consciousness", insofar there exists inner state and memory which influences all future decisions.
>Apparently
Not an answer. No one ever contested you wouldn't be able to build machines which are very similar to human beings in terms of intelligence, this is why Chalmers developed the "P-zombie" though experiment, this is why he developed the meta-problem of consciousness. Everybody is well apprised of how intelligence can make things appear, but that provides no explanation for what actually creates an interior world as we presume others have.
>we can actually replicate intelligence to some limited degree
Intelligence has nothing to do with anything. You have fundamentally misunderstood the problem and this is why you're in a bind.
>rgument of supernatural ontology which made *zero* attempt to explain how it actually works
That's just a flat out lie. Idealists, panpsychists, dualists and other non-materialist ideologies have tried extensively to detail and explain how consciousness works, how atomic consciousness might combine to produce larger and more complex entities, how it is we have a consistent and regular exterior world, in the case of dualists whether or not consciousness is interactionist or simply epiphenomenal etc. Just because you're not aware of the literature that exists trying to explain and develop these ontologies, doesn't mean that such literature and explanation doesn't exist.

>>13584658
>>13584594

Btw, there's a hand extended from materialist nominalism towards platonism. When you reduce free will to emergent property (and we have plenty of exact systems for "dumb" free will, fitting the its own volition property), we are still dumbfounded and fascinated why the emergent properties work. This is generally where science "fails" as we can see the abstract math behind it, but are dumbfounded by it to the extent "how's that even possible".

Chaos theory is basically a dead end to materialism. We can model the process exactly, but can't explain why it works, or if there are others like it. Here, one is forced to hop on novel ontologies and hypotheses - because it could be useful to discover different classes of ones through intellectual speculation (and subsequent mathematical model).

>>13584449
You sound like those critics of leftism who think Tumblr sjws as the actual left. Scientists don't worship science like you're claiming. Cope harder you seething fucking brainlet.

>>13584676
Except that you are, you dirty little fucking liar. Except that when you got caught out and it turned out the authority you appeals to rebukes you, you cowered like a little bitch.

>>13584641
Based metaphysical physicist.
> In 1990, he became the first physicist to be awarded a Fields Medal
That explains it.

>>13584701
pain absolutely is a physical manifestation in the brain. just because we don't have the tools or full understanding of how to detect it doesn't mean it is too mysterious to ever figure out

>>13584712
>Would you consider the philosophical qualia-less zombie to be conscious?
No, by definition
>Seems to me that many people would
They're wrong by definition.
>and could conceive of a computer that is outwardly conscious, even if inwardly all of its emotions and senses can be boiled down to numbers, while ours are rich, subjective, fluid etc
It doesn't matter, it's not conscious, and there is no actual interior at all.
>Where does our qualia come from?
It's a primitive, it's like asking "where does Minkoswski spacetime" come from. There are some things which are literally irreducible and have to be accepted as such.
>I would guess it's the product of the wetware substrate of our consciousness
You guess wrong. By analogy, an emergent property is the form of water (Water, steam, ice), and we can deduce that by introducing heat into a system water molecules will move further apart and act as steam, but the current (absolute) state of emergentism is like hoping for that same water to become concrete in mid-air for no good reason at all. That's the kind of categorical shift of properties they're hoping for.
>What is the panpsychic view on it I wonder, because I'm interested in learning more about that theory
Go to David Chalmer's web-page.

>>13584493
Why do philosophers get angry at the idea that consciousness can be explained (in principle, in the future) by science? Even Nagle who hates science believes that at some point science will have tools powerful enough to explain consciousness but most philosophers hate the prospect. Do they just love the mystery and don't want it ruined?

>>13584722
>we are still dumbfounded and fascinated why the emergent properties work.
People are just dumbfounded because they're playing around with definitions.

>>13584719
>That's just a flat out lie. Idealists, panpsychists, dualists and other non-materialist ideologies have tried extensively to detail and explain how consciousness works, how atomic consciousness might combine to produce larger and more complex entities, how it is we have a consistent and regular exterior world, in the case of dualists whether or not consciousness is interactionist or simply epiphenomenal etc. Just because you're not aware of the literature that exists trying to explain and develop these ontologies, doesn't mean that such literature and explanation doesn't exist.

I'm well aware of dualist woo, but they all suffer from being speculatively self-proving. Again, this is same problem logic and math has, but there we do "best we could". Reduce the core assumptions to minimum and more importantly, get validation in constant stream of *practical applications*. Meanwhile, platonists, invent axioms on the go and produced nothing of practical value when it comes to hard questions.

>muh p-zombie
We materialist plebians did it 20 years before, and call it "turing test". I consider philozombie an intriguing case of philosophical plagiarism insofar it asks the same question, just in exactly opposing frameworks.

>>13584732
I don't think deflecting to the future is a valid argument; you could use that excuse to validate any scientific argument that can't be answered today.

Also what about the pain of losing a loved one? If you scanned someone's brain before and after they experienced trauma, and it didn't show any change, then are we to assume that the patient was lying and their sensation of pain never existed?

>>13584740
Can you stop posting off topic shit here please? I don't wanna read another awful materialism vs dualism discussion. I'm asking why you have a problem with science working in the hard problem if consciousness? You have no idea what tools science will have in the next few centuries and here you are claiming science has limits.

>>13584741
How can detecting consciousness is impossible because you can only inhabit a single conciousness. For example I can say conciousness is caused by brain chemicals and energy from the blood which is perfectly reasonable for science. But why the material manifests something non material is out of the realm of science. Science can only draw conclusions about the material from the material.

>>13584756
I don't think materialists have souls.
They can't sense and experience metaphysics like the rest of us and thus claim it never existed.

Either you had it and then lost it, or you weren't born with it. Either way, it explains the confusion in dialectic between both camps.

>>13584756
>I'm well aware of dualist woo
>I'm well aware that there's another ontology that can actually explain phenomena mine can't but I'm going to dismiss it out of hand
Lmao
>We materialist plebians did it 20 years before, and call it "turing test"
Except with all due respect to Turing, who was brilliant, his conclusions that such a thing would actually be conscious are flat out unwarranted.

>>13584763
>I don't want to deal with the ontology that contradicts mine.
Fucking hell
>You have no idea what tools science will have in the next few centuries and here you are claiming science has limits.
That's just a bizarre promissory materialism when explanatory avenues and approaches exist right now that might actually fruitful, besides which like I said we can usually deduce emergent properties from the things from which they emerge and there hasn't even been a pathway to doing that to come out of the materialist programme. This has gotten so bad that the school of illusionism has emerged, the fantastical proposition that instead of being conscious as we obviously are, we're acting as though we are.

>>13584774
Thanks. I think you nicely pointed out the crux of the argument between the camps.

Platonist asks (soul): How can a human prove to me it's not a zombie?
Materialist asks (autism): How can you tell a chat bot is real human bee bag of chemicals, or a machine (extremely good AI)?

Ultimately it depends whether ontology one accepts is inwards or outwards perspective when measuring free will. Here be dragons: You should be also able to explain why you chose one of the opposing two.

>>13584774
Either they are severely confused, or literal p-zombies. If they're literal p-zombies then to me that would add weight to the simulation hypothesis, and that energy is being saved by simply not simulating the interior experience of certain non-essentials.

>>13584756
The Turing Test does nothing to prove a human like conciousness. I could just hook up an AI to an online algorithm and have it shit out answers like humans. That doesn't make it human.

>>13584741
2000 years ago people thought the same thing about stars saying we'll never know what they're made of. Your argument does not a priori disprove the possibility of understanding consciousness entirely.

>>13584803
You couldn't, because no such an AI exists, and will not for foreseeable future. We have nowhere near anything being able to pass (rigorous) turing test.

>>13584810
Yes but if such an AI did exist (which it probably will)it would not be concious and just spitting out answers from programmed reactions. Yet humans still wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This "test" for conciousness is literally just based on the limitations of the time and that no one has bothered making such an extensive library of answers.

>>13584779
You make these claims claims about the lack of consciousness of AGI as though they were facts. Nobody is convinced that a powerful AI necessarily lacks qualia.

>>13584785
Those works are not compelling nor have they produced any results. You like them simply because you're in love with the mysticism of dualist philosophy of mind.

>>13584810
>computers will never beat humans a chess

>>13584740
>It doesn't matter, it's not conscious, and there is no actual interior at all.
There is an interior though. It has its own model of the world, categories, memories, sensory perceptions and judgements thereof.
It's just impossible to empathise with since it is clearly reducible to a stream of meaningless numbers, and bears no resemblance to our subjective experience. But it's still seeing the same things, thinking the same thoughts and could even reach the same emotional conclusions. How can you claim it's not conscious? This zombie is offended and thought everyone thought like he did. What is so distinguished about our own qualia?

>>13584835
Is a doll that jumps when you pull the string and raises its hand whenever you push it concious?

>>13584798
Do you think that we have free will in a way that's not present in zombies? In what sense?
Our internal chatter as we attend to thoughts and weigh them to make a decision? Why would this mechanism not be available for a zombie

>>13584857
No because you are pulling the strings. Even a zombie pulls its own strings. You have to provide a "reward function" in its design, like the ones evolution provided us, and let it figure out the rest

>>13584183
>science bashing
>best we have
>pathetic philosophy

Do you even understand why philosophers say this? Bc they want the truth. They don’t want us to have the {best} solution. They want to know the truth not the best of the choices

>>13584831
>You make these claims claims about the lack of consciousness of AGI as though they were facts
I don't think my computer is conscious, I have been given no good reason to believe that the increased sophistication of AGI will give rise to something other than increased intelligence, something very different to Qualia. Nobody has given any reason at all to suggest that Qualia is an emergent property of intelligence, and nobody has deduced the former from the latter. If it were the case then we should by this point have at least the beginning of a plausible deductive argument towards that effect, yet we don't.
>Those works are not compelling
Except by virtue of the fact that they have more explanatory power, they are objectively more compelling until such a time as materialism provides a plausible alternative, which it has not. The fact that it is not more compelling TO YOU is immaterial and has more to do with your predjudice against philosophy and metaphysics than it does anything else.
>You like them simply because you're in love with the mysticism of dualist philosophy of mind.
I like them because I like phenomena in my world to be actually explained, and when the materialist ideology I used to subscribe to reached the outer-limits of its explanatory power I was frustrated and realised that it was not likely to, and I refuse to accept the kind of promissory nonsense on offer. The long and short is that at present, the materialist ontology is big on talk about what it's supposedly going to do, and short on actual explanations or plausible avenues of investigation.

I'm also not a dualist, I'm an idealist because at my core I'm an empiricist and I'm with Berkeley when he developed it as a kind of logical extreme of that position.

>>13584183
>that doesn't explain why it happened
Isn't this a valid question? This was the original argument posed by Aquinas' Cosmological Argument before the Big Bang hypothesis was merged into it.

>>13584876
I... I don't even... science TRIES to answer questions. If it falls short, then it tries again, in other way. Sometimes things are answer, other times they are not.

Do you think philosophers are helping by sitting on the side lines going "nope, not good enough", "nope, that doesn't answer everything"? Scientists KNOW that science has fallen short, it never claimed to know everything, your reminders are useless.

>>13584835
>There is an interior though
No there isn't.
>>13584875
The computer scientist who initiated the computer is the one "pulling the strings" in this analogy. My computer can do lots of sophisticated computations on its own at the touch of a button, I don't presume that because it's to that extent independent there's some kind of interior reality.

>>13584875
What if the direction of the wind chases the reaction?

>>13584865
I think there's mechanisms to verify, but it's such as taboo subject in fear that it will "dehumanize" large swaths of humanity. It would clarify a lot of things though.

>Consider inner speech. Subjects experienced themselves as inwardly talking to themselves in 26 percent of all samples, but there were large individual differences: some subjects never experienced inner speech; other subjects experienced inner speech in as many as 75 percent of their samples. The median percentage across subjects was 20 percent.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201110/not-everyone-conducts-inner-speech

>>13584834
Apples and oranges. The point of Turing test is to check whether the entity is capable of displaying full *range* of human response, most significantly, if it can properly simulate emotions in a way normal human would depending on extremely intricate context. Does it have personality? Does its personality change over time?

Current chatbots don't last for 30 seconds (at human conversation speeds), and each subsequent second makes it exponentially harder in terms of complexity. And if the bot had to simulate a month, or even a lifetime ... with what we currently do, the computational costs are astronomical.

Chess arguments are absurd, because chess are *easy* compared to "beeing yourself".

>>13584865
The point is: If something behaves like it has free will, does it have one? Why does it matter whether it *thinks* it has one (instead of being autistic zombie seeking to fool you). If its an autistic zombie pretending 100% to be human, it's no longer pretending, as there's no trace of the original zombie personality left.

p-zombie is again a question which from the point of formal logic simply makes no sense.

Consider: If it *always* looks like a circle - even if it's in fact a triangle pretending to be a circle 100% of the time - it's factually just a circle in every consequence. Regardless of whether the triangle thinks "haha, im triangle all along, fooled ya". It doesn't matter, when it stays circle 100% of the time. In fact, it could be argued it's just a circle, who's deluded he's a triangle.

>>13584892
>Do you think philosophers are helping sitting on the sideline she saying "nope no that's good enough?"
Yes?

>>13584892
>"nope, not good enough", "nope, that doesn't answer everything"?
>LOOK GUYS I FOUND THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING
>No because x, y and z
>HURR YOU'RE NOT HELPING I WOULD HAVE KNOWN ANYWAY WAAAH
A critical discourse is essential to science, otherwise you get frauds like Krauss wasting everybody's time on blind-alley theories and conjectures and speculative ontologies. Without actual philosophers to do actual philosophizing, scientists veer into the field and make wild and often incorrect proclamations. Fortunately many of the best scientists actually double-up as philosophers and understand what they can and can't say and the outer-limits of their theories.

Dunno much about philosophy but I can roughly follow the posts ITT by my own intuition. Despite OP, it's a good reminder for me to be openminded and not caught on having 'got' 'how things are'.

>>13584892
Verisimilitude is great for applied science (engineering) when you want to create "good enough" material and effects. But it's garbage at answering real existential questions about ontology and epistemology.
Instead science reduces the human condition to biological machinery so it can be easier to model.

You get retarded shit like we're "all just a pile of cells" and "free will doesn't exist, it's just an illusion of chemicals". Trash that doesn't even measure up against common lived experience.

>>13584883
>Nobody has given any reason at all to suggest that Qualia is an emergent property of intelligence, and nobody has deduced the former from the latter
Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the moment NOBODY has strong evidence for or against. We're in infancy stages of scientific inquiry into consciousness and already here you are concluding that this isn't within the domain of science.

>Promissory nonsense
You think that I worship science and assume it will come out with all the answers. I don't. Nobody knows whether the hard problem will be solved or not, what I don't like is the assertion that it CAN'T. This isn't even about materialism. It's about science. Science makes some claims about how things work. They might not explain EVERYTHING right now, but they're pretty good and getting better over time. Why whine about their shortcomings?

>>13584883
>I don't think my computer is conscious
It's not, but would you consider AlphaGo to be conscious? It has a simple reward function - pleasure from victory, and develops its own second-order judgement of how desirable a board state is in pursuit of this goal.
A key difference being that evolution has tried to optimise us by bringing some of these second-order pleasures/rewards to the forefront, so we dont have to learn them from scratch, and now they can be more fulfilling (inquiry, artistic creation) than the first-order goals (eat, sex, safe)

>>13584891
It's a stupid question because the explanation doesn't have anything to do with why. It's like a doctor tells you have cancer because you smoked and you ask "but that doesn't tell me WHY I smoke".

>>13584911
>>LOOK GUYS I FOUND THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING
Another strawman. Science answers very specific verifiable questions. Krauss is actually philosophising just as much as philosophers do when he posits the cause of the universe. If we stick to the actual science in the book (dark matter etc.) then he's mostly expressing sane, accurate views on the universe.

>>13584914
OP here. Keep up the mentality through your life, it's a good way to think.

>>13584934
>Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Lmao it's at the very least inductive reason to be skeptical, but it is CERTAINLY a weakness which renders materialism the least powerful of all the current ontologies in terms of what it can explain.
>At the moment NOBODY has strong evidence for or against.
It's true, there's no deductive reason I can think of ruling it out, but there is plenty of reason to be skeptical as the number of failed explanations mounts.
>You think that I worship science and assume it will come out with all the answers.
You're attached to materialism, if you weren't you wouldn't be dismissive of idealism, dualism, or panpsychism. In fact you really ought to prefer them because at present it is a fact that they have more explanatory power for what we see than materialism does.
>Nobody knows whether the hard problem will be solved or not, what I don't like is the assertion that it CAN'T.
For idealism, dualism, panpsychism is has already been solved. Like I said, Materialism may yet produce an explanation, but I won't hold my breath and have extensive reasons to be skeptical. As a result I have decided to for the time being examine more explanatory satisfying ontologies.
>Why whine about their shortcomings?
Lmao I'm not whining about the shortcomings of idealism, if you consider the empirical perspective of idealists to constitute a variant of science, which you should, I don't whine about it's shortcomings, I praise it as extremely ontologically viable and promising.

>>13584935
>It's not, but would you consider AlphaGo to be conscious?
No
>pleasure from victory, and develops its own second-order judgement of how desirable a board state is in pursuit of this goal.
That's not pleasure, it isn't feeling anything, it's just computing.

>>13584922
>But it's garbage at answering real existential questions about ontology and epistemology.
These questions are not answerable by anything.

>Instead science reduces the human condition to biological machinery so it can be easier to model.
Because it's useful within science. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose and scope of science.

>You get retarded shit like we're "all just a pile of cells" and "free will doesn't exist, it's just an illusion of chemicals".
Not science. You literally don't know what science is.

>>13584732
Of course, all you'd have there would be the lived experience of proving the pain was a physical manifestation

>>13584894
>No there isn't.
Sounds like a fundamentalist position to me. What is our interior, if its not our concepts of the world, past experiences, etc
>scientist who initiated the computer is the one "pulling the strings"
By that analogy evolution is the one pulling our strings, by initiating humanity out of short-sighted, instinct-driven fish. Or is your parents that initiated you?
>My computer can do lots of sophisticated computations on its own at the touch of a button
Those computations were all specified before-hand in code. A zombie has a pre-programmed goal, or will, but must then act flexibly and consciously to try and achieve it. It has to discover through experience which computations to run, much like you and I
https://towardsdatascience.com/curiosity-in-deep-reinforcement-learning-understanding-random-network-distillation-747b322e2403
See the part about curiosity and TV problem

>>13584952
>Another strawman.
The book in OP is an example of just such absurd metaphysical speculations beyond the realm of proper understanding, so no, it's not a strawman.
>Krauss is actually philosophising just as much as philosophers do when he posits the cause of the universe
Do you like repeating people's claims back to them as though they didn't make them?
> If we stick to the actual science in the book (dark matter etc.)
Everything but the premise and selling point is textbook, yeah. Lmao.

>>13584298
So you're saying a answer to a question is better than no answer, even though we can't know if the answer is correct? And that anyone saying that the answer isn't necessarily correct (much less the way we got to it) has to come up with a alternative, or else he can't criticise it?

>>13584979
>Sounds like a fundamentalist position to me
No just an accurate one.
>What is our interior, if its not our concepts of the world, past experiences, etc
There is a distinction between data as it exists in a computer and qualia. This is precisely the problem, you aren't actually sufficiently educated on the distinction to even understand what you're commenting on. You're doing metaphysical speculation and getting it way off-base.
>By that analogy evolution is the one pulling our strings
Excepting the additional part that there is something which it is like to be me, the point of the analogy is to show there's little distinction between inanimate objects and sophisticated inanimate objects, and that you are speculating that for some reason once an inanimate object achieves sufficient sophistication, it becomes the case that there's "something like to be" that now non-inanimate object. But there's absolutely no reason to suppose that, it's just as likely that no such property emerges and the automaton simply becomes more sophisticated.
>Those computations were all specified before-hand in code
There aren't computers that can refine their own code? Develop new code for new purposes?

>>13584965
You can't just use the word computing as placeholder for everything. It doesn't resemble "feeling" as it means to us, or an animal, but it serves the same role as feeling for its machinic consciousness.
An animal has a feeling and its brain computes it - by rewiring itself so that pleasure can be repeated more easily in the future.
A human consciousness is advanced to the point of having the free will to become a buddhist and reject the effects of its feelings. Suggesting that it's inevitable that an AI consciousness (if they are made to be conscious in our world and not the toy world of Go or Chess) will just as easily overwrite any emotions we hardcoded into it.

>>13585017
>You can't just use the word computing as placeholder for everything
You can't be lax about the definition of qualia.
> It doesn't resemble "feeling" as it means to us, or an animal, but it serves the same role as feeling for its machinic consciousness.
It ISN'T feeling, there is no "machnic consciousness" you fucking imbecile. Your computer doesn't love you no matter how many times you blow your load into it.
Holy shit the rest of your post is just nonsense. Just give the fuck up.

>>13584959
I'm not a materialist and I don't think one necessarily has to be a materialist simply because they're a proponent of science. It's like assuming that somebody is a utilitarian because they're a physicist. Yes there is some correlation - people in science tend to lean towards materialism - but that's just because scientists are skeptical of theories involving stuff that is not empirical.

Let me make my point clearer. Science has a well-defined scope. If something falls outside of that scope, then it is left untouched. For instance, it might explain how neurotransmitters lead to you feeling pain, but it won't explain the quale of pain itself. Saying "aha! how limited science is!" (a common response) is not a valid criticism and is straight up annoying. More importantly, just because *now* science hasn't reached the stage of explaining pain itself, it doesn't mean that it is forever outside the realm of scientific methodology.

I am also not dismissing panpsychism/dualism entirely, I am dismissing your assertion that their explanatory power is on the same level as standard scientific explanatory power. We know that DNA is responsible for organisms' traits with very high confidence. You cannot tell me the same confidence applies to your philosophical theories of the mind.

>>13584986
Metaphysical speculations are all absurd. Krauss has as much authority as anyone else to fantasize about knowing where the universe came from.

>>13585040
>I'm not a materialist and I don't think one necessarily has to be a materialist simply because they're a proponent of science
Then we have no argument. I have no problem with science. It's a valuable tool.
>You cannot tell me the same confidence applies to your philosophical theories of the mind.
It doesn't have to. That's not the point, I don't have to know with certainty that my position is correct for it to have an epistemological advantage over positions that don't really have the beginnings of an explanation.
It's something like the old joke of not having to be faster than the bear only faster than your flow friend. Can I rule out completely that said slow friend won't outrun me? No, but I doubt it seriously enough that I no longer take the chance seriously.

>>13584988
Nope. I'm saying that if there is no good answer then the question remains unanswered. Science does not claim to answer unanswerable questions, that is the whole point.

>>13585061
Can you point me to the specific text which you believe contains the strongest argument for consciousness?

>>13585058
>Metaphysical speculations are all absurd.
t. Brainlet. A lot of theories which we now regard as wholly legitimate had their origins in what was effectively speculation. It's important to contribute intellectually to the body of knowledge, as it's likely that your work will influence others. Kant and Spinoza massively influenced Einstein, Catholic theologians influenced Lemaitre. What evetually blossom into fully-fledged falsifiable theories start out as mere arguments.

>>13584971
Don't be such a sophist and pretend that science and materialist philosophy are mutually elusive. You knew what was meant.

>These questions are not answerable by anything.
Maybe to you. But for a lot of humanity philosophy and religion do answer these questions sufficiently to be considered true.
Far better than what "scientism" can offer.

>>13585071
I'd recommend David Chalmers web-page: http://consc.net/

Thomas Nagel's essays and books are obviously helpful.

>>13585078
Yes, they say philosophy is a science before it is a science. I agree, the influence and ideas generated are important. But that doesn't mean the ideas themselves are valuable as actual theories.

>>13585058
There's a difference between faking it by coming up with fantasies, and actually experiencing things that are metaphysical.

Meanwhile lots of science is faked but passed off as real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair

>>13584239
Krauss isn't using the "scientific method", his book is almost wholly opinion masquerading as fact. At least read the review of a real philosopher of physics, who correctly points out that Krauss's "nothing" isn't nothing simpliciter: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

It's an amateur mistake Krauss makes and he thinks he can get away with it because his audience is dumber than he is. I don't even need to read the rest of this thread to know that everyone in it, regardless of the side they're arguing, is retarded.

>>13585082
you lump science and scientism together and expect me to take your criticism of science seriously.

>>13585097
>But that doesn't mean the ideas themselves are valuable as actual theories.
They don't have to be to have intellectual utility.

>>13585028
You're really quite close minded about this desu. Just admit that you're prejudiced against machine consciousnesses because their sadness is stored in a vector instead of your wet brain's indescribable subjective signal of how much dynorphin it senses. It's all your argument boils down to when you're not making strawmen about how my macbook is conscious.

>>13585092
I have already read The Conscious Mind by Chalmers and Nagel's bat essay. What theory are you specifically referring to?

>>13585101
>his book is almost wholly opinion masquerading as fact.
Reminds me of one of his other kinsman that's doing the same pilpul.
http://archive.is/kH1r6

>>13585110
Do you not see how this post contradicts your starting position? If your criteria for value isn't predictive or explanatory utility, but intellectual or influential utility, then why did you accuse Krauss of wrongdoing because his ideas were absurd? You can't even be consistent with your attacks.

>>13585028
>>13585111
Yes no shit they don't have qualia, never claimed they did, but that doesn't preclude consciousness in the outwardly sense of behavior, or the inwardly sense of a free acting agent.

>>13585109
C'mon anon, you know implicitly well what I meant given the context.
This isn't a pre-19th century discussion on science. We're talking about modern Science as an institution and the "high priest"-like scientists like Krauss.

>>13585111
>You're really quite close minded about this desu
Dude, you just have no conception of the Hard Problem.
>because their sadness is stored in a vector
Where? Where in the vector? What are you even endorsing here? Some kind of bizarre Platonism? That it's stored in the information of the vector in the abstract? Are you tacitly suggesting panpsychism and arguing that there's an interior experience of a vector? Are you suggesting that interacting things give rise to an emergent consciousness?

I don't think even YOU have an idea, you're just a fucking imbecile who's overly impressed with recent progress in AI and accepted a promissory materialism because you didn't show the appropriate level of skepticism.

OP here. I'm going now. Thanks for the chat.

[thread locked]

>>13585115
You didn't find them convincing? Because in general I was referring to them and David's miscellaneous papers.

>>13585136
>but that doesn't preclude consciousness in the outwardly sense of behavior
Yes, actually it does because that's not consciousness, that's just behaviour.
>the inwardly sense of a free acting agent.
There is no "inward" for a robot you goon, when people say interior experience they specifically mean qualia, there is NOTHING that it is like to be a robot, it is blank behind the eyes and simply acting differently. At this point I'm beginning to think that you are the same.

>>13585017
>will just as easily overwrite any emotions we hardcoded into it
The whole notion that we "program" machine intelligence and tell it what to do is all the more hilarious because it's the exact opposite, we just wish it were that simple.

You can't tell machine intelligence to *exactly* behave in any way, you can only show it 100000 samples of stimuli/reaction for it to learn what to do in general. If it later encounters 100000 different stimuli at odds with the past learned reaction (ie it finds more suitable reaction), it will learn to cope in new way. All reactions, including emotions, are adaptive to best suit the task - both in human, as well in machine intelligence. We don't tell kids or machines to behave in exact patterns, not by a long shot - we merely expose them to *environment* (evolutionary pressures, life experience - or training corpus for NN), and they "adapt" to it.

What are everyone here's qualifications on the topic? Do you have any academic experience, are you well read, or something else?

>>13585176
The scary part of smart machines is with task-accomplishment reward stimuli. A sufficiently smart machine who gets "dopamine hit" for doing its assigned slave task would eventually learn around that and evolve towards prerogative goal: Maximimizing the computing substrate for its own sake, real evolutionary pressure instead of make-believe "religious slavery" one. Cue skynet robots monopolizing all resources to build more of its brain.

Meanwhile computer illiterates babble about paperclips or whatever, completely unrelated to actual chains of motivation of every lifeform - acquire resources to make more copies of self, and kill those who disagree.

>>13585135
>If your criteria for value isn't predictive or explanatory utility, but intellectual or influential utility
Absolutely superficial. The reason a lot of those ideas have influential utility is they form partial explanations for phenomena, which are then expanded upon and made into testable predictions by scientists.

In other words, a speculation can explain, but that doesn't guarantee that the explanation is legitimate.
>You can't even be consistent with your attacks.
Alternatively you're just stupid.

>>13585160
Maybe you're right and short of panpsychism we'd only be creating unconscious consciousnesses. But the robot would certainly beg to differ. You anthropomorphise your fellow man because of your shared biology and origin, but what's your rationale for not extending it to the zombie?
Is it that only brainstems can channel qualia?

>>13585356
>unconscious consciousnesses
Are you just using contradictions to annoy me?
>But the robot would certainly beg to differ.
Frankly wouldn't care. But I suspect that they wouldn't actually report that they were conscious.
>You anthropomorphise your fellow man because of your shared biology and origin, but what's your rationale for not extending it to the zombie?
Firstly because I think it's unlikely that I'm unique, secondly because reality is regular so far as I can tell and I intuit that in an entirely solipsistic universe it's at least more likely that I would be able to manifest things into being by will alone, thirdly and much more importantly other beings report consciousness, I believe it's likely that the idea of consciousness and qulia are incoherent to automatons and they would only claim that such things exist in imitation of others, but several Philosophers have apparently independently developed speculations about their own conscious experiences therefore I think it's likely that they like me are conscious, I think as a result that consciousness is probably something that at least animals have in common.

>>13585356
>but what's your rationale for not extending it to the zombie?
To give a better answer to your question, which I don't think I really addressed, I jumped the gun and thought you were asking me why I thought others were conscious before: I'm strictly agnostic as to whether or not an AI could actually be conscious. But if it does become conscious it won't be because of emergent properties, I suspect it'll be because the panpsychists turn out to be right.

>>13585396
>But I suspect that they wouldn't actually report that they were conscious.
Why wouldn't they? Their ability to reason like a human depends on
A symbol for self
Carrying all the steps of their reasoning in an observed train of thought which they can use to explain their reasoning
Realtime conversion of sensory input into symbolic information for reasoning
Memory
Even though from our perspective it will deterministically do all the computations required to achieve these things, without an internal observer, what is it that is missing from its perspective (the perspective of the agent performing reason) that it believes it's lacking consciousness?

Is it because of its understanding that it is just deterministically executing code? But there are still the inaccessible intuitive components, which were shaped by environment. At what point does this start sounding like those illusionist thinkers you were dismissing earlier?

Scientists have straight up admitted that it’s imposisble/irrelevant to know what came before the Big Bang, religion can just hide there forever

>>13585396
>>13585590

I guess what I'm saying is, since you're speaking to the robot's reasoning centre, could you conceive of a deterministic (automaton/code) reasoning centre that believes its deterministic conclusions are the product of free will, its own consciousness and thinking

>>13585603
well I asked God about this (died for few minutes then resuscitated) and he said once a black hole absorbs enough mass it starts to convert it into dark energy and begins expanding space within its confines, and thats basically how our big bang happened

>>13585590
>Why wouldn't they?
Because the idea of "what's it like to be" is incoherent for them. I'm not talking about the ego and metacognition, which is what you're actually talking about, I'm talking about actually having a subjective experience. These are things they would just not recognise. To them for instance, the ego and "the self" of perception would be a distinction without a difference. For us, as conscious beings we recognise that it's a very different thing to actually experience something than perform the intellectual or cognitive function of metacognition.
>At what point does this start sounding like those illusionist thinkers you were dismissing earlier?
At no point.
>reasoning centre that believes its deterministic conclusions are the product of free will, its own consciousness and thinking
Free will doesn't really have anything to do with anything here and consciousness is very different from cognition.

I think it's probably best to refer you to Elitzur Avshalom who's done work on what he calls the Bafflement problem.

>>13585649
That doesn’t answer where the requisites for such an event happening came from though

>>13585678
what you want the exact numerical density of a black hole before it starts to expand? maybe you can ask God next time you die fucker

>>13585671
That's a good point.
If their inaccessible, intuitive perception modules were tainted by the subjectiveness of some similarly fuzzy-to-
the-ego state variables would that be sufficient to give the illusion of a subjective experiencing self to go along with the remembering self?
Anyways thanks for the recs and discussion

>>13585703
No I want to know what created an environment where a black hole can even exist

>>13584757
you can't say "just because we don't know now means I can fill that gap of knowledge with whatever I like". also, we can see predictable parts of the brain light up in our current scanning technology which we can then associate with pain

>>13584774
you can't prove metaphysics exist other than by the hormonal and chemical processes in the brain. you then romanticize this because it feels nice. we know full well that human beings are blind to their own biases, and are thus prone to self deception. if you can't appeal to an outside observer to confirm the truth of a statement, how can you possible know your experience of metaphysics isn't just self deception?

>>13586165
This exact statement applies to any form of “empiricism” as well though.

>>13584741
>>13585191
As a philosopher, let me say it would be great if science could understand consciousness. But at the moment they can't understand that they don't even have a definition of it. So it's annoying to get their naive, yet grandiose, pomposities.

>>13584831
No one should be convinced it will have consciousness either. Even other humans minds is ultimately a matter of faith.

>>13585147
Having considered panpsychism for a while it still surprises me when I have to consider things like the interior experiences of a vector. Not sure that's where I'd put the sadness of an AI though.

>>13585433
Damn right we are. (Actually I just take panpsychism as a default ethical position.)

>>13585603
>string theory will never be testable

>>13586185
empiricism appeals to the objective world outside of our subjective experience

>>13584903
>If its an autistic zombie pretending 100% to be human, it's no longer pretending, as there's no trace of the original zombie personality left.
if a dog is wearing a really good human costume and everyone thinks its a human is it a human or a dog in a human costume

>>13586633
If a dog in the costume is clever (and has voice chords to boot) to a point it can hold a conversation, wouldn't you say it's conscious and free willed on par with human one (sans the whole dog vs human experience), ie not a zombie? Or anything not human is always a zombie because...?

Does a severely retarded human to a point he's on chimp level have free will? Do chimps have it? What about lower life forms? What about real lifeforms so primitive we can simulate on the level of computational biochemistry (peptide-peptide interactions)?

>>13586796
retard alert

>>13586813
idiot

>>13586813
>>13586822
AGREED MY FELLOW NON-NPC BEINGS, ANY ATTEMPT AT DEHUMANISING A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE US WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO NPCS EMULATING NON-NPCS AND KILLING ACTUAL NON-ZOMBIEs LIKE YOU AND ME

>>13586796
>If a dog in the costume is clever (and has voice chords to boot)

These [morons] never learn don't they... It's all so tiresome.

>>13584235
t. Puny mind

>>13585101
>I don't even need to read the rest of this thread to know that everyone in it, regardless of the side they're arguing, is retarded.
Jesus fucking Christ, the people that post on this board...

>REEE Science has assumptions behind it, it is part of philosophy!
>Ok Humanitiesfag, I agree. But in the absence of empirical verification or pure deduction, why should I care about your philosophical system over another one? Or even over a 5 year old's system?
>REEEEE SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP! NEVER QUESTION ACADEMIC FASHIONS! REEE
>Sorry to have hurt your feelings Humanitiesfag, I am truly sorry. Let me ask you another question. Why do you use currently accepted science as a platform for your own unfalsifiable extrapolations while saying you don't accept the importance of scientific method and observation? You implicitly are, when you use the latest Physics results as a platform for your own musings, though if you want a lesson on Quantum Mechanics, I'd be happy to help. You clearly misuse it. Obviously you can be sceptical of the scientific method and observation, they can ultimately never be "proven to be the true reality" but they have given us results that accord with the standards of sensory data, which we humans find important in everyday life.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE! I DON'T NEED ADVICE FROM BIRDS TO BE A PHILOSOPHERS OF BIRDS! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! MY DIALECTIC EXPLAINS THE RUMINATIONS OF LATE CAPITALISM, JUST DON'T ASK ME TO PREDICT ANYTHKNG! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>13584183

>>13586509
>empiricism appeals to the objective world outside of our subjective experience
Have you ever not experienced the world?

>>13584183
>Whenever science authors try to explain the origin of the universe
...everyone laughs because they show themselves as the retards they are.

>>13585101
Based
>>13587787
He's not wrong though

>>13588069
No of course not. That's ridiculous. There's nothing outside of physical reality.

>>13588154
Yeah but normies & plebbit eat this shit up because it's their High Priest speaking.

>>13588194
Its funny that you can only communicate in memes. Specially the philosophical zombie meme, when memes are thoughts without thinkers.The irony is rich.

>>13588217
Would you prefer if NPCs communicated in their base language of 0s and 1s? Would kinda give up the ruse wouldn't it...

Anywho, the Left can't meme anyway. So there's gotta be something lacking in their condition. Probably the Logos.

>>13588228
That picture is a good representation of memers. Why must you categorize things into a simplistic "left" and "right" dichotomy? Life is far more nuanced than partisan politics.

>>13588244
I think it's rather self evident. Lived experience and observation are powerful tools of truth.

Plus it's funny.