/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11437410
so if you notice that your car is "idling rough" but dont actually know the technical name for the phenomena does that completely discount the observation and insight?

>claiming flatly that science can't "account" for them is a ridiculous lie.
Umm sweetie, "science" has limits, for example with quantum mechanics we have arrived at a point where we have to think about ideas that are unfalsifiable, so in that way science is leaving certain things unaccounted for. Science also fails when "consensus" is made up of QUACKADEMICS that are motivated by grants, leftism, and furthering their parasitic careers.

Furthermore science, and human expression, fails to be able to adequately describe certain phenomena such as DMT entities. And most scientists irrationally ignore their impications, and also the implications of subjective, and artistic, accounts of ESP.

Here is LEONARD SUSSKIND admitting one of the most important questions is whether there are consciousness entities that exist in realms beyond our perception and which could influence our universe:
https://youtu.be/s78hvV3QLUE?t=3350

Lastly, science, and people in general, fall apart when systems are sufficiently chaotic enough, like weather. Models begin to be made with soul purpose of describing the scientists' bias to further their career and it's unfallsifiable but clearly not as significant as the many worlds hypothesis or questions about otherwordly beings, so it falls in a weird gray area where useful idiots like you can start to believe it and believe that they have some special training that allows them to understand it when it's EVEN MORE HAND WAIVY BULLSHIT THAN WHAT YOU CALLED HAND WAVY BULLSHIT!

perhaps machine learning can help with the last one

PS: What do you define as "science" and what is the scientific consensus on whether gender is a spectrum or not?

nature[dot]

c

o

m

/articles/

d41586

-018-

07238-8

>US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science

Nobody can disprove Behe's nail in the coffin of the bizarre evolutionary paradigm, irrededucible complex organs are proven in a ad hoc way by neo-darwinians after they have already assented to the axiom that evolution is factual

>>11137066
ok

>>11136362
I wonder how smelly her braps are haha

>>11136850
Black kid probably emulating from having grown up in an environment in which his native language was the primary source of any written text he possibly saw.

Pic related: African written language, it appears to have some resemblance to what he has written.

The white kid grew up around the English alphabet system so she has more exposure.

They are simply small children.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_systems_of_Africa

>>11136986
At least 7 hours regular sleep

>>11115985
Incel.

>>11122309
Did your mother tell you you are handsome today anon?

>>11122024
>no information travels faster than the speed of light and quantum entanglement (well it's applications that I bet you are thinking of) has 0 to do with information speed.

sigh, please read my post carefully.
I never claimed quantum entanglement is about information transfer. What I meant was bell's inequalities are violated and that is in itself a proof that there is some kind of process that doesn't depend upon space therefore un-necessitating its relevance in this context.

Secondly, virtual particles WERE and ARE debated to exist because there are valid alternative explanations for the casimir effect.

Thirdly, I guess you need to study entropy. Entropy, more specifically the second law was first derived analyzing a heat engine. There is nothing about the dynamics of classical particle physics that dictates a collective behaviour ie reluctance of particles with more KE flowing from a colder region to a hotter region spontaneously.

>>11121972
step 1: >acquire 200+ IQ
step 2: I'll tell you when you provide evidence for completion of step 1.

>>11121920
Lot of assumptions you got there about me buddy.

Doesn't all evidence point to the feasibility of this reality being a virtual reality as opposed to a real reality. I know it sounds absurd but lets look at the evidence.

Quantum Entanglement works regardless of distance and though it is known that no actual information travels FTL, the very fact that this phenomenon has no regard for space puts question whether it actually exists and has meaningful causal roles. Maybe space is an emergent phenomenon just like time, in human consciousness that evolution shaped to help us make sense of the world. If reality is indeed information, then we should instead be studying about the laws that information behaves.

> Information cannot be without substrate. It needs something to be etched upon.
How true is that? I mean what even is information? All we know it could be a giant superposition till something pops out of the randomness and carries away this information.

>Virtual Particles
Though its existence is to be debated, the fact that QFT works is enough evidence for me to accept its reality. And virtual particles could be explained by decomposition of an underlying informational reality

> The failure to explain consciousness in terms of physical processes: If there's anybody still waiting for a physical theory of consciousness, I'd like to ask them why. There is no way you could explain the 'sweetness' of sugar on my tongue in terms of chemistry. The two paradigms are totally different. Taste is not a fundamental. And the fundamental particles carry no notion of 'taste'.
One might say 'well emergent phenomenon has properties that are not seen in the constituents'. For example: consider thermodynamics. We have laws of thermodynamics emerging from motion of particles. there is no law about the motion of particles that forbids entropy from reversing however we know that is not the case. But if you ponder deeper, we can come up with a statistical theory of particle momenta that explains it.

>>11111135
Reductionism is the 'scientific' way to explore things. Which part do you not get? Consciousness is a complex system phenomenon and by that very fact it means that no explanation of parts can ever hope to describe it

>>11110060
Also note that electrocuting the colostrum temporarily makes a person unconscious leaving all brain activity intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQfYuBkeTw

>>11110010
>shares no similarities with ANY other observed system

When did I say that? Are you reading fairy dust in between the words? I am discussing a very real phenomenon of the universe and the goal of natural sciences is to investigate phenomenon and not matter exclusively. So please show yourself the door.

>>11110008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Where I can agree with you on qualia being a sort of illusion rather I'd like to say ill-defined is on the notion of common language. You can say the word 'cat' and I will hear the cat and in my mind, a mental sound of 'cat' is heard. Then I will be able to replicate the same sound using my vocal cords to communicate it to you and we can both reach a consensus on the topic that we are talking about. So qualia just MIGHT be a limitation of language. But again, this idea needs to be investigated more rigorously before reaching a conclusion.

>>11108079
Prions are literally the most fucking terrifying thing to exist. There is literally no defense against it.

My personal hunch is that consciousness must be defined in an entirely new field that would interact with electromagnetic fields strongly because they are the primary driving force in the brain. But putting an objective measure on this field would be near to impossible as nobody would ever reach a consensus on what and if they are talking about is the same thing.

>>11109917
I am aware of these experiments. I've read V.S. Ramachandran's book where he explains how he cured phantom pain using just mirrors to manipulate a person's conscious knowledge about their limbs that have been amputated.

The creation of a meta-representation (a set of representations of objects) of the environment around the self is a useful way to think about how the neural networks would find it convenient to navigate and evaluate the environment. Even so the self must be a special collection of neural circuits that the subject must use to compare the behaviour of others and themselves given that humans are cultural and social beings. However there is absolutely no material basis upon which one can talk about qualia. Qualia is not an object in the way objects are defined. We are talking about the existence of objects itself when talking about qualia.

>>11109950
based. Unless you want to be a physicist for a living don't go to college.
I am a Bsc in physics.

But if I assume the reality of my FPP, then there is quantum leap from 3rd person objective data processing to first person perspective. This has been termed as the explanatory gap. There is no way possible to jump this gap without postulating the existence of something that is not matter. Well not matter in it's 'normal' sense anyway.

Given that 4% of the universe is baryonic matter we should seriously question our hard and fast assumptions about physicalism and make radical postulates if we want to really understand consciousness. Why is consciousness real? Because of the mere fact that you can report that it is like something to see. I don't see why I couldn't type this post without me having any visual awareness of the letters because hasn't my brain already computed the visual data?

Now you must be familiar with how sensations are imaged in the brain. We have a neural circuit that fires in the brain when we see a certain object for the first time and this circuit becomes persistent for the rest of our lives so that we can identify the same object whenever this neural circuit fires again. We call this the neural correlate (NC). Each of us will have a novel NC for the same object that we observe. This is why my sensation of red light will be different than yours. This sensation has a name and we call it qualia. Qualia is the qualitative property of something in our perspective. It is personal and cannot be communicated besides referencing the object to another.

Similarly one could argue that the network of NCs associated with all the features of the body including the sensory input from various sense organs would collectively form the 'illusion of self' and then the meta-representation of all external stimuli would form a network associated with the outside world. These two networks would then interact in a multitude of ways to give rise to human behavior.

Now this model explains clearly why everybody else in the world behaves as they do. They are just systems of particles interacting with other systems of particles.

But why couldn't all this go on in the dark? Why do we have a witness inside ourselves experiencing all of this? The qualitative property of a substance is useful for a mechanical brain to differentiate between things but why should that be in a first person view? Who is it that needs to see, or who is the seer doing the seeing? It can't be another network as that network just knows how to compute inputs.

The basic premise of physicalism or materialism is that all phenomenon should be explained by matter and its interactions. This can never be true as there are concepts that exist. There is math that remains without the existence of matter. What is an object but a representation in one's awareness? A scientific discovery involves playing around with these representations till you reach an object or phenomenon that is novel before publishing your results. But in this thread we solely look at the irrefutable existence of qualia and how consciousness cannot be in anyway material if we assume qualia to be 'real'.

To arrive at this bold conclusion I had to question everything I knew including my own self. I started with questioning my own existence. I asked if I exist. I didn't know the answer to that and so I assumed it to be true.

The hard problem of consciousness is hard not just to solve but to even explain to the materialist who only thinks about phenomenon in third person objectivity. Consciousness is the only phenomenon that is experienced in first person and so using third person methods upon it sounds kind of ridiculous but hey since we have so much success with the latter, let's try it.

The most fundamental property of consciousness is the 'self' or what the materialist would call the illusion of self. Most famous being Dan Dennett who uses the analogy of a conjuring trick to explain this: the brain tricks itself into thinking that it is real. This self is surrounded by objects which are representations in his brain. Collectively, the set of all objects in his experience and himself form the meta-representation we call consciousness that we are investigating.