/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15277886
whoops
forgot poc

>>15252288
We perceive a data stream to be sure. The question then becomes what is the source of the data stream. Is it observer independent matter in spacetime that somehow beams this experience into a mental observer that can't be located in the spacetime? And then, as hoffman always points out, if spacetime is not fundamental, and causality is non-local, as FTL bell type correlations indicate, and brains are in spacetime, then it's hard to make the case that brains cause consciousness. They are certainly CORRELATED with subjective consciousness in some situations, but this is only SIMULATED correlation, it turns out. Just as ALL spacetime causation is simulated, as shown by bell type correlations, which defy the speed of light. And the ties in to simulation because in a VR, the causation WOULD come from outside the virtual space, ie from programming and processing. And so then consciousness is 'outside' of the universe, and the vantage point we are given as if we were 'inside' the spacetime located in the brain is just a feature of IMMERSION in a consciousness based VR.

>>15209770
>If I poked the spot directly the next thing you would ask is which cluster of the 5 billion neurons under my finger is responsible
Yeah, this an appeal to an asserted neural CORRELATE of consciousness. Brains ARE objectively observable. And at times, there ARE correlations between the virtual mental objects called brains and subjective felt experience, as explained in pic related. It's a simulated causation which is a feature of immersion in a VR. You have to have an avatar to operate in a VR, and our avatar has a brain. If the virtual avatar is damaged, then the effect gets rendered. That doesn't mean the consciousness playing the world is IN the virtual brain or is caused by it. I am not arguing against correlation though. These virtual objects like virtual brains ARE objective, or at least they are relatively highly correspondent data streams of mental objects which at times are rendered to multiple observers in a minds and can be 'objectively' assessed by more than one observer, this is true. This is not the question. The question is if YOUR SUBJECTIVE experience and YOU the experiencer himself can be rendered in MY mind and data stream to be experienced and studied scientifically. Can Your consciousness be observed and felt by me? If not, then you have an explanatory gap and you have NO one for one identity of mind and brain. And you certainly have no CAUSATIONAL explanation.

>>15152041
>fuck with neurochemistry
ok
>it results in massive changes in personality and subsequently decisionmaking
These are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness. By the way, there is a reason why they are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness and not neural causators of consciousness
>somehow this doesn't prove that the physical structure of the brain determines what an organism chooses
Correct. There is a saying, 'correlation does not imply causation'. There IS, at times correlation between the goings on in the brain, including the morphometrically (and other-metrically) verifiable changes brought about by freewill decisions (neural plasticity) to both to engage in an ongoing addiction and to cessate the addiction. Example: The transcription factor DeltaFosB can be seen to accumulate in particular neural pathways in particular regions (nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum) when a freewill awareness unit (consciousness) DECIDES to engage in an on going drug addiction. At the decision to cessate the addiction, there is a quantifiable dissipation of this protein. So the FREE WILL DECISION of the consciousness can be seen to alter the structure and function of the brain. So what's causing what? All of this is consistent with a worldview which states that the correlation of the brain and mind is a feature of immersion in a consciousness based virtual reality by the way, where freewill is an input device and consciousness is fundamental and the physical world is virtual, see pic. Brains are virtual (informational) objects which are only ever observed as mental objects in mind. The correlation between the (virtual) brain and (fundamental) mind are CORRELATIVE and only simulated correlation, except the changes brought by consciousnesses to (virtual( brains. Those are causative. Source for DeltaFosB claims

ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.191352698

>>15138021
If you mean does damage or alteration to the physical (virtual) avatar brain cause alteration to the consciousness immersed in the physical (virtual) reality? Yes, of course this will effect game play. Just as how this effects game play in a video game when the player you are controlling gets bonked on the head. You can imagine and effect being rendered where the screen of your computer, or tv if you have a console system, is made to blur or shake as a feature of immersion. The 'real' physical (virtual) world works like this to, only MUCH more immersive. Alteration of gameplay might include something like slurred speech, limb paralysation, ect. This is a constraint on consciousness which is a feature of immersion to increase presence in the VR that can last as long as you are logged onto that particular avatar, ie, for the course of that lifetime. This does not mean anything is fundamentally damaged with regard to the actual essential substance of the experiencer of the experience though. The constraints on the consciousness can be lifted after the 'death' (logging off from a particular avatar). see pic

>>15134197
>even bernardo has given up on free will
No, he did not. He thinks it is a red herring. He is kind of wishy washy on the subject. I wouldn't base my opinion on his anyway.
>you should follow his example
Not an argument
>physical or not, a will cannot be free in this universe
Not interested in your metaphysical pre-suppositions. Not unless you want to follow them up with an actual elaboration of how the brain creates and presents the physical data stream to the observer in a comprehensive way.
>you also have the perennial issue of needing to explain why damage to the brain affects perception, if you want to abandon physicalism
No, I don't. There is nothing logically inconsistent with my world view and neural correlates of consciousness under some circumstances. As a feature of immersion, there are these correlates between objective observables and subjective experience a certain times, see pic. You are the one who has logical in your philosophy of mind, see here
>>15134198
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
NOTE:
That is not to say that these NCCs have not been found. And so there can be no 'physicalism of the gaps' argument, ie an IOU the 'we will be able to account for consciousness SOMEDAY with physicalism, trust us'. The claim is much stronger.The whole thing has been mapped and no such circuitry exists.

>>15133563
With regard to this
>>15134055
If you want to come back when you die (log off from your current avatar) then request to log on to a new one. You will be interfacing with SOME new avatar in some experiencial data stream, be it the heaven body, the hell body, the new avatar body in this reality etc. Depends on what after life situation is right. I myself only have flashes of the pre-existance data stream of other incarnations in this world. I don't know if they are imagination data streams or real history. There are memory constraints on the pre-existence data stream, so it's hard to query that database, for me at least. Other's claim that there is absolutely as a fact repeated iterations in this particular data stream.

>>15121164
>No, I'm just telling you for a fact that both common sense and every piece of evidence available indicate that the structure of subjective experiences stems from physical interactions in the brain
'Common sense' is not an argument and, no, the available evidence does not indicate that at all. There are neural correlates to consciousness in some cases. If a person gets hit in the head with a brick, the data stream rendered to the observer will be effected, yes. This is not proof that the brain causes consciousness. This is proof that in the physical (virtual) world we call the universe, there is a constraint/ruleset that says if the virtual brain is injured, this effects game play. This is algo (physicality) interfacing with non-algo (mind), just as in a video game (see pic). If the player you are controlling in a video game is hit over the head with a brick, the screen might be made to get blurry as an immersion/presence increasing technique. The physical (virtual) world is the same thing, only MUCH MORE immersive. The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) on to a new avatar). But the substance of the consciousness is no more physical than the consciousness playing the less immersive video game is part of the video games we are familiar with. It's only a constraint while logged on to that particular avatar. What you are doing is equivalent to playing a video game and pointing to the screen and saying 'MY CONSCIOUSNESS LIVES IN THE HEAD OF THE VIDEO GAME GUY I AM CONTROLLING AND IS CAUSED BY THE VIRTUAL BRAIN IN THE VIRTUAL HEAD ON THE SCREEN!!! Ya fucking durrr dog.

>>15038814
>doesn't mean that you are separate from the environment. of course
Right, of course. There are variables which constrain or limit (narrow) the decision space of the freewill awareness unit (consciousness/observer), this is granted. Consciousness must interface with physicality and because of the high level of immersiveness of the reality, this interface includes constraints on the decision space. For instance, it has a physiology constraint, such as hunger. The hungry person can NOT avoid getting hunger if he fasts, but he CAN decide when he wants to break fast, assuming he has available food. If the observer gets bonked on the head, there is a ruleset that says that his experiential data stream and physiological data stream and function can be altered and constrained and now the the observers gameplay will be different. Maybe the observer now will be more forgetful. The observer also CAN however change the physiologic function, for instance, because of agent causation being an input to the calculation of state and of of possible future outcomes, ie the agent can bias the probability distribution of possible future outcomes and of physiology, as seen for instance in the placebo effect, where agents can out perform medication in terms of healing when they have taken a fake pill. In other words, they can heal physiologically through attitude and intent. Mind over matter. And neuroplasticity, where the observer/consciousness can make quantifiably verifiable changes to the brain through behavioural changes such as deciding to quit drugs and effecting the resultant dissipation of ΔFosB renforcement in neural pathways.

>>15035004
No. To reduce computational complexity, values of physical data objects are only rendered (values only calculated and defined) upon measurement, and even then, they are rendered at multi-fidelity values. So your brain will never have to even have to be rendered, likely, in your entire life, and even if it were rendered, it would only have to rendered at the resolution of the measuring device used for the measurement, be it from a visual point of view, or some instrument used by an observer. So let's say someone cut open your head to look at your brain, only the surface of the brain which can be seen need be rendered. If the surgeon cuts into the brain, now that data, the internal part of the brain will now be rendered. At know time during this do any neurons or axons of any other micro structures have to be rendered. IF there is some damage to the virtual brain, THEN the correspondent constraints on the consciousness will be rendered to the observer. But this is only a function of immersion in a VR. The actual experiencer of the whole thing, the consciousness, is not created by something within the VR though, including the virtual brain. So the brain does not create consciousness in any way. The virtual brain CAN serve some utility in terms of an objectively measurable representation of correlates to consciousness in some situations though. And so it does have utility in terms of neurology and AI though.

>>14798646
By the way, the refresh rate and no-signaling principle are constraints on spacetime info, so within the virtual reality. Bell type correlations, which are outside of the spacetime, can be faster than light, but there can be no signalling. This is the first clue that reality is virtual. Space-like separated collapse of entangled pairs can defy the speed of light because causality is happening outside of spacetime, ie outside of the universe/simulation. This is causality by calculations/computation, and all points are equadistant to the processor. So there is no distance. The distance in the physical world is VIRTUAL distance which emerges from OUTSIDE the spacetime of the simulation. So of course, this is because the computer must be outside of that which it computes. AND THIS IS WHERE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS AS WELL. And this is why our consciousness is not in the virtual brain. And this is why the brain CAN'T cause consciousness. Nothing in spacetime causes anything. The causation comes from OUTSIDE the virtual space from computation.

But there is this CORRELATION between the virtual brain and the consciousness. The reason why is explained in this vid and see
>>14799593
picrel as well.