/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15211690
>idealism does not solve the hard problem
Yes, it does. There is no observer independent material thing called a brain that consciousness arises from. There is no observer independent matter at all. And so there is no need to explain how consciousness arises from something that doesn't exist. Then, the task becomes describing how mind derived universe and the objects in them, like brains, come into existence. And this is something that we have experience of through day dreams and dreams and the like. You can THINK worlds into existence. MINDS create simulations of observer independent material worlds. You do it in day dreams all of the time. Universes arise IN MINDS. And this universe is grounded in the ALL mind, of which we are individuated units of consciousness. Minds also create virtual realities in the waking reality as well, like video games. It also solves things like the interaction problem, which arises from the idea that there is some substance called 'observer independent matter' and the question of how two different substances, mind and matter, can causally interact with each other. In idealism, this becomes mind interacting and having causal effect on mental objects, being that matter is something only ever viewed as mental objects. And the CORRELATION of, say, damage to the brain and the rendered effects on consciousness then make much more sense. It's two mental objects correlating to each other. The virtual mental object called brain and the mind assigned to the particular avatar.

>>15203605
yes. The booting up. All consciousness based virtual (informational) realities begin with an influx of information from out of 'nowhere' from the point of view of those immersed in the reality, be it a dream, a daydream, or the waking 'physical' reality/universe.

>>15206421
Another way that consciousness based virtual (informational) world's are created which we can empirically see is in something such as a day dream. If you imagine a visual scene, say a picnic with a woman in a sunny meadow, the creation and causation and processing does NOT come from 'within' the dream. It comes NON-locally from the MIND producing the dream. The same with regular dreams and the same with the WAKING reality which is called the 'physical world' or 'universe'. ALL realities are created by MIND and the causation is ALWAYS 'none-local' to the reality.

>>15162044
Think about how your own consciousness based VRs are created. Think of a day dream. If I tell you to think of yourself flying a dinosaur in outerspace, you can do this. You can cause a consciousness based VR simulation of a matter based world to pop into existence complete with it's own laws of physicals out of 'no where'. God is a mind.

>>15152054
My actions are a function of me being a freewill awareness unit (human consciousness) and the interface with physicality, ie constraints to my physiology and and constraints imposed by factors in the the non-me physical world are also variables.
Example:
Question:
Do I have the ability to avoid getting hungry after prolonged fast?
Answer: NO, I do not. As a feature of immersion in a consciousness based VR, where physicality, particularly in this case physiology, are a constraint on freewill, I do not have the freewill to decide if I get hungry or not after prolonged fast. I DO however, provided there is an option of multiple foods available, have the choice of WHAT to eat, or if I want to eat at all or continue the fast. And so, to get to the point I think you are driving at, of course, there is not absolute freewill in that I can't choose to flap my arms and fly. There is a ruleset in this VR (so called laws of physics ect). I do have freewill, though, in that my decisions are not just a function of some bottoms up (reductionist) deterministic material event causal chain stretching back to the foundation of the universe. Reality is a top down, intelligent, statistical and probabilistic VR where freewill is an imput and, in order to minimize computational complexity, values of spacetime objects are only even defined on an as needed basis, and only to the specs of the consciousnesses/players immersed in the reality or to the specs of there measuring devices, ie telescopes, microscopes, geiger counters etc. This includes brains. Brains can't cause consciousness because they are in spacetime and spacetime is not fundamental as has been show in the fact that no local theory of hidden variables can ever reproduce the predictions of QM. Causation is non-local. Brains are in spacetime. Brains therefore are locally defined and are no causative of anything.

>>15139540
>You fucked up logically by choosing a metaphysics that has nothing to do with consciousness
Correct. That would be a fuck up. It's not that there isn't ANY connection though. There is interface between what gets called matter and consciousness and there are correlations with regard to brains and mind, and brain can represent a constraint on the CONTENT of mind as an icon at times, such as during brain damage, ect. The matter objects are ALSO mental objects though as well any ways. They only ever assume spacetime observable quantities such as position and momentum within the medium of mind/s. So spacetime is an emergent thing and that which it emerges 'in' is mind.

>>15032704
It would explain things like wave particle duality, see here
>>15045432
And, since it is looking like it is a consciousness based simulation, given that physicality from the womb to the tomb is only ever experienced as a data stream emergent in minds, then there are implications from that to. Some are explained here
>>15045412
>>15045377
>>15045385
Mainly consciousness becomes fundamental as opposed to physicality. All constraints on consciousness, including the death constrain, then become only functions of temporary immersion.

>>14798646
One last thing. This vid might help you get a handle on agent causation and how it works. This guy's model is not exactly the one that I would put forward, but it will get you started in the right direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE
Also, I should mention, that this model of the physical world being a data stream rendered in minds, which would mean physical objects are mental objects, also solves the mind body problem and the interaction problem. The relationship between the mind and brain is that both are mental objects. Since obviously brains can only ever be verified to exist in minds, just as is the case with all matter. It solves the hard problem of consciousness by declaring that there is no problem because brain matter is not the cause or source of consciousness. It solves the interaction problem, since mind effecting matter is just mind acting on mind, since matter is only even rendered as mental objects in mind.

Here is a good vid of the idea that spacetime is not fundamental and since that is the case, any theory of consciousness that starts from causation in spacetime (brains) is doomed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

>>14795702
He says the brain does the thinking. That generally means that the person believes that the brain creates all aspects of consciousness. I guess maybe he meant it causes thinking but not the aspect of consciousness. At any rate, it plays no part in consciousness anymore that the virtual brain of the virtual character on a video game screen causes the consciousness of the human player controlling the video game character. This is actually retarded on your part to even suggest. But then again, you are just a brain chemical program, right? There is no evidence that brains even exist except as objects of mind, just as with all matter. Brains are just mental objects and most peoples brains will never even have to be rendered by the mind in thier entire lifetime, the mind, and the universe, only ever render what the observer/s need to conduct smooth game play. See vid here
>>14795514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=500s

>>14731137
Nothing. It would be fundamental. It would be the generator. It would be that which matter is derived from as opposed to the other way around. It would be the fundamental ontic substance. Matter would be something emergent in consciousnesses/minds, just like it does in your mind at any given moment. Just as planck and schrodinger finally concluded as stated in picrel here
>>14731041
and
here
>>14731110
Godel also figured it out. Lots of great thinkers have.

>>14529154
So this idea of rods and cones and photons hitting eyes and that causing what we see in consciousnesses is a MODEL. And indeed, if you examine eyes, eyes which are rendered to observers in minds, then you will be rendered rods and cones etc, according to what would be probable. But the rods and cones of 99.9% humans never need to be rendered in their entire life, any more than rods and cones need be rendered to see in a dream. Consciousnesses don't see through eyes in the waking state anymore than you see through eyes in dreams. you are just given that first person shooter vantage point by your mind. And no photons need need to ever be rendered in the physical world to produce light anymore that they need to be rendered in a dream to produce light. If you go down and make a measurement, like in a double slit experiment, then you will get your photon rendered based upon what would be probable to be there. But it wasn't 'there' before you measured it. It was in a super position of potential 'there's' in god's hard drive. So this idea of an outside, self existent observer independent world that we are all looking onto through eyeholes is fake news. It's just a model. The equations work to make predications, but what they are modeling is not 'out there' it's processed, organized and structured data (information) rendered by consciousness in minds. And it only has to be rendered to the detail demanded by an observer. No atoms need ever need be rendered unless you go down and measure at that detail. Anymore than your mind has to render the atoms of your desk that your computer is on. No rods, no cones, no photons. Just experience rendered at the detail in your mind according to your specs. If you are near sighted and lose your glasses, you get rendered the blurry shit because that is what would be the probable vision given your specs.