/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15278615
>You can simulate brain damage yourself via drug experiences
This would still be just ASSERTED correlation of potentially objectively observed neural correlates with felt subjective experience. Subjective experience is by definition SUBJECTIVE. It isn't some physical object in spacetime with position or momentum or any of these objectively verifiable quantities. The physical world of spacetime objects in emergent IN MINDS as opposed to minds being located IN SPACETIME in a brain. The first person shooter vantage point of being located in a brain in a head in spacetime is a function of IMMERSION in a consciousness based VR.

>>15211609
>studying consciousness should be perfectly possible
You can already study it, second hand. That's called psychology and cognitive science. Subjective consciousness is not like physical objects though, as this anon alluded to
>>15211617
You have a sensory data stream of the physical world which presents mental objects to you in your mind which we call 'the physical world'. These include planets, trees, brains, and macro objects like that, as well, we can infer data about micro 'objects' such as the goings of the quantum world as well. If there are two or more human minds assessing their respective subjective corresponding data streams and they come up with useful and predictive and repeatedly demonstrably true information about the corresponding 'objective world' inferred from the data streams, we say this knowledge is 'objective' empirical or scientific knowledge. But my SUBJECTIVE consciousness can never be experienced or objectively observed via YOUR subjective mental sensory data stream, and my subjective consciousness can never be accessed by YOUR data stream. My BRAIN can be observed in your data stream, and vice versa, but not my mind and it's content. So subjective consciousness has no one to one identity with the brain. Mind is not a physical object. And so you you can't know it like a brain. You can never know mind in that comprehensive way.

>>15209650
>A perceiver is just a machine which reacts with itself and with its environment
No, it isn't. Everything about a machine can be OBJECTIVELY verified and experienced. Consciousness is SUBJECTIVE, as stated in pic. There's no evidence that qa machine is having an internal subjective experience.
>This perceiver is said to be under an illusion when it makes significant mistakes in processing its data
No, it isn't. Everything about a machine is objective. Me and you can sit around a machine and both of us can see every part of it objectively. Me and you can NOT sit around a brain and see any subjective experience. And so there is no one to one correspondence between a brain and a mind and consciousness is subjective, unlike physical objects like machines.
>That required no reference to the nonsensical notion of consciousness
Because what you are describing has nothing to do with consciousness. We are not talking about machines we are talking about mentation, which is not made of matter and not a machine and not objectively observable like every aspect of a machine is.

>>15207277
>Consciousness is not mystical
Nobody said mystical, just that it is not a physical object. Your first clue should have been that consciousness is subjective and first person, unlike physical objects. No, it would not. There would be no one to log on and demand a data steam, and so there would be no reason to define spacetime values. At the most it would just go on as internal calculations of probability distributions of possible outcomes.

>>15138523
>>15138523
The burden of proof would be on you give a particular input or brain state that produces a particular thought in a repeatedly demonstrable and objectively verifiable way. You can't. Why? because unlike physical things, conscious experience is first person and subjective. Worse for you, we are talking about coding not just for a particular thought or experience, we are talking about producing and EXPERIENCER ITSELF to to experience the experience. Explain how meat computation creates an experiencer.

>>15138308
this
>15138324
>Having an input, sorting program, output is just what brains are actually doing
>Yeah, this is called 'begging the question'. The very point of contention is the nature of brain and mind, and to use a physicalist theory of mind in your argument is just restating your premise as an argument. Fail. Not an argument, dummy. If you want to say consciousness is just an output of the brain, then demonstrate as particular brain state that out puts a particular thought in a repeatedly demonstrable way. You can't.

Was to you. You can never confirm that a particular brain state causes a particular thought in a repeatably demonstrable way. Why? because consciousness, unlike physical objects, is first person/subjective. This should have been your first clue against physicalism.

>>15133520
In addition to this
>>15133799
I will say that the problem with SD and the reason that these dummies can't figure out things like FTL bell type correlations is that they are looking for causation coming from INSIDE the physical (virtual) world. IE, they are players immersed in a VR trying to account for causation coming from WITHIN the VR, when the causation actually comes NON LOCALLY (no location in the virtual spacetime), from processing OUTSIDE the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles), in conjunction with agent causation in the form of free will decisions from a consciousness/observer as an input. In the case of SD, this would be a deterministic simulation with everything decided at the boot up. This is not how ours works though. We have agent causation as well as an input device. And the consciousnesses are not virtual, they only INTERFACE with virtuality through the sensual data stream. Consciousness is not a physical object (hence why it is SUBJECTIVE, and not objectively observable like physical objects, see pic)

>>15053168
>consciousness is material
Elaborate. What is the spin, momentum, position, etc of a thought.
>math and "abstract concepts" literally aren't 'real', so to speak
What do you mean? How do 'real' things like matter and fake things like abstract concepts interact? How are me and you able to know what each other are talking about when we communicate these fake concepts? What are abstract concepts made of? Matter is supposed to be the only substance. So are they material or what?
>The image you linked is dumb because the brain is constantly in the process of movement of energy
The author is not talking about the brain, he is talking about subjective consciousness. The brain is an objectively observable physical object, subjective first person experience is by definition not.

>>15038792
Well the main problem is that it is subjective (consciousness is) unlike physical things, which are objectively observable. Actually, even the physical world is only approximately objective, as experimental verification of wigner's friend experiments have shown and Frauchiger & Renner thought experiments imply.

>>14793187
Forgot pic here
>>14793226

>>14599722
>This is an ad hoc hypothesis at best, begging the question otherwise.
It's not a hypothesis. It's a fact. That's why neural correlates are could CORRELATES and not CAUSATORS. Correlation does not equal causation, and you don't even have correlations in any substantial amount. Even the article on neural correlates admits that neural correlates don't explain consciousness
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,[ but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
>So you say. Nothing you've presented justifies that opinion.
Exept the glaring fact that the entire physical world can be objectively observed except consciousness is subjective. Pic related
>So you say. Nothing you wrote counts as evidence of this but a bunch of assumptions and further assertions as to some fundamental.
Prove that it is then. Tell me how to observe someone else's consciousness. I can observe their brain after all.
>What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
True. Like that virtual space time brains have causal power with regard to consciousness. They don't. Like the claim that brain states correlate to particular qualia.

>>14549709
This is true. There is the philosophical problem of 'the problem of other minds'. You can't ever experience another human's mind, let alone a cat. So I assume the cat is conscious but it could be an NPC. Interestingly Schrödinger also had a quote about