/sci/ - Science & Math

People 2000 years ago in the indus valley deduced this knowledge. I think it's high time science catches up amd stops trying to pull the territory out of the map.

>>15495906

I would call this a cope, but you're too unintelligent to even recognize what this discussion is about. Your entire post assumes your conclusion; i.e. that matter exists outside of consciousness. Because you are starting from an incorrect and unproven premise, we will disregard your post and whatever other drivel you come up with based on your presupposed conclusions.

>>15328652
>There's no biological argument supporting human "free will"
The idea is that there is AGENT causation, idiot. So to argue that free will must be caused by or explained within the framework by brain matter is misunderstanding the whole assertion OF the existence of free will. The argument is specifically NOT that brains or physics determine an agents choices. So you are just first begging the question that free will must be justified from the point of view of a physicalist point of view. Biology is physical (virtual) by the way. A consciousness INTERFACES with biology/physiology/physicality. A consciousness is not ITSELF physicality (see pic, any actually intelligent person comes to the conclusion eventually that the experiencer/observer himself (the consciousness) is not physical, it's the EXPERIENCE, ie the CONTENT, some of it, is physical). So you are just retarded all of the way around and you are a low IQ sam harris level redditor.

>>15287705
>>15287720
Irrelevant. Physicalists/materialist can't account for consciousness in the first place so to try and declare constraints on free will based on some notions that two asserted particular materialist event causal models is irrelevant. Mind isn't made of matter, it's made of mind. You have no account for how brains cause mind, zero. Thoughts have no position or momentum or any of these observables like physical objects. Free will is an assertion of AGENT causation where consciousness is an input calculated into the unfolding of events. You silly ideas about causality and there being only these two bottoms up/micro-causal materialist event causations are nothing but metaphysical claims.
>>15287684
Superdeterminism is not popular because it states, for instance, that experimenters were pre-programmed by initial conditions at the big bang to one day conduct experiments which gave results that confirmed the predictions of QM and ruled out local hidden variable theories, when in fact, there ARE these hidden variables, it's only that they can never be determined because nature dictated that we will always get the results that confirm QM. So it's an idea that asserts that scientists are fated to design their experiments as such that they can get seemingly right results down to exceedingly high probabilistic plausibility, such as in bell type experiments, but yet this is just nature pre-programming them to come to wrong conclusions. So this is why nobody likes it. But luckily SOME people were, according to superdeterminists, pre-programmed to come up with the RIGHT idea, which is superdeterminism. So we should just forget about the experimentation thing and trust them. BUT, we who disbelieve superdeterminism must ALSO be predetermined in our beliefs, and so we can't change our minds. So I guess if superdeterminism is true, we are all fated to not be able to change our minds unless it was pre-ordained that we would.

>>15255842
I can conceive of abstract ideas about infinite this or that. This has nothing to do with physically instantiated infinities. But your appeal to idealism is ironic, since you are likely, as most NPCs are, a physicalist. Infinities can by grasped by minds, yes. This should tell you something about the ontology of minds, see pic.

>>15196729
>because rejecting determinism then implies each moment in time is simply its own new unique, standalone, fundamental thing.
Not true. You are presupposing that determined materialist event causation is the only form of causation. There just needs to be an outside the system input, IE a non-physical input, ie consciousness (see pic) as an input device in an interactive computation situation, then you have AGENT determination. So there is still a determination of events, it's just that AGENT causation is a variable instead. Reality is STATISTICAL and PROBABILISTIC fundamentally by the way. The things like the orbits of the planets with low uncertainty are are EFFECTIVELY deterministic since the probability distribution is as such that every cycle update the the random draw for an input will dictate that the planets stay on the course which is predictable to a high amout of decimal places but there is STILL some non-zero chance that a planet could tunnel from one side of the universe to the next, just as with quantum tunneling. See vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMImjFYZ1iY

>>15182302
>That is what empiricism means
The observations must be repeatable and verifiable, ie OBJECTIVE
>The scientific method has several steps, its a feedback loop between deductive and inductive reasoning and starts with subjectivity and creating a theory from your perspective and available sensory data
And it must be objective.
>Except I just laid out an experiment you can try for yourself to collect empirical data with your own senses and you told me your own senses don't count as empirical data when that is exactly what empirical sensory data i
No you didn't. And no I didn't. I am not denying the utility of the scientific method by the way but you are just using circular reasoning to try and justify the scientific method based on the scientific method and also appealing to the idea that sense data is the only means of epistemic justification when empiricism itself can't be justified using sense data.
>Constituent parts may have existed
The physical world can't have existed prior to it's own beginning. That is illogical. This is the sort of silly things that naturalists have to appeal to though, so that should tell you something. It's a cope. The universe began. It can not have initiated itself, as this would mean it would have to existed before it's own beginning. This is illogical. This is why it demands an explanation/cause OUTSIDE of physicality, ie something none physical/super natural from the perspective of those immersed in the VR. It ends up being a none-physical mind by the way, made ultimately from the same thing our none physical mind is made from, consciousness.
>That is all it does, its just a vague philosophy that calls the universe nature to come up with a framework that defines the laws of physics as coming from nature and being observable
The laws of physic logically need to be existent Prior to the booting up. They can be modified once the reality starts, such as the speed of light has been updated, but some ruleset must be established

>>15161723
>Consciousness is not special
Yes, it is. It's first person and subjective, unlike physical objects such as the brain. That is a hard problem for you. Your point of view is inconsistent with reality, see picrel here
>>15161867
Notice it doesn't say that the circuitry hasn't been found YET. The whole thing has been mapped and NO SUCH CIRCUITRY exists. So no 'physicalism of the gaps' claim is possible. Read a cognitive science textbook sometime instead of forming your argument based on daniel dennett youtube vids. The whole book will be dedicated to trying to EXPLAIN consciousness, not explain it away like you are trying to.

>>15152171
>doesn't matter how i flip it i keep getting to the same conclusion: free will is an illusion
Fake news. You simply lack depth of thought and knowledge with regard to these things
>physics
>computer science
>informal logic
>mathematical logic
>philosophy of mind
>various other subjects
See here
>>15152026
No need to cope. Physicalism can't account for consciousness (as rightly stated in pic related) and so any asserted conflicts with asserted types of physical causation are irrelevant. Your line of argument generally pre-supposes a (false) physicalist metaphysical position of theory of mind and then it takes this unproven and unprovable metaphysical position as a fact and tries to further constrain freewill by two more unproven metaphysical presuppositions, namely that there are only two possibilities with regard to causality in the physical world, namely mechanistic and reductionist/microcausal materialist event causation, and indeterministic materialist event causation. All of these assertions are unfounded metaphysical assertions and they prove no constraint on free will.
and here for some leads
>>15152144

>>15151948
>I know some people cope with compatibilist free will
No need to cope. Physicalism can't account for consciousness (as rightly stated in pic related) and so any asserted conflicts with asserted types of physical causation are irrelevant. Your line of argument generally pre-supposes a (false) physicalist metaphysical position of theory of mind and then it takes this unproven and unprovable metaphysical position as a fact and tries to further constrain freewill by two more unproven metaphysical presuppositions, namely that there are only two possibilities with regard to causality in the physical world, namely mechanistic and reductionist/microcausal materialist event causation, and indeterministic materialist event causation. All of these assertions are unfounded metaphysical assertions and they prove no constraint on free will.

>>15121040
>Where did I say experiences are "made of matter"? There's loads of mundane physical stuff that can't be adequately described as "made of matter".
So what is conscious experience made of then? What is the spin, weight, momentum of an experience or idea or a thought? Use these physical quantities and identify them on a one to one basis with a particular experience in a way that can be repeatedly demonstrated and objectively verified. Of course you can't. No one can. This is why it's called the hard problem. And it's not a hard problem, it's an impossible to solve problem because mind is not a physical object. Hence also why a consciousness can't be dead and alive at the same time by the way, which is why people like pic related concluded against physicalism.

>>15046147
I am not denying that. You didn't answer the question. I would like evidence that links specific brain cells to the creation of a specific thought or concept in a way that can be repeatedly demonstrated and for added bonus point, show how a completely different set of brain cells in two different people's heads can produce the same concept in two different minds to where we can know what one another are talking about, namely infinity in this case. Or, cut to the chase and tell me how a piece of objectively observable meat beams a non-objectively observable subjective experience into an observer. And explain why consciousness, if it is a physical object, can not be objectively observed as all other physical objects can be? What is the mechanism whereby this piece of meat actually transmits this non-material concept of infinity or any other concept to the experiencer?
point being pic related. Consciousness is not physical. Consciousness is made of consciousness, not brain or matter. Consciousness IS, because of a high level of immersion in the physical (virtual) world, constrained in certain ways by physicality that that can be observed and experienced neural correlatively, but that shouldn't be mistaken for consciousness being made of matter or it being a physical substance. So the number of cells in a physical (virtual) brain is irrelevant to what a mind can conceive of. In point of fact, brains, as is all other matter, are only ever observed as MENTAL OBJECTS in minds. And this by the way is why infinities are grounded in minds, not in the physical world. No infinities in the physical world, no continuities, no analyticity. These things reside only in models that can be mapped on to the physical world in some cases to make predictions to non-arbitrary precision.

>>15028618
>Do we really exist in a simulation?
We , the consciousness, don't exist 'in' a simulation technically, we are immersed 'in' one. The consciousness can never be 'in' a simulation because the virtual space is not fundamental, it's emergent from underlying info processing and to reduce computational complexity, is only exists/is rendered/has defined values upon measurement/observation. It would be more accurate to say the simulation of a physical world is' located' 'within' our minds. Consciousness is not a physical object, hence why it is not objectively observable like physical objects (hence why consciousness resists super position and hence why cats can not be dead and alive and hence why pic related was concluded by Schrödinger) and is by definition subjective. The data stream called the physical world is rendered 'in' minds and we interface with it through immersion. Our BODIES are physical/virtual and, as a function of immersion, our consciousness is constrained in some ways by physicality, such as after damage to the virtual brain though.

>>15038747
Also, people like Schrödinger came to the conclusion of the non-physicality of consciousness for other reasons, namely consciousnesses resistance to superposition. Von neuman also realized this and came up with his own QM interpretation with consciousness being fundamental.

>>14798646
>Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
There is effective determinism where uncertainty is low. So something like the orbit of the planets, which are highly monitored and measured frequently, you are going to have effective determinism. But it's still probabilistic and statistical. There is still some non zero chance that the sun could just tunnel to the other side of the universe from one frame to the next. The wave function evolves deterministically, but this is not evolution of trajectories like in the classical model.
>The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys the Schrödinger equation (or a relativistic equivalent, i.e. the Dirac equation).
There can be no such thing in quantum states because of the heisenberg uncertainty relations.

Pic related is the conclusion that schrodinger came to with regard to consciousness. And he was one of the most resistant to some of the implications of QM.

>>14700561
>So, why would humans somehow notice strange bugs in the simulation if we are part of it?
Hard to say but 'we' , the real, non-virtual 'we', the consciousness, would not be 'in' the simulation. We would be interfacing with it through immersion but not be actually 'in' the reality. We, the consciousness, are the computer, and so we can not be 'in' the physical world because the physical world is the output of the computation. The computer can't be in computed thing in other words. The computer must be non-local to that which it computes. Though we DO have a virtual avatar body which IS constrained by the laws of physics and which is computed and which is 'in' the physical world. It's the one you see and which your consciousness gives you a first person shooter type vantage point of when you look down. This is not the fundamental you though. It's not the you with identity over time. It's just an avatar to interface with during this experience packet of data during this instantiation of immersion. Actually schrodinger came to the conclusion also that consciousness is not physical. So did godel. This is also why consciousnesses are never in super position and can't be both dead and alive.
consciousness.

. And so yes, we would have a physical avatar. As the one you see when you look down and see your body rendered to you in a first person shooter type of way. And

>>14599593
>These are brain states.
No, brain states are brain states. And they are in point of fact not subjective experience. At most you can try to claim that they particular ones CORRELATE with particular qualia, but that they are one in the same is false on it's face just by the definition of objective and subjective. If you have an example of even a single brain state that has been demonstrated to cause a particular qualia in a demonstrable and verifiable and repeatable way, I would like to see the study.
>The example used earlier was that this kind of attempt at a dichotomy is like claiming shadows don't exist because they aren't observable in isolation. Think about that for a minute. Perhaps a couple of weeks.
I didn't see that post. I just entered this thread. This sounds like a terrible analogy though. There is no way to analogize consciousness with any material phenominon in the physical world. Quote in pic related.

Consciousness is not in the physical space time world, the physical world is in consciousness. There is some ruleset which gets executed non-locally which places certain constraints on consciousness that can correlate with the virtual physical brain that gets probabilistically rendered to observer's in the physical world. If you want to call that "brain", ok. But the virtual thing you are thinking of that gets rendered in the physical world is not causative of anything. Spacetime is emergent and virtual and nothing in it, including brains, has any causative effects. It's just data that gets processed, organized and structured and rendered to observers in minds. Objectively observed brain phenomena that are asserted to correlate to purported subjective qualia could ever at best be correlative and any purported causational effects could only ever at best be simulated causational effects. See bell type correlations.

>>14593090
No brains are conscious. Matter isn't conscious. If you want to claim that it is, this is a form of panpsychism. Matter is not fundamental and it is virtual and rendered only upon measurement and it has no causal power. It 'exists' only as evolving probability until measured and becoming information. And I would like to hear your description of where it is that you think consciousness is localized in a brain. Where can first person consciousness be objectively observed in brains? Be specific. It can't by the way. By definition it is only ever observed first person. That which governs the autonomic functions of a consciousness when that consciousness is not experiencing phenomenal consciousness is also consciousness. It's autonomic conscious governed by what has been called in some descriptions of the apparatus of the psyche as the un-conscious.

>>12389467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Because colors are ultimately experienced subjectively.

>>12327638
Consciousness is a fundamental.

>>12269314
based

>>12172851
Cope.