/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10594009
I believe in love.

And numbers.

And video games.

Not everything is physical yo.

>>10594009
Real question is what scientific justification there is for belief in materialism.

>>10594272
It is all we have evidence of.

>>10594009
I'm new here but no. I think consciousness is beyond the physical. I'd say it's science but nobody's really sure. How do I justify that? I'd say quantum mechanics is beyond understanding without an observer.

>>10594009
>how do you justify that scientifically
By constructing an experiment to test it and following through until a non-inconclusive result is reached. I don't think I understood the intent of the question.

>>10594375
That's pretty clearly stated as a measurement problem.

>>10594016
but those things are physical

>>10594401
Quantum mechanics describes what occurs without an observer (which has nothing to do with consciousness).

>>10594009
>If you do, how do you justify that scientifically?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>10594423
>what is the quantum probability wave?

>>10594442
How does this show quantum mechanics is beyond understanding without an observer? Again, it describes what happens without an observer and this has nothing to do with consciousness.

>>10594009
define physical

We live in a universe that allows life to exist. That in itself is rather miraculous. I may not be a part of any religion but God makes sense to me with this existence we have here. I think there is more than just the material, yeah.

>>10594016
Those are all physical, anon.

>>10594375
No materialism is an assumption. There's no evidence for it, if there was we'd be able to disprove solipsism and Platonism and so on.
>>10594560
What does QM with no observer say the world is like?

>>10594009
>do you believe in anything beyond the physical
Not obliquely but I do lend some kind of credence to the idea that it might be there. I don't have any scientific justification, I just feel that the amount of people from various time periods and backgrounds believing something beyond the physical exists leads me to believe its plausible.

>>10594009
(For me, personally. I cannot argue that anyone else should see it this way)
If we live in a completely material universe which is completely predictable given sufficient tools, then nothing is truly random.
If nothing is truly random, there is no choice. Everything you will ever do is just the sum of particle interactions.
If I were to accept that as true, I personally would suffer a mental break and shut down.
I don't want to do that, whether that want is something that is actually mine or just the product of a predictable sequence.
So, I cannot accept a purely material universe. It's kind of like CHIM, for those familiar, and in that case I would zero sum.

>>10594009
What does “beyond the physical” even mean? Sounds like a nonsensical idea.

>>10594401
>Still not knowing that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics

Moron.

>>10594437
>Dualism

Demonstrate a violation of the conservation of energy occurring constantly on a large scale in the human brain.

>>10594009
Subjective experience is obviously non physical.
Qualia are almost certainly going to be non testable so who cares. The scientific method has limitations, but that doesn't mean you have to restrict your beliefs about what is reasonable to such an unnecessary degree.

>>10594009
Consciousness isn't compatible with materialism, since it's non-physical phenomena. So materialism is pretty obviously false.

>>10596613
>Consciousness exists

Prove it.

>>10594009
Materialism is just the modern retard's way of demanding everyone else be as bored and disappointed with life as he is.

>>10596623
That's the point you idiot, you can't prove it because it's subjective
Fucking brainlet

>>10596623
If consciousness doesn't exist, then you need to explain how the illusion of consciousness exists, which is also a non-physical phenomenon.

>>10594009
I’m a hylomorphist. Emergent properties inhere in the material. So, yes but no.

>>10596623
Gay post

>>10596623
Oh god, a Buddhist.

>>10594009
I am a Kantian, so no.

>>10596679
Brainlet philosophy for ethicists who were touched as little children.

>>10596638
If it can’t be proven, why should anyone be anything but a materialist?

>>10596641
What illusion of consciousness? Demonstrate this illusion.

>>10596674
That's not Buddhism. The concept of no-self doesn't deny the existence of any observable phenomena. Buddhism claims that the phenomena are empty of an independent or permanent soul.

>>10596704
> The concept of no-self doesn't deny the existence of any observable phenomena.
Except we all observe it. You’re trying too hard to fit religious claims into a sciency framework. You’ve already descended into semantics.

>>10596754
Buddhism says conscious phenomena do exist.
But Buddhism doesn't believe in the idea of a soul.
My point was that Buddhism doesn't say consciousness/subjectivity don't exist. Consciousness clearly does exist.
>>10596623
^ This guy is trying to say consciousness/subjectivity doesn't exist, which is retarded, not Buddhism.

>>10595589
How are numbers physical?

>>10596797
If that was your point then you should have said only that.

>>10596797
Prove consciousness exists. You can’t.

>>10596835
Try not to cut yourself on that edge or give yourself a paper cut with that thesaurus.

>>10594009
Yes, Monism (which ironically is one of human's most ancient philosophical systems of spiritual belief) solves this problem logically.

>>10594009
I am Zoroastrian. As far as god goes, it is hopeful thinking to me, but I think the philosophy inherent to the religion is useful to remind us to be grateful for what we have and be motivated to do good.

I see the physical as the manifestation of theological ideas. For example, diseases and pestilence are demons. The study of diseases and pests is thus the study of demons and how to fight them. I don't have to justify it scientifically, since it has no bearing on how I perceive and experience the world, which is what we quantify for science.

Aka, I justify it through agnostic theism.

>>10596623
>>10596674
>>10596704
>>10596754
>>10596797
>>10596835
Buddhists don't concern themselves with the 'existing' or 'non-existing' status of anything in some objective external universe, because it is unknowable. They don't say "things exists" but they also don't say "nothing exists" because they're both unfounded metaphysical assumptions. The entirety of Buddhism is based on analysis of experience, without making metaphysical claims about any sort of 'objective reality,' since all that can really be known and analyzed is experience. Yes, even science and measurement of our perceived physical world is an extension of experience, and cannot be said to be (or not be) objective reality, since nothing can be said about 'objective reality.'

>>10597774
What flavor is your latte, s°yb°y?

>>10597866
Why, matcha with onions-creamer of course.

>>10594009
I have seen through your bullshit. And I will never, EVER, subscribe to your newsletter.

>>10594437
Aren't you fucking tired of posting this in every thread?

>>10597554
Not an argument.

Try to prove consciousness exists.

>>10594009
Reminder for all soulfags that there is zero evidence of anything but matter and energy.

>>10596698
You can't even prove you exist, let alone others, so proving materialism is just as unprovable. The issue is that materialism is often internally inconsistent.

>>10597988
Prove it’s internally inconsistent.

>>10597989
I'm not spoon feeding you. There are tons of philosophical arguments for the existence of qualia and so on which you can look up yourself.

>>10598003
Philosophy is useless. I only accept observation and extrapolations made from it.

>>10594009
I trust those saints who've experienced it and it's impact on our world. They're the most trustworthy people I know of, and a lot of my knowledge is already dependent on trusting other people's experience through their own experimentation since nobody can personally check everything. I'm not upset to find myself sitting on the shoulders of giants in either case. Both science and logic have particular limits, and can't say anything about what lies beyond, but they're not the only tools a man should use.

I also know my own qualia isn't physical in nature, and that the useful ordering of the world according to well approximated laws through numbers is as real as a tool can get despite its non-physicality. I look at these things as simple hints that anyone can experience to at least get them thinking about it.

>>10595692
>No materialism is an assumption. There's no evidence for it, if there was we'd be able to disprove solipsism and Platonism and so on.
Evidence suggests world is objective, solipsism is simply contrary to the evidence. Platonism is either supernatural or poorly defined.
>What does QM with no observer say the world is like?
Universe in a superposition of states.

>>10596546
>I have literal glass castle worldview.
What's the benefits?

>>10598003
You're ignorant. Qualia doesn't contradict to materialism. Also you don't even know what is internal inconsistency.

>>10597979
Prove it doesn’t. I’ll wait.

I'm not materialistic. They promote values of worshiping icons, material and whatever you can directly touch.

>>10594009
>In other words, do you believe in anything beyond the physical?

Yes.

>If you do, how do you justify that scientifically?

You don't. Science is a mental tool for understanding the physical. Whether anyhing beyond that exists or not, and if so, what is it's nature, is not within the realm of science to explore.

We often confuse Science! with Truth! -- it is not. It is a tool for discovering truths about the physical universe. Understanding this does not diminish or denigrate science, nor the truths it can reveal. It DOES guard against fetishizing science and making it into something it is not.

>>10594422
>Numbers are physical.

How many 2s have you seen running around in the wold? How many 0s? How many -4s? How many πs?

>>10596623
Who's asking?

>>10597985
>Reminder for all soulfags that there is zero evidence of anything but matter and energy.
Souls cannot exist. It simply doesn't make sense. That said, is there something more than materialism? Maybe? But who cares?

>>10598160
>objective
WRONG

>>10596679
Immanuel Kant, but Chaka Khan!

>>10598513
>Souls cannot exist.

Interesting unsupported assertion.

>It simply doesn't make sense.

"It doesn't make sense" is the traditional cry of the person who is wrong and getting nervous about it.

>>10598514
retard

>>10598509
Numbers are information on a physical carrier. They wouldn't exist without carrier. That's how physical.

>>10598213
Qualia are non physical, sport

>>10598213
Learn to speak English

>>10598525
>Interesting unsupported assertion.
Okay, I'll ask you this: Why would souls exist?

>>10599090
They don’t have to be “physical” to be material, sport.

>>10599090
It is, see >>10598632

>>10594009
HAIL SITHIS! HAIL THE VOID!

>>10599099
Find your argument on picrelated.

>>10598180
I don't know what that means. The benefit is not shutting down completely and losing my will to live.
Like I said, I won't argue that it's objectively right or that anyone should see it the same way I do, but OP asked.

>>10594009
I don't believe there is such a thing as nothing, everything is derived from something that already existed

>>10594009
>If you do, how do you justify that scientifically

Science is not the domain of absolute truth.

>>10600621
>shutting down completely and losing my will to live
But that's exactly what you want to happen if the world differs from your opinion.