/sci/ - Science & Math

(cont.)

In a similar way, the self which appears to exist, to eat and go to work, isn't there, it is only made possible by the looping self-talking nature of neurons, causing the self to exist in a compltely different plane of existence, leading thinkers like Descartes to talk about mind-body dualism. In a sense, it is true that minds really exist and are ontologically different from bodies, but minds themselves are pure functions of bodies. So "imagination" is real as matter, but it is not the same substance, as it is generated by self referencing of matter processes. Matter becomes a lower plane of existence, and self just arises. So "you" aren't there when you die, "you" simply vanish.

(cont.)

Another reason to reject eternalism is that any mathematical theory of the universe, if it is deterministic, cannot give rise to a flow of time, like Einstein hoped. Because a deterministic theory, would already have it's solutions exist, so whether or not a universe would choose to go through the necessary evolution/computation to arrive at that solution seems absurd. Because time exists, we can confidently say that the future is fundamentally indeterministic, and no mathematical theory of everything can exist, because if it did, it would contradict evolution of the universe. Hence, only sub-parts of the universe can be mathematically described, not the whole.

sounds pretty cool

i'm gay lmao

>I, a physicist, am here to redpill everyone on the true nature of consciousness.
we are all physicists here on /sci/

>>11594864
Im gonna give you C-
When it comes to consciousness, physics is no better than psychology or philosophy.

Ah yes, the Hand the Draws Itself. A classic

>>11594864
>I Am A Physicist
You are NOT a physicist. You literally cannot say the things in your post and still call yourself a physicist, because you are rejecting the physicist's positivism.
>We don't know what consciousness is
It is the ability to decipher and respond to your words, which requires a massive amount of computing on top of computing, with evolving algorithms, with the attendant ability to sense the connotations and subtle implications, and compute the consequences of those, that is the logical positive deinition of what it means to be conscious. There is no reason to suppose that the quality of consciousness is anything more than this computation, that's what it "feels like" to have such a massive computation.

>>11596631
>You are NOT a physicist. You literally cannot say the things in your post and still call yourself a physicist, because you are rejecting the physicist's positivism.

Your religion scientism is fading.

>>11596700
>Your religion scientism is fading.
What did he even mean by this?

>>11596700
What the fuck is scientism? What part of my post could you possibly disagree with?

>>11594864
Posts like this should unironically be censored. This is not a place for absolute free speech. It is a place for absolute BASEDSPEECH
And you post
IS
CRINGE

>>11594864
open individualism, retard

>>11594864
>"I, a..."
Let me stop you there, buddy.

Okay it seems the retards here are more concerned about my credentials rather than what I had to say about consciousness. Is that even surprising anymore?

>>11597563
Yes, people have more to do than listening to a homeless man on shrooms talking about cosmology
sage

>>11594865
>So "imagination" is real as matter, but it is not the same substance, as it is generated by self referencing of matter processes.

To summarise this part, are you trying to say that imagination as we know it is the perception of a 'ground truth' reality, i.e product of the flow and inhibition of neurotransmitters, and therefore different to reality in that it can be independently manipulated (e.g. perception of time can be skewed with alcohol)?

If so, then how does that contradict the ground truth of the flow of time? After all, the car is still crashing into the tree, faster than the inebriated driver perceives it.

>>11597578

bump and kys

>>11594864
>posts a painting made by (((ESCHER)))

https://forward.com/schmooze/174693/the-religious-art-of-mc-escher/

> World War II found Escher “upset that the Germans took away his teacher Samuel Jessurun de Mesquita, and his family,” according to Piller. “[Escher] offered his Jewish friends, the Wertheim family (whom he knew since his early years in Rome), to have their eldest son in his house together with his own three boys. A younger Wertheim son told me that his elder brother also stayed with the Eschers for some time.”

> offered his Jewish friends
> his Jewish friends
> Jewish friends

Escher was friends with Jews and protected them.

And as for his teacher...
> (((Samuel Jessurun de Mesquita)))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Jessurun_de_Mesquita
> "Samuel Jessurun de Mesquita was born on 6 June 1868 into a Jewish family living in Amsterdam."

>>11594870
Einstein worshipper. And proceeds to post about "reasons" against Eternity.

>>11598308
>And proceeds to post about "reasons" against Eternity.

Pic related.

>>11596631
cringe

>>11596700
based

>>11596631
physicists do not need to be logical positivists, what the fuck are you talking about. Why would you think this?

>>11596631
>positivism
pure autism masquerading as an epistemology

>>11596700
I know you think your cute pictures make you look smart, but it doesn't work when you're talking to a person who actually knows something.

>>11598368
>>11598368
>physicists do not need to be logical positivists
That's false. Faggot. The reason is because Physicists are ALL positivists, ALL OF THEM. That means that they define their terms by observations. Positivism is ESSENTIAL for physics.
>what the fuck are you talking about. Why would you think this?
The philosophy started in physics, with Mach and Carnap (who was trained in physics), and it cannot die in physics, because it is essential for understanding physics, at least past 1900. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, holography, that's all positivism. That means that "God created the universe" is fundamentally meaningless, it is not wrong, it is not right, it is, in Pauli's phrase "not even wrong". It doesn't rise to the level of a meaningful utterance. If you have idea X and idea Y, and the two ideas are the same regarding all sense impressions, then they are the same idea. That's positivism, son. That's what we got here.

>>11594864
I hate this crap. It’s all solipsistic masturbation that amounts to some sort of weak ass meditative solipsistic investigation of your solipsistic ego consciousness and therefore appears to be a “loop”.

>>11599335
You could be ironically positivist or otherwise do positivist science and still suspend epistemological judgement regarding positivism— the evidence for which and the arguments for which have long been fairly weak.

>>11594864
Have you read The Language of God by Francis Collins?

>>11596631
>"feels like"
Why is feels like in quotes? As if to say that the term feels like is inaccurate and misleading. Like you are trying to say that the computation causes people to say or believe they feel like something, when they really don't. It is clearer then day that people really actually do feel things for real.

>>11596631
>>11597301
>>11597339
>>11599015
Logical positivism has been refuted countless times, look into it. Scientific method is fine but to be so close minded about it is autistic.

>>11594870
You should think this part through. I don't really see how your first assertions disprove determinism.

>>11596700
>>11597301
>>11597339
>>11599015
>>11599335

Logical positivism has been refuted countless times, look into it. To be so closed minded about this is autistic.

>>11599375
No, he's saying that what you experience as consciousness is just the level of computation that is occurring in the materialistic reality we inhabit. Meaning, there is not a higher dimension where thought exists, but it's just a byproduct of physical mechanisms that can be observed. It's not that the term 'feel' is misleading, he just highlighted it because feeling is a result of the underlying activity of the brain.