/sci/ - Science & Math

Probably.

Consciousness is the background that the brain feeds sensation into. The consciousness remains but it remains blank until a new brain feeds it.

>>12048239
Seems about right within space-time contimum but from an outsider view nothing is created nothing is destroyed

>>12048243
You ca't prouve that

>>12048239
No, you see, the body is more like a terminal and a server. The server is located in the quantum foam, while the terminal is located in "tangible reality". Just like server and terminal, the server can still run "headless".

>>12048249
>ca't prouve

>>12048251
>literal dualism
ishygddt

>>12048263
Prove me wrong.

>>12048239
Yes. Not only that, but if you disrupt specific processes within the brain, your consciousness disappears (and comes back again when these processes are initiated again).

>>12048278
no u

>>12048278
Dualsim isn't a testable hypothesis, which is why it's ignored in science. If you can't test it, it's a shit idea.

>>12048239
Not if you have a back up of the operating system and all the other files

>>12048239
the BIOS doesn't disappear tho since that's located on the motherboard. also hard drives are considered secondary memory and arent technically necessary

>>12048283
>>12048286
I'm not hearing, or seeing, any proof to the contrary. This is how I know I'm right. You see, this revelation was granted unto me by the Great Boltzmann brain that hums throughout the quantum foam in the form of fluctuations, it interacts with itself, and other quantum minds through constructive inference. You should open your minds, anons, take some DMT and hear the Boltzmann converse with you and countless others.

>>12048302
take your medz schizo

>>12048239
Sounds correct to me

>>12048251
Popsci, compsci fags need not apply

>>12048307
>>12048312
Heathens.

>>12048286
>If you can't test it, it's a shit idea.
Wrong

Yeah, pretty much

>>12048323
what are you even doing on this board you retard

>>12048239
Harddrive is just the memory. Better comparison is CPU. No 2 CPUs are the same even though the sport the same hardware. Memories and programs can be transferred. The chemical reaction that the CPU experience within its life time cannot be replaced.

I personally like to believe every CPU has its own sense of consciousness.

>>12048286
>Dualsim isn't a testable hypothesis
neither is the alternative, that's literally the point

>>12048338
>I personally like to believe
wow, two personal biases in a single sentence, /sci/ is worse than usual
>>12048355
>neither is the alternative
hello??? where have you seen a conscious person without the brain???

>>12048330
This is the board for science and math. I'm in a master's school for mathematical physics.

>>12048358
>hello??? where have you seen a conscious person without the brain???
Yes, it came to me in a dream.

>>12048358
I was clearly digressing with that comment. You must be a libfag. You guys literally lack the ability to; think deep, laugh, understand nuance or reflect.

>>12048302
new anon here
You can literally alter consciousness just by altering the brain. For example, caffeine blocks adenosine signalling, which blocks the signalling of "tiredness". Some painkillers act by stopping specific neurons from firing.
If the mind was separate from the body, if the "server" could run "headless", then it wouldn't matter what you do to the body, the mind would still persist. Yet we can use anaesthetics to stop consciousness temporarily. We can stop the ability to form new declarative memories by destroying parts of the brain. Loss-of-consciousness epilepsy is well documented, and so on.

If the mind is independent of the body, then why does the mind disappear when we use global anaesthetics? Why do mental functions disappear or become worse when we affect the brain?

btw, I know you're trolling or retarded, but this post is for other anons who read this thread

>>12048355
It literally is though you idiot. Death isn't the only form of unconsciousness, and you can experimentally induce it and then reverse it perfectly fine without physically destroying a brain.

>>12048391
Well no, because that could simply be explained by X chemical affecting the interaction between the server and the terminal, it in no way precludes there being a server and terminal-esque interaction. Nice try though, smooth-brain.

>>12048358
>hello??? where have you seen a conscious person without the brain???
wow anon, you're a genius! because of you we can now build a machine to detect consciousness!

Reminder that property dualism is true and you're a brainlet if you don't understand this.

>>12048379
oh no he will call me p-zombie next whatever shall i do other than mock him for being so stupid to miss the point of the thought experiment...

>>12048361
So what example do you have of an hypothesis that fundamentally untestable yet still influential in science?

>>12048413
His feelings of course, the driving force of research and the development of knowledge.

>>12048403
>affecting the interaction between the server and the terminal
So does consciousness persist even if the body is destroyed?

>>12048425
Of course it does, in the same way that the server keeps processing requests, keeps counting, keeps permuting. The consciousness is eternal, and cumulative.

>>12048413
"influential in science" is not the metric for whether or not an idea is a good idea or not.
But to answer: string theory.
>>12048422
you are not intelligent

>>12048433
Prove it

>>12048436
It's already proven. Your posts are proof that you are not intelligent.

>>12048433
>is not the metric for whether or not an idea is a good idea or not.
It is, on the science board.
>string theory
Is not fundamentally untestable, only testable to a very limited extent with current tools. Try again.

>>12048440
Sure bro, I'll take your hot opinions as a fact

>>12048444
If a theory requires you to build a machine the size of the universe, it is fundamentally untestable.

>>12048450
I'm not posting any opinions of mine.

>>12048432
Then why does consciousness disappear when you use a global anaesthetic?
I've had global anaesthesia before, when I had surgery, and my consciousness disappeared; not even dreams
Everyone who has been given a global anaesthetic losses consciousness like this.
If consciousness persisted after death, it would persist while the brain is non-functional due to anaesthesia

>>12048239
Yes. But if you are a computer enthusiast, you'll backup your hard drive before throwing it in the garbage. Thus OS lives in another computer build.

>>12048463
Because the server runs real-time, and doesn't queue streaming. In other words, when you are rendered unconscious by general anaesthesia, all it is doing is limiting what information your terminal can receive and relay. In other words, you do dream when you are under general anaesthesia, but you aren't aware of the dream, and nor are you later informed about the dream, because it has already past.

>simulationfags have arrived
thread over

>>12048477
But am I not the server itself?
I send signals to the terminal, but I am the conscious server.
But when the terminal is damaged or out of commission, I (the server) cease to operate

>>12048452
A machine like that would only be needed to directly probe the energies of quantum gravity, but string theory also makes predictions about cosmic background radiation that are directly testable.

>>12048463
No idea. Why don't you ask the Great Boltzmann?

>>12048484
I deleted it, because I realized it was bullshit and didn't make sense. In fact, if it were true, the general anaesthesia should make you aware of the quantum foam itself, as data would no longer being forwarded straight to the terminal as the terminal is rendered entirely inoperable.

>>12048492
You deleted it.
You thought it was true, which is why you posted it. Then you changed your mind, when you realised you were wrong.

How do you know you aren't wrong now, and just haven't realised it?

checkmate, you smooth brain :^)

>>12048498
The Great Boltzmann lied to me, anon, why can't we perceive the true nature of reality in the quantum foam when we're under general anaesthesia? All I remember was the fucking awful woozy feeling from the fentanyl.

>>12048502
If you mean "I think we should be able to perceive quantum foam when under general anaesthesia. We don't perceive it. Why?"
It's because how you feel/think the world should work is wrong. Though this isn't an insult against you. Most people don't seem to be unable to conceive that how they think the world works is actually incorrect.
They come up with an internally consistent belief system, which doesn't actually represent true reality. But they take the internal consistency as proof that they are correct.
If you're interested in the topic, read up on coherentism and the plurality objection and the problem of defining coherence (in epistemology)

>>12048502
If you mean "I think we should be able to perceive quantum foam when under general anaesthesia. We don't perceive it. Why?"
It's because how you feel/think the world should work is wrong. Though this isn't an insult against you. Most people don't seem to be able to conceive that how they think the world works is actually incorrect.
They come up with an internally consistent belief system, which doesn't actually represent true reality. But they take the internal consistency as proof that they are correct.
If you're interested in the topic, read up on coherentism and the plurality objection and the problem of defining coherence (in epistemology)

>>12048239
I'm surprised the word consciousness didn't send this straight to /x/, some below even egging for an answer, haha.

anyways, my owo time.

all is one, one is all, everything is encoded holofractally on the prime unit

>If your computers hard drive get destroyed, the operating system information, which is holofractally encoded on each 'individual' piece of existence scatters into a new form, its signal untuned into noise. With the proper photon backtracing phase conjugate mirrors, the information perhaps could be returned from the reflection.

>I don't see any physical difference in the human brain

To myself, it is the perception of separateness, generated from a holographic unity, a restriction to sensory experience, that shapes consciousness. A bird, a river, a mountain, a projection of the allness in its own domain.

>>12048564
I'm joking anon, that's quite apparent from my posting.

>>12048570
kill yourself redditnigger, your kind is not welcome here.

>>12048463
Just to add to this: people are blatantly overlooking the fact that we are unconscious for several hours literally every night, during the deep stages of slow wave sleep. The neural processes at play during anesthesia and slow wave sleep (and also coma) are largely the same, in that they disrupt the information transfer along apical dendrites of layer V cortical pyramidal neurons, thereby breaking reverberant intra-cortical and cortico-thalamic-cortical loops. This reverberant activity is what underlies conscious experience in many current neuroscientific account of consciousness.

>>12048574
when you share a board with literal schizos, like Jonathan Tooker, you can never be sure who is sincere

>>12048582
Tooker is a fucking nutcase, have you seen his arXiv?

>>12048575
Always a bigger fish
a more complex turing test
consciousness as possessed by man independent of environment will be doomed to untestability. I just dodge the premise with the supposition its all conscious, the rocks, the planets and the ayys and philiosophically demands the supposition of man with nature, rather than against

>>12048578
The problem with using sleep as an example of unconsciousness is that it's not easy for an individual to determine loss-of-consciousness when asleep, and it may muddy the discussion by people who think "sleep and dreams == unconscious".

Whereas with anaesthesia, you go from one experience in time, with a clear conscious mind, to another later point in time, with a clear conscious mind, and a large apparent time interval (of minutes or hours or longer) between the two points.

It's easier to use a more clear example of unconsciousness

>>12048585
I've seen some of his work, and some of his posts on /sci/ seem rational and non-schizo. I could probably show selected posts and papers to a third-party who knows nothing about tooker (and isn't a mathematician), and they'd think tooker is sane and maybe a genius

>>12048608
I think it's a case similar to Terry Davis, someone who is genuinely fairly intelligent, but is inherently limited in their productivity and clarity by their mental illness. Like Nash, but less useful.

>>12048239
>We are just atoms bro, trust me
>We are just like computers bro, trust me
You idiots need to understand that science is just a tool to understand the exoteric meaning of the universe. There is also the esoteric truth of existence which cannot be known and explained through science.

>>12048649
Thank you for your contribution, Chopra. Hope you have a good day.

>>12048649
>we are just souls bro, trust me
>we are just forms bro, trust me
>we are just consciousness bro, trust me
Religion and philosophy is no better.

>>12048596
I see what you're saying but it's quite unambiguous that we lose consciousness for at least some of the time when asleep. And I personally find it helpful to use an example of something that without exception everyone experiences. But I understand why you chose this particular example.

>>12048578
>This reverberant activity is what underlies conscious experience in many current neuroscientific account of consciousness.
To add just a little bit more, here's an overview of these accounts:

Recurrent sweep account:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16997611/

Global workspace account:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896627320300520
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16603406/

Integrated information account:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27225071/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.2307/25470707

A more recent cellular integration account:
https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(20)30175-3

>>12048239
More like
>if your computers hard drive gets destroyed, the running desktop environment session also disappears

The os disappearing would be more like memory disappearing. Its just recorded data, consciousness is in the present moment

>>12048239
No, and you can discover that it's not by meditating. Materialists believe they have the rational upper hand in consciousness debates because there seems to be no data in favor of consciousness being independent of the body, but they rarely ever address what master meditators have to say.

>>12052225
>Materialists believe
you're in the /sci/entific board, king of faggots

>implying the brain and nervous system isn't simply an antenna for the conscious source

>>12048249
Nice reductio ad retardatio.

Mainstream science and mainstream theology's opposition to the indisputable truth that is panprotopsychism is kinda quaint and adorable.

>>12052225

>>12052770
Completely and totally brain-dead

>>12048249
top kek, looks like your brain is already destroyed there bud

>>12048243
>the brain feeds sensation into.
That is called the central nervous system, though.

>>12048278
Ok, but in the time of quarantine, I don't think I should come over there to cut your head off, so maybe you can just set up a webcam and cut your own head off to see how long your server can still run for posterity.

>>12048307
drugs seems to be his problem, unfortunately there is no medicine to cure delusions caused by psychedelic overdose, you just have to hope they fad over time before he has a chance to hurt himself with his own bad ideas.

>>12048379
Your argument is that you think you live, laugh, love better that everyone else?

>>12048432
Servers can crash too, though.

>>12048463
>Then why does consciousness disappear when you use a global anaesthetic?
A lot of people have reported OOBEs on general anesthetics, though.

>>12052225
What about what master schizophrenics have to say, why do you continually ignore people who make no sense whose anecdotal evidence is easily demonstrated as delusional?

>>12052362
Why don't you just upgrade to a better antenna then?
Why stay here impotently broadcasting your opinion to people who don't really care when you could just change bodies and inhabit a national leader or highly influential person who demands people's attention?

>>12053359
>when you could just change bodies and inhabit a national leader or highly influential person
how the fuck would an antenna do this

>>12053376
Are you asking how more fidelity between the server and terminal would add communication and output gains?

>>12048239
If thinks like Boltzmann brains are possible, there's no reason why your brain couldn't eventually be recreated given infinite time and chances.

>>12053384
One antenna cannot become another antenna

>>12053359
Because that's not the point.

We all have to upgrade eventually, though
see: discarnate
later: reincarnate

>>12053388
I said upgrade, not turn it into another antenna.
If not, then your analogy is terrible since you can always use another antenna or cord in a server/terminal situation.

>>12053392
According to "master mediators", you should be able to accomplish that through meditation and astral projection that puts projects your spirit into a new container.

all this shit is gay

>>12048239
Atheists think they're correct about everything, even their own lack of Divinity. Retards.

>>12053444
Nah, they are constantly changing their minds and inventing new unfalsifiable divine beings like aliens, simulator beings, roku's basilisks, or simply their own psyche.

>>12053506
Whatever you say, buddy, "there's no Creator and you're not affected by demons right now"

>>12053526
>there's no Creator
Like I said various atheists say it could be aliens, a simulation, AI, solipsism, etc without relying directly on a theological omnipotent god creator, but still using all the divine creative properties associated with one that can't be logically measured.

>>12053540
Oh, you were being serious. I thought you were trying to make fun.

>>12053543
Actually, I was seriously making fun of their cognitive dissonance to show how woowoo divine thinking easily corrupts materialistic scientific pursuits.

>>12053553
>some nerd's sci-fi speculative meme is science

>>12053557
I clearly said its a corruption of science brought on by the cognitive dissonance of atheists who believe in woo.

>>12053553
I'm not the anon you're replying to but if you're talking about the average /sci/ poster then might not even disagree. But if you're talking about mainstream scientific literature of consciousness then I think your position is unfounded.

>>12053661
>mainstream scientific literature of consciousness
Those are mostly written by Christians and Deists, not Atheists, we were talking about atheists specifically, not mainstream scientists.

>>12053676
But that's simply wrong, mainstream scientific literature on consciousness is very much materialistic in nature. See this post: >>12050280

Feel free to point out how these papers are corrupted by theist thinking, or otherwise wrong fundamentally.

>>12053351
Out of body experiences are extremely rare.
And they don't seem to be "real" out of body experiences, by which I mean, studies where they hide images that can't normally be seen by a patient (except during OOBE) are never reported by a patient who has an OOBE.

It seems that it's a dream-like state where a person dreams about whats happening to them, and incorporates what they hear/feel/smell/taste into their dream.
For example, I have several times heard my phone alarm or clock alarm in my dreams, and dreamed they were music or a fire alarm or something similar.
I've had dreams where I wake up (in my bed), and go about my day, and that all turns out to be a dream.

Probably a patient has a rare genetic variant where they metabolize anaesthetic more quickly than normal, or their brain doesn't fully get anaesthetized.

Though, like I said before, an /x/-phile can come up with some internally consistent paranormal explanation for all this stuff if they wanted. Internal consistency is not indicative of truth, and I'm not interested in a paranormal/schizo discussion lmao

>>12053687
>mainstream scientific literature on consciousness is very much materialistic
Theology and Materialism are not mutually exclusive and the mindset of those writing that literature is generally from a Theist or Deist perspective since most of the scientists behind the writings are some flavor of Abrahamic faith.

The Big Bang for instance as the origin of the universe is corrupted by the musings of the Catholic Priest who originally invented and championed the hypothesis based on Thomas Aquinas's theology and has had to be changed dramatically since its inception to make it better fit observation over time.

>>12053692
Lots of things that disprove an assumption are rare, that is why the assumption exists in the first place, but the very fact that it does happen disproves that consciousness necessarily disappears under anesthesia.

>"real"
They don't need to be sensation derived from real impulses to prove that consciousness, even dream level consciousness, still lingers.

>>12053703
>the mindset of those writing that literature is generally from a Theist or Deist perspective
You keep saying this but it's not correct. It sounds to me like you're not actually read up on this literature at all, but simply have your preconceived notion and are unwilling to consider otherwise.

Again, feel free to point out specific examples of this in the articles I referred you to. You'd have to read them first, or give them a cursory glance at the very least. Without specific examples to corroborate your position this discussion is pointless, and I won't continue it.

>>12048239
the brain is an optimization process
at some point it created structures that can tap into an abstract emergent propriety (consciousness)

it exists independently of the brain, in the same way that numbers "exist" but cannot be pointed to in the real world.

the brain brings out specific proprieties of "consciousness", and is a requirement for you to exist, assuming you define yourself to be your sense of observation, self, and perspective

if you get abstract enough with your definition of self, you can claim that you are more than your brain, however you have to accept that your brain will cease, and it will at some point be unable to tap into the eternal proprieties it uses to achieve a sense of self, it is only those proprieties of consciousness that are eternal, your brain can not be carried into those proprieties and exist within them

>>12053707
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16603406/
No matter how much they try to get atheists to contribute, consciousness is rooted in a belief in the psyche which itself started as a material attempt to explain the soul and spirit.

>George A.Mashour
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3041698/
One of the first authors I saw in one of your links that had more information in english than another language, also wrote this where he explicitly links consciousness to a Judeo-Christian tradition.
Nice sidestepping of the Big Bang, though, I know it isn't consciousness directly, but it still shows how magical thinking corrupts science.

>>12048239
probably but not because of your premise, people who compare humans to computers are brainlets, same as people who compare political events to movies they've seen because they can't actually understand it

>>12053732
>No matter how much they try to get atheists to contribute, consciousness is rooted in a belief in the psyche which itself started as a material attempt to explain the soul and spirit.
This isn't an argument, this is simply re-articulating your flawed position. The paper explicitly describes a mechanistic model that is fundamentally materialist and has nothing to do with "soul", or "spirit".

>One of the first authors I saw in one of your links that had more information in english than another language
???? so????

> also wrote this where he explicitly links consciousness to a Judeo-Christian tradition.
I'm not denying that this field has Judeo-Christian roots, because many scientific fields do. However, this is irrelevant because the field has moved past these roots and evolved towards materialist models. These are the current standard, and up for debate right now. Judeo-Christian tradition does not influence mainstream thinking in these models at all because they are a move away from dualistic interpretations and describe consciousness in terms of cause-and-effect neural machinery. If you disagree with this, then you should point out where exactly in these models the hidden dualism lies. Simply stating that it is there is not sufficient.

>Nice sidestepping of the Big Bang, though, I know it isn't consciousness directly
I sidestepped it because you're shifting goalposts. It has nothing to do with the discussion about the scientific literature on consciousness.

>>12052899
Maybe you should spend more time with some thoughts.

>>12053771
>The paper explicitly describes a mechanistic model that is fundamentally materialist
In the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas and all the missionaries who constantly try to reframe divinity to manipulate a particular audience particularly through materialism and shared experience.

>???? so????
I don't read Dutch and the translations seemed shitty and in broken english, so it was easier to pick the first on whose info wasn't obscured by a language barrier.

> However, this is irrelevant because the field has moved past these roots
How does a tree move past its roots?
Do you understand how roots work?

>Judeo-Christian tradition does not influence mainstream thinking
Yea right they are just the gatekeepers who run numerous universities, publish a lot on the topic, create hybrids like Christian Science, and receive a lot of science grants.

>then you should point out where exactly in these models the hidden dualism lies
I already did, they call it the Psyche.

Sorry you can't see how the model for the origin of everything would affect the model of our perception of everything, but my original premise was every science discipline is corrupted by woo, not just consciousness even though it is particularly tricky since there isn't a single physical metric to directly model consciousness outside of psychometric woo-based abstractions.

>>12053791
I think we're done here. You clearly haven't read the articles or even considered them, because what you're saying has nothing to do with them. Have a nice day.

>>12053808
The discussion is not about the articles, but the inspiration and motivation in churning out consciousness oriented literature.

>>12053811
>not about the articles
they are literally the preeminent scientific accounts of consciousness.

>>12053815
And they are literally written by people who start articles referencing the Judeo-Christian tradition.

>>12053817
I've already mentioned why this is irrelevant. You're not critiquing the articles, so I'm done and leaving the thread now.

>>12053829
I already mentioned why the articles are irrelevant in determining the motivation of the authors, so yes this is the third time you ignored the real discussion so it probably is best to take your little ball, tuck tail, and leave.

>>12053771
>The paper explicitly describes a mechanistic model that is fundamentally materialist and has nothing to do with "soul", or "spirit".
And yet by some miracle, they still don't do anything to discredit the soul or spirit and explicitly support the psychological ideal of the psyche as a mechanism of consciousness almost like they are in cahoots with the people who are trying to sell us on souls and spirits.

>>12053872
>explicitly support the psychological ideal of the psyche as a mechanism of consciousness
wrong

>>12053843
>the scientific literature on consciousness is littlered with woowoo divine thinking
>the scientific literature on consciousness is irrelevant to the discussion
make up your mind buddy

>>12048302
>I cant hear proof to the contrary
You are a faggot. Prove me wrong.
Pro tip: You can't.

>>12048239

The more you align your ego with the eternal soul the more of you survives death.

>>12053955
Its just an irrelevant coincidence that they often reference Judeo-Christian values, right.

>>12053987
are you retarded or something?

>>12053706
I’m not saying consciousness cannot linger in some individuals with particular doses of particular anaesthetics.

I’m making two different points.
The first is, I don’t know if you’re a schizo who thinks people ACTUALLY leave their body when they have an “out of body” experience, so I brought up the studies that tried to find evidence for ACTUALLY leaving your body, and they failed.
In this case, the only “evidence” is people who were given a mind altering drug and then “experienced”/hallucinated/dreamed being out of their body.

The other point is, yes consciousness can persist in a rare small proportion of anaesthetised patients. But if our consciousness was in some disembodied server, that runs whether the body is dead or alive, then no one should lose consciousness when given anaesthesia. Yet the vast majority, about 99.9977% lose consciousness until after the anaesthesia is stopped. The question then is, if consciousness persists on a “server” after death (and our body is a “terminal”), but does not persist when anaesthetised or undergoing certain types of epilepsy, then what is happening?
The obvious and simplest explanation is that consciousness does not persist after death on some quantum server.

Whether some people are not fully unconscious in some cases doesn’t matter, because the argument made was that consciousness persist after death (when there is no brain), and so should persist in every case where the brain is incapacitated by anaesthesia

ITT: 'i freakin love science' goobers arguing with people who have a real sense of consciousness and spirituality.

don't get mad at me because i've unlocked more about the fabric of the universe than you

>>12054016
The irony here is that I literally have a PhD in neuroscience and do research on the neural basis of perception for a living. Yet you somehow seem to think that your meditation practices are a better source of information that the scientific literature.

>>12054016
> N-nooo my feels are true! OBVIOUSLY IF I FEEL SOMETHING IT MUST BE TRUEEEEEEEE.
>YOU SCIENCE GOOBERS ARE WRONG. YOU CANT JUST MEASURE NATURE AND HAVE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE IDEAS!!
>NOOOOO YOUR SCIENCE CONTRADICTS MY FEELINGS THEREFORE YOUR SCIENCE IS WROOOOONGGG
>REEEEEEEEEEE

>>12053791
The psyche is simply another name for the process that go on in our brain. It's a description of the same exact thing, simply in other terms. It has nothing to do with dualism.

>>12048649
Its already possible to attest to some degree that imagination, dreams, or mind generated images are purely physical phenomena by using AI to read brain activity, it all points that every process of the "mind" is bound by the realm of physics, more and more evidence points that our brains are just complex computers and mind is just abstraction arising from it, the brain literally communicates using some kind of protocol, with enough study the replication of this whole "mind" phenomena will be possible, reading minds to some degree is already reality but doing it with even greater precision is already in our reach, governments will be very happy with this.

>>12048239
No because the "bits" aren't saved on your brain, they written in the code of the aether. It is more like you are using web app, if you computer dies does the data in the app (jewtube) get erased? No you just use a different computer and log back on