/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12736324
the coof isn't real and much of human function and "personhood" is "dark," ie. of instinctive, unconscious, physiological origin.

my aunt had a brain tumor and lost a great deal of brain function, yet could still interact with the family at a level that shocked doctors.

slime molds have no brain or nervous system, yet are capable of creatively solving complex problems. even me writing this response to your post is driven by deeply unconscious, unseen factors rather than muh rationality and muh soul. at least i'm aware enough to accept that.

>>12736324
>We understand almost nothing about the brain
faggot

>>12736324
>>12736325
Implying theres a contradiction between science and a soul, take the bread pill and realise the God-consciousness solves all "paradoxes"

>>12736324
>Do you really think there is nothing left to learn?
No, I think there's still plenty to learn about the brain. God and the soul are non-solutions that only hinder our research into this and anyone who thinks consciousness comes from a reality "above" "the physical" is dangerous to science.

>>12736328
>dangerous to science.
I don't have a soijak with a mouth wide enough for this

>>12736329
The enemies of science should be burned at the stake for their heretical ideas. Our anointed scientists have published The Truth in the almighty Journals. The Journals are the Way and the Light of the world, and any who contradict the Word are anti-science.

>>12736324
>here, in this moment, the year 2021 AD, where retards believe that the coof isn't real and the vaccine is full of microchips
imagine choosing this one out of all of the available le current year strawmen

>>12736324
What wouldve happened if we had cut his remaining brain out? We don’t know everything, in fact we proabably won’t ever know everything but the brain is at the very least directly tied to the expression of consciousness in reality. The fact that this man with the extremely damaged brain was so lacking in intelligence reinforces that, he still had one so it’s not like we can say the brain doesn’t impact consciousness when it clearly does

>>12736329
>science bad because memes

>>12736328
do you even exist or are you a bot?

>>12736324
His brain is not nonexistent, it's just pushed against the walls of his skull.

1. Extreme materialism/physicalism/eliminativism/anti-emergentism is true, and although it's fun to humor metaphysical notions, in reality there is nothing beyond the strictly physical and mechanical.

2. It follows that life does not exist and is just a form of inorganic matter like self-reproducing crystals are. In fact, evolution-like mechanisms have been observed in crystals as well. Life is just a more complex, better kind of crystal - a crystalline structure of interconnected amino-acids. Some crystals tend to self-reproduce for as long as the external conditions allow. Life is the kind of crystal that started reproducing itself and never stopped, because it just grew bigger and bigger, and eventually through the process of natural selection, the crystals (life) that stopped reproducing "died out" while what is left now are the best crystals that just kept on reproducing.

3. It follows that the mind is also based on a crystal-like structure. The neurons form inter-connected complex crystalline structures where the key function is responding to stimuli. The problem is, at such complexity, the building blocks of the crystal start creating AND responding to INTERNAL stimuli, instead of external stimuli. That in effect is consciousness - a crystalline structure which is also subject to evolution through natural selection.

4. "Well how would you explain qualia then? How would you describe the pure *SENSATION* of experiencing color?" It's simple. Colors are just manifestations of energy. Think what energy really is. How it looks. Can you picture the essence of "energy?" It's hard to describe for sure. Most people imagine energy as formless and invisible. Wrong. Colors are the visual representation of energy - the philosophical essence, the inner property. When you see the color red, you see the visual essence of the energy contained in the 650 nm wave of photons (quanta of energy).

>>12736334
Are you an anti-intellectual luddite on purpose or is it out of knee-jerk contrarianism?

>>12736335
>humans are crystals
That's a real gem of an idea, anon.

No, but seriously, I agree with you and you're correct. Just wanted to get that pun out there.

Expect neuroscience to fully crack the functioning of the brain this century. We still won't know what consciousness is though, as we've never observed it in the first place.

Physicalists cope with this glaring hole in physicalism by either denying it's there (e.g. ackshually the neurotransmitters and electricity in the brain just is how a mind looks like from the outside. No, I can't explain how they would generate consciousness/awareness, just trust me, mmkay?), providing bizarre non-explanations (consciousness evolved. Ok, that's not actually an account of how elementary particles produce consciousness), or trying to operationalize consciousness, and if they're really terrified of the implications of physicalism not being true, outright deny consciousness exists because it cannot be operationalized/quantified, which amounts to using discursive reasoning to deny the one thing you can be totally sure of.

Then there's this thing where they try to say consciousness is information being processed in particular ways, without being able to dissolve information into elementary particles, the way physical things reduce into elementary particles, resulting in a really roundabout of way of saying consciousness is non-physical.

The cope is going to be glorious when more people start to realize the falseness of physicalism. So many contemporary viewpoints depend on physicalism being true.

>>12736325
>even me writing this response to your post is driven by deeply unconscious, unseen factors rather than muh rationality and muh soul. at least i'm aware enough to accept that.
nooooo you have to act rationally exclusively terms of material benefit versus risk REEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee

>>12736336
all those buzzwords just to show your facebook group tier understanding of the world

>>12736338
(this is why panpsychism is the logical conclusion)

>>12736324
>Do you really think there is nothing left to learn?
Who the fuck said that?
The materialists always bring up the fact that there is much more to learn about the brain

>>12736333
Scientific materialism bad because i logically untenable and self-refuting

>>12736324
I think a lot of what we are is also related to the nervous system as well. The brain plays a role as a central node in that network, but as this handicapped person demonstrates, you can be light on brain and still function.

>>12736335
factually correct

>>12736335
> 1. Extreme materialism/physicalism/eliminativism/anti-emergentism is true, and although it's fun to humor metaphysical notions, in reality there is nothing beyond the strictly physical and mechanical.

I’m not so sure.

>Philosophers[who?] debate if objects have properties independent of those dictated by scientific laws. For example, it might be metaphysically necessary, as some who advocate physicalism have thought, that all thinking beings have bodies[10] and can experience the passage of time. Saul Kripke has argued that every person necessarily has the parents they do have: anyone with different parents would not be the same person.[11]

>Metaphysical possibility has been thought to be more restricting than bare logical possibility[12] (i.e., fewer things are metaphysically possible than are logically possible). However, its exact relation (if any) to logical possibility or to physical possibility is a matter of dispute. Philosophers[who?] also disagree over whether metaphysical truths are necessary merely "by definition", or whether they reflect some underlying deep facts about the world, or something else entirely.

>>12736340
>facebook group tier understanding of the world
That's precisely how I view your medieval larp.

Materialism is the only rational position. Whole soulshit is over, but you may cope.

>>12736335
Some faggot will mock this anon by posting I love science soijaks but this is true.

>>12736324
First, source, because that image has been used before in an article, claiming it was from a man with an IQ of 126 - https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus , the actual source according to Gwern was from "a hydrocephalus patient with “deep cognitive and motor impairments”
>He had an IQ of 75, which is slow but not retarded,
They lowered the definition of retarded because it was catching too many AAs
>and was a married father of two with a job as a civil servant.
And? Neither takes much brains.

>>12736350
You're the brain on the left. OP is on the right.

>>12736351
Ya got me.

>>12736352
Literal brainlet.

Daily reminder that Fichte has never been refuted, the I posits all of reality within itself. Absolute Idealism is true and completely compatible with vitalism and process metaphysics.

>>12736324
Holy shit what happened to his brain

There is an exhaustive amount of neuroscientific literature and how it relates to cognition but if you want to dismiss all of that as "materialist" then yeah it will appear that we know very little about the topic. To put it simply, if there isn't a brain there is no personality or thoughts. I do think that most complex patterns of human behavior cannot be explained by or treated as a natural science but aspects of it can definitely be operationalized. Purely empiricist attitudes towards the mind can come off as myopic but lets not pretend they are entirely useless.

"Push It"

Ah, push it
Ah, push it

Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby

Get up on this!

Ow! Baby!
Salt and Pepa's here!

(Now wait a minute, y'all
This dance ain't for everybody
Only the sexy people
So all you fly mothers, get on out there and dance
Dance, I said!)

Salt and Pepa's here, and we're in effect
Want you to push it, babe
Coolin' by day then at night working up a sweat
C'mon girls, let's go show the guys that we know
How to become number one in a hot party show
Now push it

Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - push it real good
Ah, push it - push it good
Ah, push it - p-push it real good

Hey! Ow!
Push it good!

Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby
Oooh, baby, baby
Baby, baby

Push it good
Push it real good
Ah, push it
Ah, push it

Yo, yo, yo, yo, baby-pop
Yeah, you come here, gimme a kiss
Better make it fast or else I'm gonna get pissed
Can't you hear the music's pumpin' hard like I wish you would?
Now push it

Push it good
Push it real good
Push it good
P-push it real good

Ah, push it
Get up on this!

Boy, you really got me going
You got me so I don't know what I'm doing

Ah, push it

>>12736356
What is wrong with empirical biology?

>>12736358
Nothing. At least ive never met a biologist that tried to incorporate human consciousness into their physicalist methodology. My issues with empiricism were mostly aimed at psychologists and neuroscientist, because their influence is seeping into linguistics. I didn't even know about the status and history of scientific knowledge until I just couldnt ignore how unsuitable morris halle's "physicalist phonology" was at explaining intention in phonological processes. Its upsetting to see just how widely accepted the whole MIT scene is in the field of linguistics, ans to make matters worse many dismiss the structuralists and prague school as antiquated when theres alot to learn there, I suppose its just too unscientific for most.

>>12736359
Why do you think that "purely empiricist attitudes towards the mind" aren't enough?

i really dont understand how consciousness is held to be such a mystery. I think about what/who i am and what defines the experience of existence and I come up with a combination of genetic instincts, memories, and senses, there isnt really anything more to it than that, no mysterious variable or thing that doesn't make sense, everything about your personality and experience as a living being can be summed up by those categories

>>12736335
>1. Extreme materialism/physicalism/eliminativism/anti-emergentism is true, and although it's fun to humor metaphysical notions, in reality there is nothing beyond the strictly physical and mechanical.
Proofs?

>>12736324
>>12736338
>>12736354
>>12736356
By the end of the century, science will have discovered the truth of physicalism through the efforts of our modern scientists. In other words, we will have the truth of reality. I suspect neuroscience will aid us in making the case for that truth, and not the other way round. Take the example of a recent study published in a neuroscience journal. In it, authors Robert Epstein and Stephen Jove, who have been studying brain imaging over several decades, provide interesting evidence that physicalism is true. To prove that physicalism is true, Epstein and Jove replicated a brain using a computer. To demonstrate the validity of the computer-generated physical brain, the authors trained the model on pictures from around the world and observed whether the brain could reproduce these images accurately. It could, and so in the brain images were replicated correctly. This has important implications for the physicalist view of consciousness, since the exact tasks assigned to consciousness by critics of physicalism were replicated using a computer.

>>12736324
That image isn’t actually from the case you’re referring to in your post.

>>12736335
None of this proves mental states are reducible to brain activity, and I got my degree in Neuroscience. All it proves is mental states supervene on brain activity, that's it.
Science doesn't exist to uncover the nature of reality; it just exists to make predictions based on uncovering patterns in replicable data.

>>12736324
>Materialists will argue that consciousness and personhood comes from the brain.
Yes and you basically gave us literal evidence right after. What the fuck is this thread?

>hhhm me think big this time!
>me debunk materialist by using materialism!

>>12736365
If those prediction give us some what accurate result then declaring those "predictions" as truth is just the trick of semantics.

>>12736360
Because you cant treat an object with consciousness the same any other natural object. You cant observe intention and I dont think extrapolating intention from behavior is that effective.

>>12736328
can you prove the objectivity of the scientific method itself with "the physical"? No, you depend on many abstract concepts and ideas that you cannot prove physically yet have to believe are really true and acting in the world in order to have any faith in your experience and in turn the results of your science. If you don't think about the reality above "the physical" then you don't have any reason to think science has any meaning.

>>12736368
Right, one can't really derive an ontology from a field that largely focuses on devising models, based on various of data, in order to produce predictions for certain instrumental ends. Science has tremendous instrumental value, but it is a sickness to try to make it something it is not.

>>12736371
So we should give up on the idea of verifiable truth?

>>12736372
You should give up with the attempt of trying to find a unified theory of reality. There is none.

>>12736363
So physicalism will be revealed as the truth because an AI can replicate images fed to it? Link the article i dont think you are giving the best summary. Anyways your use of the word "truth" is classic physicalist absolutism. Truth is simply a necessary and effective social construction, its a rule.

>>12736374
>Truth is simply a necessary and effective social construction
is this statement true

>>12736373
I am too lazy to find crumbs of truths which may or may be not available on http://b-ok.cc/ to quench my hunger.
Fuck man I want to die.

>>12736375
Yes because language is another socially oriented rule.

>>12736377
>it is a social construction that it is a social construction that it is a social construction that it is a...

>>12736378
Recursivity starts when explaination reaches its extreme. So yes

>>12736361
Yeah, I don't get it either.

>>12736379
Then there would be no ground for these social constructions. Let me propose another idea, that the ground is in fact our senses' and reason's access to the exterior world, and truth is in fact more grounded by the relation between our mind and the world than by the relation between minds.

>>12736361
>>12736380
it's not the content that's the question, it's the phenomenon itself, ie. is a tree, a rock, a planet conscious? Why is consciousness seemingly localized and restricted to your brain, or only a portion of it.

>>12736335
>Yeah bro materialism is correct bro
>Okay, how do you explain consciousness and qualia?
>BRO CONSCIOUSNESS IS JUST ENERGY BRO, YOUR SOUL IS JUST ENERGY YOU DON'T REALLY EXIST XDDDDD

the absolute state of materialists

Panpsychism. All matter is concious yet not awake. What we call conciousness if just the awakeness of matter when it composes sufficiently complex systems of information processing.

>>12736381
Yeah I agree with you. It still doesn't change the fact that suprapersonal rules exist in social domains, like language and the word "truth".

>>12736385
I guess it depends on how we define truth, but many words refer to mental processes that aren't reliant on language.

>>12736335
>1. Extreme materialism/physicalism/eliminativism/anti-emergentism is true
You can't start an argument by assuming the point you are trying to prove is true.

>2. It follows that life does not exist and is just a form of inorganic matter like self-reproducing crystals are
Aside from the fact that all life on earth is literally composed of organic molecules (molecules with C-H bonds), life exists because it by definition meets the requirements for life, such as homeostasis, reproduction, passing on genetic information, etc. Implying that all life is as simple and automatic as the growth of a crystal is inaccurate.

>3. It follows that the mind is also based on a crystal-like structure.
This claim is unempirical and so vague as to be meaningless. The human brain is the most physically complex structure in the universe, and reducing its processes to merely "responding to stimuli" is an oversimplification.

>4. It's simple. Colors are just manifestations of energy
Physically 'colors' don't exist. There are different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, all with different properties. Some of those are visible to us because our eyes are evolved to detect them. Within that range they are differentiated by how our brains process them. There is nothing essentially "red" about a 650 nm wavelength of electromagnetic energy, other species such as dogs or even other humans such as colorblind people experience that same stimuli differently.

>>12736363
> a computer being able to replicate images means consciousness doesn't exist.
Being able to replicate an image is not the same as being able to experience it.

>>12736328
Impressive naivety, and as a philosopher of science I have quite a long response for you, but as an anon I'm just going to reiterate >>12736329 (checked)

>>12736335
>eliminativism is true
Dang, and a soijak you too, p-anon. You and your "skepticism is true but I know everything ideology."

>>12736338
>>12736371
Het, not bad anon.

>>12736325
>slime molds have no brain or nervous system, yet are capable of creatively solving complex problems
QRD?

>>12736388
>philosopher of science

>>12736370
"The physical" simply means "observable reality." If you contend that consciousness is caused by something outside of observable reality, then you're talking about something that has nothing to do with science and naturally would be dangerous to it.

>>12736388
>>12736390

>>12736390
The mouth should be bigger. But anyhow, some anons do have jobs.

>>12736390
>soi 1

lel imagine hoarding, naming, and arranging all that shit so you can more readily post them in case someone on the 4chins hurts your feelings. Checked those digits, though

>>12736335
Oh hello crystal boy, i somewhat missed you.

>>12736387
>>12736362
It really shows how far this board has fallen when that post started out with midwits fawning over it

>>12736386
>many words refer to mental processes that aren't reliant on language.
I don't know what you mean by this exactly. Can you give an example?

>>12736394
It takes less than a second to name a file when you have a system.

>>12736397
the word loud refers to mental process of hearing that doesn't rely on language

>>12736397
It's a lost cause, Richard. You're arguing with people who never finished undergrad.

>>12736347
Rootless urban parasite.

>starts an argument saying "what I'm going to say is true"
you can't make this shit up

>>12736400
that would make it easier not harder to win the argument

>>12736399
The word "loud" doesn't rely on language? Your sentence is illogical.

>>12736335
You had me until “manifestations of energy”. Color is the only thing that’s invoked when talking about qualia. Under this premise it's not clear to me why we have emotional responses to artificial stimuli (using artificial to refer to human-made). I'm thinking specifically about music but I'm sure there are more examples. Maybe architecture, or the design of objects in applied settings, like boats, or trains, or armchairs...things that aren't "mimetic" in their composition, like literature, theater, the visual arts (those things that directly portray representations found in human experience). It would make sense to me, under physicalism, why I would cry at the end of King Lear -- I can attach tragedy to the events before me because those events represent things that we would find tragic in real life. But I can’t answer why the friska sections of the Hungarian Rhapsodies have the very clear character of “fun” or why I get a powerful autistic thrill when I see a train roll past.

My question is why should there be any emotional associations with these artificial objects/sensory things at all when they have no obvious corollary in the natural world…associations that are clear, definable, and existent across independent minds. You’ll make the case that these responses are socially defined (a dominant doesn’t resolve to a tonic *necessarily*). I’m very convinced of a “music-qua-music” mindset. This goes beyond the color example because it does. I’m finished now. Hope it made sense or it got somebody’s noggin joggin.

Just call me a retard or to seethe or cope. I guess you can be brutally reductive to every craft on earth. Fuck me let’s make a death pact I guess LOL. I can think of no better and more sophisticated definition of nihilism. I really don’t believe you’ve taken this stuff to heart. There’s something else at the root of you people trying to sell this stuff...being antinatalist and a sour person does get you laid so there’s that.

>>12736404
The mental process of hearing which the word loud refers to(a loud noise) doesn't rely on language

>>12736324
>We understand almost nothing about the brain -
>We
Quite the royal We you're using. The brain is an adaptive network. Brain injury studies have long documented the surprising capacity for it to functionally reconfigure itself after serious damage. How it achieves this sometimes while at other times a single piece of shrapnel through the skull cuts a wire and kills someone instantly is indeed a mystery. But supposing a bigger mystery "the soul" in place of it does not lead to any understanding.

>>12736324
Most processing is done on the outer surface area. Your example is not surprising at all and is what you would expect if the mind were the brain.

>>12736335
>in reality there is nothing beyond the strictly physical and mechanical.
if consciousness is just a result of mechanical process then computers should generate a consciousness, but they don’t

>>12736405
Pain and the feeling of being a bat are also classic qualia.

>>12736409
we don't know if they generate a consciousness or not, or in general which things are conscious and which aren't. The retard who wrote that post is trying to say that consciousness doesn't exist at all

>>12736406
Well of course. Even in rhe physicalist sense, trees don't rely on language to exist. Language relies on things. How these things are communicated is when the social structure emerges. This social structure is a phenomenon inaccesible to physicalism despite it being grounded on it. My point is that empricism and physicalism are a method and philosophy unequipted to explain or say anything interesting about these social structures.

>>12736390
You don’t even know what philosophy of science is. I bet you have opinions that would fall into philosophy of science and you don’t even realize it.

>>12736328
>God and the soul are non-solutions that only hinder our research
They only hinder research because researchers refuse to consider them as options :^)

>>12736401
Just because you haven't read any science of the last 300 years doesn't mean I'm rootless.

>>12736335
Photons arent matter. You debooned yourself faggot.

>>12736357
shut the fuck up and turn off your gay name

>>12736361
Consciousness is probably just a feeling of neural activity we all share. Why evolution decided this was important is perhaps a more interesting question.
Many of us would probably be happier without this sensation.

>>12736418
>Why evolution decided this was important
Is evolution itself conscious?

There are some very good arguments in favor of pure physicalism, but there remains a huge explanatory gap, and all theories are still unprovable. We still have no idea how a lump of matter can "wake up" and start having a subjective experience. That said, I don't think we're ever going to crack it, we'll never have a coherent theory of consciousness that we can prove. Even if we make succesful AIs, they'll just be complex algorithms, "chinese rooms" without the real thing going on inside.

>>12736418
>many of us would probably be happier without this sensation
"this sensation" includes the happiness construct, and in its lower form, pleasure is a good means of directing animals toward the conduits of reproduction

>>12736325
>the coof isn't real
stopped reading right there

>>17603222
This is the answer. There are no substances, only processes. Reality is self-luminous.

>>12736420
>without the real thing going on inside
The real thing would be the self-luminious existence of the algorithm. It would not be like a brain because a brain is extremely dense and is great at fooling itself into thinking that it's processing constitutes a substance. An algorithm doesn't try to fool itself into believing it has free-will, a concrete ego, mental substance, etc.

>>12736335
>>12736337
>>12736345
>>12736349
One of these retards thought that the bullshit crystal argument was so profound that they made a thread challenging others to debunk it, which was done instantly.

>>12736361
Consciousness is just the secular term for "soul", anon.

>>12736330

>>12736423
the algorithm can't be 'extremely dense' and programmed to 'fool itself into believing it has free will'?

>>12736427
It could be, and then the algorithm would start to question it's own consciousness in its confusion.

>>12736423
>self-luminious
I really hate this subtle buddhist shilling we've been having lately.

>>12736423
You're implying awareness precedes a brain, which even with panpsychism isn't how things work.

>>12736423
>self-luminious existence of the algorithm
algorithms are not self-luminous, consciousness is but consciousness is not an algorithm

>>12736324

>>12736424
>which was done instantly.
where?

>>12736335
How can you be certain there aren’t metaphysical matters hidden behind things here?

>>12736365
What pursuit of knowledge pertains to understanding the nature of reality?

>>12736361
>>12736380
the problem with materialism is that experience/qualia isnt made out of the same substance (as far as we know) as the material. we dont know the relationship between these two substances but they seem to have one. the immaterial part is the part that "you" are observing right now. it is qualia. not intelligence, not memories, not thoughts, not intentions, but the feeling and being those things.
>>12736418
the impossibility to "have" a feeling at all is the problem. not the mechanical creation of that feeling but the feeling of that feeling. imagine there was a chincese person for every one of your brain cells and they communicated just like your brain did. they would process information very similarly to our brains but would they have a collective unified first person experience? even if they did, would it be because the chinese people were conscious in the first place?

>>12736328
>anyone who thinks consciousness comes from a reality "above" "the physical" is dangerous to science.
That's not a very empirical contention. Materialism and idealism are both unproven metaphysical claims.

>>12736324
>>>/his/

>>12736335
4 is a non answer and a cope.

>>12736338
The irony here is that it's you who is assuming the gap. On what basis do you assume the gap between experience and physical processes of the brain? I mean, at least neuroscience is making headway (pun intended), whereas consciousness mysticizers are spinning their wheels referring to undefinables like 'non-physicality'. Sure, science doesn't have a complete accounting, but it has a partial one, and you don't even have that... Your position is entirely negative, you can't point to a 'gap' or make any predictions or posit an alternative hypothesis (you can't even positively define your terms). I hope you can appreciate how intellectually dishonest you are.

>>12736335
Viruses are a good example of an intermediate between the behaviour of crystals and what is generally considered 'life'.

>>12736343
That's funny, because logic itself is empirically abstracted from the consistent relations of an apparently physical reality.

>>12736384
Isn't that like saying all water is coffee, but coffee just isn't awake until you add the ground beans? Seems unnecessarily obtuse.

>>12736387
>Physically 'colors' don't exist. There are different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
EM radiation is physical, and so are the structures/processes of sensation. So yes, colours do physically exist, just not as universal 'qualia' (but as tropes).

>>12736405
Not him, but philosophical nihilism doesn't preclude embracing your nature. I can contemplate the fact that values have no cosmic provenance, and this fact doesn't make me stop having values. I can consider the 'machinery' of emotion, and this doesn't prevent me from being passionate. Sure, on some level understanding will always threaten romanticism, but it doesn't have to annihilate it.

>>12736418
It's an evolutionary niche that was unfilled. Having awareness allowed for (relatively) large organisms that could be more mobile and responsive to their environment.

>>12736324
The right is not a normal brain at all dude lol, have you actually ever seen a MRI before? This board is supposed to have more fellow physicians; im not even a radiologist or a neurologist and both those MRIs are completely fucked

>>12736324
a huge part of our 'self' lies in the microbiome
they don't call it a "gut feeling" for nothing

>>12736335
Most biomolecules would fall under the realm of time crystals not spatial ones. But I agree on several levels.

>>12736324
Isn't most of the thinking done in the folds on the outside of the brain?

>>12736324
>Do you really think there is nothing left to learn?
what the fuck do you think science is for?
Your specific sky fairy can't keep hiding in the gradually receding unknown.

>>12736335
>Colors are the visual representation of energy - the philosophical essence, the inner property. When you see the color red, you see the visual essence of the energy contained in the 650 nm wave of photons (quanta of energy).
meh, nah, you can have the same color produced by different combination of photons, and I'm not sure they'd always necessarily average out to the same energy. What's the energy of magenta? Or brown?

>>12736481
The property of colour from light is a function of the perceived wavelength via the differential activation of overlapping photosensitive proteins in the eye.

I think calling it energy is bullshit cause colour blindness exists. But at the same time it's not entirely wrong as no matter who you are, when you receive two photons at the same energy they will ping the same set of receptors in the brain. Given of course no significant biological alterations that change your ability to perceive such as having your eyes gouged out or brain trauma.

>>12736324
Studies of CVA prove the brain affects personality.

>>12736503
It's hard to argue that the experience of color could still be very different. I can't imagine a significant evolutionary disadvantage if the response is otherwise the same. Say my green looks like what you perceived to be red, but it still affects my circadian rhythm in the same way.

>>12736540
I agree on that. Our constructed perception may be different but the basal effects the same. There is actually a very rare set of conditions that can cause someone to have an entirely flipped perception of colour. Wild to think about but to be honest their life is probably exactly the same and I doubt they would have special insight as, despite "looking" blue-green, fire would still be associated with warmth and by extension their blue-green would be warm.

>>12736566
>There is actually a very rare set of conditions that can cause someone to have an entirely flipped perception of colour.
Oh really there known cases of that? Cool. Was is it called?

>>12736566
>tfw color is entirely arbitrary and there is no non self-fulfilling way to describe anything's color

The claim isn't that we know everything about the brain and consciousness, the claim is that whatever it is, it is purely a material, physical phenomenon, because what else could there be?

the powers that be have destroyed their own credibility. Two weeks to flatten the curve, dont wear a mask. Wear a mask. Wear 2 masks. Vaccine approved for emergency use for high risk and health care professionals, wait no actually everyone should take it. Theres no risk and for even asking you are not a science believer like its a religion

>>12736754
>because what else could there be?
Spiritual of course.

>>12736375
Yes.

2000 years ago, the "Truth" was geocentrism

Today, the truth is Solar centralism.

The reality is everything in our solar system orbits the barycenter, which is the gravitational center, which is linked to every gravitational field in our galaxy and likely the entire universe.

>>12736324
>that we have pulled back the final curtain?
What do you mean "WE"?!

>>12736589
It isn't arbitrary, they are tropes based upon similarities in how most of us perceive the various wavelength ranges.

>>12736324
>IQ of 75
> not retarded
The threshold of retardation used to be 85 but they lowered it for political reasons when they realized that most blacks were retarded.

>>12736324
>We understand almost nothing about the brain
kek look at this retard

>>12736790
Low IQ hands typed this post

>>12736324
>He had an IQ of 75
>he had almost no brain at all
you are as dumb as him lol

>>12736324
He maintained all his grey matter

>>12736424
post it

>>12736330
Kek

>>12736341
Nope, just the last desperate grasp from physicalists before finally accepting consciousness is non-physical

>>12736405
Good post, other qualia in the face of natural or non-natural stimuli that greatly interest me are
>the feeling of the sublime in response to the natural world
>the feeling of the sublime in response to the artificial world (human creations, artwork, compositions, etc)
>the Overview effect
>Stendhal syndrome

75 is about as same as female gorilla.

I have 135+, surely we need all that matter for very high task such as debugging an auto's electrical system and modern physics.

>>12736369
>Because you cant treat an object with consciousness the same any other natural object.
Proof?

>You cant observe intention
Proof?

>>12736442
holy fuck

>>12736324
>a job as a civil servant
This is pretty unclear. He might have worked as a streetsweeper.

>>12744322
they call it that because when you get stressed your gut sends its blood to your muscles to prepare you for flight, causing a tingling feeling in your gut