/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14770811
Why does David Chalmers get credit for this as if it isn’t something that has been considered for more than a thousand years?

>>14770826
Mainly because he's a living strawman for retarded materialists to grapple with, since their position is too weak to contend with anything else.

>>14770826
Chalmers was the one who modernized the mind body problem for contemporary philosophy by isolating and restating parts of it into a stronger package.

>>14770837
>Chalmers was the one who modernized the mind body problem for contemporary philosophy
Utterly false and you're a prime example of >>14770833

The hard problem is god-of-the-gaps for philosophy of consciousness. We know its all in the brain, so in a last ditch effort philosophers went with "what about what its like to experience red?" and morons ate it up because its more enigmatic than the truth.

The sad part is brainlets are going to argue about it when I'm probably the only one here that read Chalmers.

https://youtu.be/0o17Zwzam1g

>>14770859
Subhuman-level intelligence.

>>14770861
Yeah kiddo, I pretty much wrote Nagel's bat paper when I was 12 years old. If anybody understands the mysteries of subjectivity its me, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. You're up there, in the meat, so is red, so is the image of the apple, so is what you think of the perception/simulation of a red apple.

>>14770870
See >>14770861

>>14770811
why does he look just like picrel?

>>14770837
Shut up retard

>>14770859
>We know its all in the brain
This is false not even going to bother reading the rest

>>14770870
You could have made your unintelligible point with 1 short sentence. The fact that you had to turn that into a wall of text proves >>14770861

>>14771126
You don't understad, kid. I'm the only one here who has read Chalmers so I understand the mysterious of subjectivity because the hard problem of consciousness is just god-of-the-gaps and retards gobble it up because they don't understand what the experience of red is all about because they're going to argue about it to make it sound more enigmatic than the truth but I know better because I pretty much wrote Nagel's bat paper when I was 12 years old and it's all in the brain just like the image of the simulation of a red apple.

>>14771116
Because you're a retard who can't even classify as well as a nearest neighbor algorithm?

>>14771139
NTA but you're probably something worse than a retard. I can hardly imagine what kind of mental deficiency you suffer from that causes both your failure to notice the similarities between the faces and react with mindless, niggerlike aggression,

>>14771134
>>14770870
>>14770859
Take your meds and let the big boys discuss this.

>>14771126
>>14771134
>>14771154
I can't wait for the illuminating discussion. Let me guess, the brain is like a radio...

>>14770859
>We know its all in the brain
Source?

>>14771134
Brainlet retard reads rehashed and simplified transcendental idealism and thinks he’s a genius got it

The so called philosophy of mind was singlehandedly initiated and solved by Descartes. All modern philosophers are too dimwitted to understand his genius. Chalmer's only achievement is to be more reasonable than Dennett (a literal p-zombie) which is hardly an achievement worth mentioning, given that any conscious being easily achieves it. After reading the essay on absent, fading or dancing qualia one cannot take Chalmers seriously anymore. He dishonestly argues a retarded functionalist point while intentionally ignoring the simplest, most obvious counterarguments and bends his knees to the acadummic midwit mainstream of dismissing Cartesian dualism with no justification other than social conformity with p-zombies. In fact his p-zombie argument is hypocritical af since he merely sees p-zombies as a purely hypothetical possibility which he deems impossible in this world, instead of acknowledging their factual existence constituting a large percentage of the population.

>>14770859
>We know its all in the brain
The falsity of physicalism isn't contingent on consciousness not happening in the brain. Both a physicalist and a non-physicalist can think that's the case, but disagree about what the fundamental nature of the brain (and all of reality) is. If what you really want to say is that consciousness can be explained purely in biochemical terms, then that's just cringe and wrong.

>>14770811
Superintendent?

Why did dennett cuck his own position?

>>14770859
>god-of-the-gaps
As soon as I saw this soienceboy expression, I knew your post would be swamped by a bunch of salty Christnogs, and I wasn't wrong.

>>14772555
Did the christnogs leave their rent-free apartments in your head to gather here?

>>14772563
Wow, you're so unfazed, bro.

>>14772569
Yeah. So did they?

>>14770859
this apex level psuedery here, bravo

>>14772674
Wrong, retard. His pseudery is extremely unremarkable and average.

>>14772679
when I want you to put your nose up my ass and take a large whiff I will let out a wet fart first to summon you

>>14772684
You will spend the rest of your life serving my cock and balls like the beta homo that you are. Confirm by replying. :^)

>>14772688
you already replied showing what a cock smoking fairy you are, my reply just confirms that you are

>>14772740
Thanks for the confirmation. You may proceed to lick my crusty asshole as you jack me off, feminie little faggot.

>>14772746
thanks for confirming the confirmation with a second ass snifer

>>14772751
Homo.

>>14772753
juggle my bizzals in your jizzals twink

>>14772755
Can't. Too busy fucking your wife AND your children.

>>14772786
I knew you were a disgusting twink tranny sister fucker. Those are your sisters and brothers kids because I am your dad, I busted so many nuts in your mom I still fap to it

>>14772988
>sexually harrassing another poster before insisting that he's your son
is this like an outlet for your sick fantasies? i hope you don't actually have children. jesus fuck

>many instances of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and extrasensory perception underline the connection between consciousness and quantum entanglement
>scientists set up experiments with NPCs as participants
>due to lack of consciousness NPCs fail to reproduce any meaningful results regarding these topics
>all of it gets dismissed as randomness and /x/ bias
When do scientists finally acknowledge the distinction between conscious observers and NPCs? This is a necessary prerequisite for any serious investigation into the nature of consciousness.

>>14770811
Is this Syd Barrett ?

>>14773023
Yes anon, every particpant just happened to be an NPC. Of course.

>>14773407
Do you have a more plausible explanation? I don't think so.

>>14773409
Yeah.

Telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and extrasensory perception isn't real.

>>14773411

>>14773418
Why are you so sure that you aren't the one in the cave?

>>14773411
>Telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and extrasensory perception isn't real.
But they clearly are. You're denying a fuckton of evidence based on cherrypicked shit studies. That's not plausible. It's your religion thinking.

>>14773422
>a fuckton of evidence
Source: just trust me, bro

>>14773023
most of them are NPCs themselves so not likely ever to happen. I guess we will just keep the cheat codes to ourselves

>>14770811
No one will remember his name in 100 years.

Wow, it seems we have the top minds gnawing on this facsimile of a corpse of a philosophy of consciousness discussion. Seriously, this is like special ed PoC. I was hoping >>14770859 would spur some discussion of note. In retrospect, I'm not sure why.

>>14773447
>i was hoping my teenage reddit post of zero intellectual substance would spur some discussion but people just shat on me

>>14773447
Im trans btw, not sure if that matters

>>14770811
How exactly is claiming that the mind is not reducible to the body with no evidence a disproof of physicalism? This is just question begging.

>>14773458
You see, the brain is like a radio...

>>14773458
>begging the question

>>14773458
>with no evidence

>>14773449
>>14773451
>"You die every night you go to sleep!"

>>14773470
>>14773472
Thanks for posting, you make idealists and dualists look utterly incompetent.

>>14773478
>thanks for posting

>>14773472
Evidence?

>>14773478
>you make imaginary strawmemes in my head look dum!!

>>14773479
>>14773482
Thanks. You look utterly deranged.

>>14773480
>Evidence?
The absolute lack of comprehension...

>>14773483
>Thanks. You look utterly deranged.
You're welcome. Are the idealists and dualists in the room with us?

>>14770811
>philosophy

>>14773488
>remember what le heckin' atheist meme man said??

>>14773489
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>14773496
I like how you're too fucking stupid to realize it applies squarely to your dogma, but not to the position you're butthurt about.

>>14773484
So no evidence. OK. I don't even have to post, you embarass yourself.

>>14770859
>We know its all in the brain
>Being this unwaveringly certain that materialism MUST be true
Not surprising at all to see such people here, top tier NPC response, you are an excellent representative of your creed!
Meanwhile, near-death experiencers (NDErs) know that there is an afterlife because they have ACTUALLY BEEN THERE. They tell us. Hence we know too. This is by far the most compelling book on near-death experiences (NDEs) according to the actual experts in the field, and it develops that argument in far more detail:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Afterlife-Obviously-Exists-Realer-Than-Real/dp/1785359851/

It makes a huge deal about the fact that near-death experiencers (NDErs) are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Statistics collected ... show that the “deeper” the NDE ... the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences ... 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, “An afterlife definitely exists”."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this puny little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you immediately realize that life is more real than your dream. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the real world.

Not that NPC materialists will EVER read the literature on NDEs, though. LOL!

>>14773499
Evidence of what? You seem to be profoundly retarded.

>>14773485
Yes.

>>14773498
Not an argument, try again sweety

>>14773504
Have you tried taking your meds?

>>14773505
I accept your full and direct concession. Call me back when your cult dogma can be empirically validated.

>>14773500
>Meanwhile, near-death experiencers (NDErs) know that there is an afterlife because they have ACTUALLY BEEN THERE.
OK, schizo.

>It makes a huge deal about the fact that near-death experiencers (NDErs) are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced.
This is your most compelling evidence? I would expect NDErs to be a representative sample because being near death and hallucinating is not affected by prior beliefs. And I would expect those who believed the hallucination to report the "deepest" experience. How embarrassing for you.

>And so would you, me, or anyone, including the most dogmatic atheists and skeptics, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this puny little experience of life on Earth we have now
If you don't believe the machine elves are now real than reality, you just haven't taken enough DMT bro. LOL!

>>14773501
See >>14773458

>>14773506
Please keep posting.

>>14773518
Evidence of what, you mentally ill muppet? Do you understand what the hard problem of consciousness is?

>>14773500
>Giant gold digging ants exist, bro! I saw it with my own eyes!

>>14773514
>This is your most compelling evidence? I would expect NDErs to be a representative sample because being near death and hallucinating is not affected by prior beliefs
Not him but the fact NDEs are similar across cultures, and are not influenced by prior beliefs like you say, does suggest there is a non biological component to them. When people lose consciousness due to blood-to-brain restriction like the high g force blackout pilots experience, or fainting after a hard workout set, or fainting due to that stupid "pass out challenge" trick (where you squat and make your self hyperventilate then stand up quickly and hold your breath and press against your neck to pass out and wake up with endorphin and adrenaline euphoria) none of them describe the experience afterwards like an NDE.
This is quite significant because a near death experience should physiologically be identical to those other things. The brain thinks it's dying in all those situations because it's no different than massive blood loss. The pass out game even triggers euphoria, but still there is no similar description to an NDE afterwards.
Something is unique about an NDE and it appears biology can't explain it.

>>14773520
>Evidence of what
See >>14773518

>Do you understand what the hard problem of consciousness is?
Yes, it's the same as the easy problem but Chalmers begs the question by assuming it isn't. And people act like this is an argument instead of an assumption.

>>14773590
>Not him but the fact NDEs are similar across cultures
They aren't interpreted the same across cultures, and that's not even what he said.

>not influenced by prior beliefs like you say
The interpretation of them is definitely influenced by prior beliefs. The hallucination itself is not.

>none of them describe the experience afterwards like an NDE.
Wrong.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-04835-001

You just want a neat story regardless of the facts, I doubt there's any point in continuing this discussion.

>>14770826
This. Like VJM wrote, the hard problem was solved thousands of years ago, we just keep forgetting and drifting back into materialism: https://vjmpublishing.nz/?p=1909

>>14770859
You simply do not understand the hard problem. No matter how much science you do about the objective goings on in the brain, you will ALWAYS be left with the further question:
Why would any of that feel like anything at all.

The hard problem is totally unlike the god of the gaps. God of the gaps is purported to EXPLAIN things we cannot explain. In contrast to this, consciousness is not purported to explain anything else. We posit the existence of consciousness because is it self evident, and every other explanation of anything else exists within consciousness

>>14772531
He probably realized how utterly absurd it is. His claim is tantamount to:
>Universe doesnt exist.

What argument can you give me to convince me that the universe exists?

>>14773488
But there is evidence. What you are experiencing right now is the evidence.

>>14773786
>No matter how much science you do about the objective goings on in the brain, you will ALWAYS be left with the further question:
>Why would any of that feel like anything at all.
Proof?

>We posit the existence of consciousness because is it self evident, and every other explanation of anything else exists within consciousnes
Just replace "consciousness" with "God" and you'll have God of the gaps.

>>14773786
No, god-of-the-gaps is smuggling something mystical in all the places we have left to search. Its exactly what the hard problem is doing. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is an effect of brain processes so the last hope to inject something enigmatic is to say "yeah, but what about WHAT ITS LIKE to see red?"

Its a crappy language shell-game based on an intuitive feature of self-reflective conscious awareness, not some profound category that defies physical explanation.

>>14773952
>We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is an effect of brain processes

>>14773514
>OK, schizo
So, if anyone claim that they have experienced the afterlife, they _MUST_ be a schizo? OK, fundamentalist materialist.
>I would expect those who believed the hallucination to report the "deepest" experience.
Maybe, but you misunderstand what I was saying, and maybe that I was partly my fault for not being more explicit, for which I apologize. NDErs continue to be representative of the population as a whole regardless of how deep into the experience they go. So those that go deepest into the experience are STILL representative of the population as a whole. And among those, as the book in this post >>14773500 highlights, 100% of the population agrees that there is an afterlife and that NDEs are experiences of the afterlife.

>>14773514
>>14773545
>machine elves are now real
>Giant gold digging ants exist
Actually, there has been studies on this. Not everyone who does DMT is convinced by it, far from it. But with the NDE, they are, because again it is not an incoherent mess like DMT tend to be. Consider for instance this quote from the book mentioned in this post >>14773500:
>"The room seemed to be suspended in mid air, and right in the middle of the dark of space with swirling galaxies going on all around it. Standing on a floor that appeared as reflective, black onyx, I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear – and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future – and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols, and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing – even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home – we all really are of one mind!"
So the experience is _clearly_ more coherent than life, since it contains all of the coherency of an entire lifetime, in a single moment, while a lot of other highly complex things are still happening.
Not that I would except people who ridicule strawmen to care about such things though, because that would mean that they would have to think for themselves, read the literature, and actually entertain the idea that the NDE could be real - which will NEVER happen.

>>14773759
>Wrong.
>The study by Whinery.
Oh god. First of all, this has been thoroughly refuted. As an example of that, Whinery confuses "tunnel vision" with "seeing, being in, and going through a tunnel". But these are different things. On top of that, people who have had both NDEs and those G-force induced experiences say that they are COMPLETELY different things.
Thirdly, find me even one such experience that has the consistency of an NDE, like this quote from this book mentioned here >>14773500:
>"I started to realize that I was becoming surrounded and observed by many beings. Every single one of these individuals was someone I knew very well, but did not recognize as having been a part of my life during this incarnation. Yet, the closeness and familiarity I felt for these beloved souls surpassed any devotion for anyone I have ever learned to love here on this planet. Memories of previous, past-life experiences with these beings started to fill my consciousness, and as this happened I was filled with absolute wonder at how truly eternal we all are! I saw how life never ends. I remembered the process of reincarnation is endless, wonderful and truly eternal. I witnessed my own spiritual evolution and saw that I had existed long before this present incarnation (where I am now a male human). For me, watching the process of living life, after life, after life unfold, was mind-blowing! I undeniably observed that I had lived an innumerable amount of lives. What I observed went way beyond what I would have originally thought ‘reincarnation’ would be. And with reincarnation, I am not exactly speaking about being born again and again on this planet or other places alone. My NDE clearly showed me that these bodies (we now inhabit) are not the first and only time we have existed! I saw that our soul and spirit is ancient! I also observed that there is no such thing as death."
Life has been the same for decades, the NDE world has been the same forever.

>>14770811
Wishful thinking.

>>14773746
>it's the same as the easy problem
So your entire stance is that you're a psychotic bot? Cool.

>>14774304
Not 100%, the author is full of shit.

>>14773520
>Do you understand what the hard problem of consciousness is?
Stream of christcuck's consciousness.

>>14774681
So you retards mean to tell me you're all here shitting out paragraphs of seethe but you don't even know what the thread is about?

>>14774686
You're having trouble reading

>>14774697
Explain what the hard problem of consciousness is in your next post. lol

>>14774304
>So, if anyone claim that they have experienced the afterlife, they _MUST_ be a schizo?
No, they are just deluded. Anyone claiming that all NDErs, not just themselves, have experienced an afterlife is a schizo.

>NDErs continue to be representative of the population as a whole regardless of how deep into the experience they go.
The article you posted doesn't actually say this, but so what? If you don't believe the machine elves exist you just need to take more DMT. Completely fallacious reasoning.

>>14774686
no u

>>14774698
Why would I when you seem to be incapable of reading?

>>14774686
A retarded christcuck wrote random drivel and called it hard problem, then other christcucks liked to regurgitate it.

>>14774703
>>14774706
So you're shitting out posts about something you can't even coherently explain. Why would you do this? Are niggers like you capable of reflecting on their behavior?

>>14774319
>Not everyone who does DMT is convinced by it, far from it. But with the NDE, they are
But that's wrong, not everyone who has an NDE is convinced of an afterlife. You qualified it and then forgot the qualification in your religious zeal. Those who don't believe the machine elves just didn't have a deep enough experience.

>So the experience is _clearly_ more coherent than life
What does coherence have to do with reality? Reality doesn't have to conform to your limited abilities. Hallucinogen users claim that their experiences are more profound than reality, that secrets of reality are revealed to them and enlightenment is obtained. Of course they do, because profundity is part of the hallucination. Same for NDE. Coherence of reality is part of the illusion.

>>14774710
You're still having trouble reading. Not surprising given that you're a racist.

>>14774715
Thanks for confirming that you're subhuman. No idea why you keep replying when both of us can see you shat the bed.

>>14774716
You're also having trouble seeing now.

>>14774337
>First of all, this has been thoroughly refuted.
Where?

>As an example of that, Whinery confuses "tunnel vision" with "seeing, being in, and going through a tunnel"
That's an interpretation of tunnel vision.

>On top of that, people who have had both NDEs and those G-force induced experiences say that they are COMPLETELY different things.
But they aren't competent different, they have several similarities as the paper I posted shows. I guess you have no argument.

>Thirdly, find me even one such experience that has the consistency of an NDE
What do you mean by consistency?

>>14774658
>So your entire stance is that you're a psychotic bot?
This is meaningless and emotional. Try again.

>>14774729
Explain the hard problem of consciousness in your next post. (Notice how your entire crew consistently fails and turbo-deflects at this simple request)

>>14774734
>Explain the hard problem of consciousness in your next post.
It's the easy problem but named differently for the benefit of magical consciousness believers like you.

>how can experience, i.e. correlations between certain configurations of matter, arise from the interactions of matter???? omg science literally can't explain this!!!!
That's how retarded the philosocucks sound to the sane people

>>14774742
See? You couldn't explain it. Wanna try again?

>>14774746
Explain what you don't understand about my explanation. You know what the easy problem is, right?

>>14774752
You shoud be able to at least explain the argument you're trying to refute, before you can claim you can refute it, mouth breather. This is some surreal stuff. You're like an army of identically idiotic drones.

>>14774745
Correlations between configurations of matter arent experiences

>>14774758
That's exactly what they are. All your hallucinations about "why is red red instead of green????" are delusions arising because you don't realize this completely trivial fact.

>>14774710
It's literally how religious memes work: one retard makes them, other retards regurgitate them.

>>14774769
Materialism is indeed a religion.

>>14774768
No, because there is nothing in any "correlation of matter" that means red is red or green is green. This is not begging a question and it is not equivalent to the easy problem.

>>14774756
>You shoud be able to at least explain the argument you're trying to refute
Exactly, so please explain what part of my argument you don't understand. Explain what you think the easy problem is.

>>14774756
You literally troll people to make sense of stream of christcuck's consciousness. Nice trick, Shlomo.

>>14774771
>No, because there is nothing in any "correlation of matter" that means red is red or green is green.
Yes there is, the correlation is between wavelengths of light and how your brain responds to them.

>>14774771
You don't even realize why you're wrong after I've explained it to you. Yikes.

>>14774772
>>14774774
See >>14774756
Anyway, keep this up. All you're showing here is that reasoning with you is a waste of time and that the rotten intellectual fashion you represent needs to be dealt with by some means other than discussion.

>>14774770
Materialism is supported by science: you make a model of electromagnetic field and see it match reality, nothing supernatural, hence materialism.

>>14774783
What explanation do you expect for a stream of consciousness?

>>14774786
Mentally ill take.

What is with this pattern of philosophers denying that their problems have been solved several centuries ago by simple rational thinking? You see this with consciousness, zeno's paradox, etc.

>>14774790
I didn't expect anything from you except for the droneline and nonhuman behavior you're disaplying. Just scroll up a bit and you'll see. Keep demonstrating my point that reasoning with your lot is counter-productive and something else should be done.

>>14774783
See >>14774772
I guess you can't explain my argument or the way problem. Thanks for conceding.

>>14774756
>trying to refute
That's not how it works. In order for criticism to be valid you should demonstrate its validity, otherwise it's not an argument.

>>14774797
I just state the facts. How is it nonhuman?

>>14774801
>>14774803
>>14774810
Notice how the nonhumans are programmed to act out the same absurd and nonsensical behavior.

>>14774822
Not an explanation. Try again.

>>14774825
Just to recap, the nonhumans were merely asked to explain the position they're "refuting". Notice the identical nonhumam reactions of deflection and denial.

>>14774829
Shlomo, you're sure obtuse today. That's not how it works. In order for criticism to be valid you should demonstrate its validity. Invalid argument is not an argument.

>>14774829
>Just to recap, the nonhumans were merely asked to explain the position they're "refuting".
I don't know who you're referring to, but I already explained it and you repeatedly failed to explain what you don't understand about my explanation. This is getting tedious, so this is your last (You) until you give a substantive response.

>>14774842
>>14774843
Notice how the nonhumans feel intensely threatened by the request to first explain the position they're "refuting". This is not part of their preprogrammed dialogue tree so they don't know how to react.

>>14774686
we are also trans if that matters

>>14774786
>Materialism is supported by science.

Science studies the behavior of the world, it tells you nothing about its essence (not necessarily, anyway).

>>14775537
>essence
Science debunked your way of thinking quite a while ago. Keep up grandpa

>>14775551
No. Science ran into a wall because it was incapable of answering deeper metaphysical questions about reality, so they limited the scope of science to only model reality, not explain it.

To summarize, nothing here but your knowledge of history was debunked.

>>14775597
>your knowledge of history was debunked.
Yeah? Then why isn't there a snopes article about it, retard?

>>14775597
Science explains reality perfectly well. All you "deep" metaphysical questions turned out to be naive nonsense upon closer scientific inspection.

>Science explains reality perfectly well. All you "deep" metaphysical questions turned out to be naive nonsense upon closer scientific inspection.
This is the same nigger talking about AGI gods and breaking out of the simulation, 100% guaranteed.

>>14775653
>Science explains reality perfectly well
Yeah, as long as your "perfectly well" is limited to mathematical modeling. If you probe for any sort of deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, science will just spin its wheels.

>All you "deep" metaphysical questions turned out to be naive nonsense upon closer scientific inspection.
You're setting a high bar for yourself there. I'll eagerly await the sources that back up your claim.

>>14775702
Science has refuted the idea of "fundamental nature". There is no "fundamental nature" to reality, christard. Nothing is fundamental except science and rationality.

>>14775705
Again, science is not in the business of rejecting or accepting those ideas. It's the realm of philosophy. You clearly don't understand what science is.

>>14775705
>there is no fundamental nature
>science is the fundamental nature

>>14775711
Science proves that philosophy is for retards because science is more fundamental than philosophy. You can't prove anything without empiricism.

>>14775742
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling at this point.

>>14775769
Thank you for conceding. Consciousness isn't magic. Philosophy isn't valid. Free will doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Putin lost. Trump lost.

>>14775772
Ture. Go off king.

>>14775776
Can you explain the qualia you experienced when Drumpfffffffffff lost, chud?

>>14775711
Science provides evidence for decision making.

>>14775810
Ok. And?

>>14775810
Explain the science behind your decision to become an NPC, then.

>>14775702
>Yeah, as long as your "perfectly well" is limited to mathematical modeling.
Yep, and it's modeling of matter, hence materialism.

>>14775814
And evidence is for materialism.
>>14775816
You're projecting, dumb christcuck.

>>14775823
>hence materialism
Materialism is the position that everything is matter, not that science models particles, nigger.

>>14774786
No and the fact there's stuff that exists and is not material and doesn't rely on matter is enough evidence that materialism is false

>>14775831
Materialism is when you assume that matter is real and exists for all people.

>>14775992
I like how you're so insecure in your position that you're forced to lie and nerf it to the point of meaninglessness.

>>14770811
>David Chalmers & The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Refuted philosophical quackery.

TLDR subjective experience arises from the most primitive parts of the brain in order to explore the world and get the organisms needs met. It's not really a big mystery from that perspective.

Using this model the richness of consciousness comes from the high dimensional data human brains can perceive.

>>14776927
If you don't think the hard problem seems like a hard problem at all, wouldn't the first question to ask yourself be, "do I really understand the hard problem?"?

>>14776944
>If you don't think the hard problem seems like a hard problem at all, wouldn't the first question to ask yourself be, "do I really understand the hard problem?"?


Well "thinking" without raw accurate data is a very poor strategy, see religions for millennia of thinking with the production of very limited predictive models of the world.

In Jaak Panksepp's book archaeology of mind he covers the physical experiments he did on mammal brains. This fundamental research is a much stronger basis for reasoning about Consciousness.

actual scientific research > philosophical reasoning

"Hard Problem" = "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin"

Questions can have no rational answer, these are best avoided.

>>14776961
>muh reframing consciousness as brainstates so the problem hella goes away wowzers!
Imagine acting so smug about beeing a retard

>>14775831
If something was made of astral instead of matter, science wouldn't be able to model that, but it does, therefore it's matter.

>>14775986
No such fact.
>>14776944
The first thing to ask is "does hard problem exist?". Existence must be decided first.

>>14777178
>let me decide whether a problem exists before I understand it

>>14770859
Lmao how many idiots you triggered. And this calls itself a "science" board

>>14770811
There is no hard problem of Consciousness, because there is no Consciousness. There is just brains, which are nothing more than bags of chemicals, blindly following the laws of physics.

>>14778276
See how paradoxes work. If you assume existence of nonexistent thing, the following reasoning relies on a wrong assumption, it's garbage in - garbage out.

>>14770859
red does not exist inside the brain. Reconstructing vision, does not reconstruct redness. Even if one day we will know everything there is about the brain, and have the ability to simulate artificial minds. We will still learn nothing about consciousness or redness, these things are out of reach of any observation we can ever make.

>>14770870
>>14770859
I’m just here to laugh at you, retard

>>14772531
Any time someone makes an unqualified claim of non-existence, apart from non-controversial cases in which everyone agrees on the meaning of existence, they don’t even know what they’re claiming.

>>14778420
Sure, but how do you decide whether the hard problem exists or not when you possibly don't even understand what's meant by it?

>>14773447
Try not being a retard next time. Maybe study philosophy, in particular logic, a bit before your next post.

If you are just pretending to be retarded then congratulations, you’re very convincing.

>>14773488
What’s the evidence for that claim? (Caution, little friend, any argument supporting your claim would be a philosophical one.)

>>14778421
Knowing everything about the brain implies knowing how it interacts with consciousness.

>>14778484
There is not even one shred of evidence that any other person is even consciousness at all. Consciousness is outside of what can be observed. The raw experience of being is not something you can measure.

>seething NPCs ITT
you will never beyond the veil because you dont vibrate fast enough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8C1VLmQxgo&ab_channel=BigBlueGuy

>>14778438
The burden of proof is on the idealists who claim that it exists. No proofs - no problem.

>>14778530
>not one shred of evidence
There’s plenty of evidence. There’s no obvious evidence that isn’t subject to interpretation.

For example, I know I am conscious. Other people are in some ways very similar to myself, including behaviors that I associate strongly with certain aspects of my conscious experience. There is much evidence for both of these claims. Combining them we have much evidence to support other people being conscious.

It’s certainly evidence, but it’s not conclusive. The main reason to conclude on this basis that other people are conscious is that the obvious alternatives seem less well supported by the evidence.

>>14778530
If he has experience, then he's conscious.

>>14778571
After you prove time, matter and the existence of other people.

>>14778571
Can you please try to READ this post.

IF

YOU

DO

NOT

UNDERSTAND

WHAT

SOMEONE

SAYS

YOU

CANNOT

EVEN

EVALUATE

IT

>>14778600
They don't need much proofs, because they aren't extraordinary. It's sufficient that their existence is consistent with observation.

>>14778571
I reject the burden of proof.

>>14778612
You either have proofs or not, there's no third option. This idea must be simple enough that even gorilla like you can understand it. No proofs - no problem.

>>14778630
Where is your evidence that "burden of proof" exists?

>>14778616
Then you risk to base your reasoning on wrong assumption, and it becomes garbage in - garbage out.

>>14778634
Paradoxes are the evidence for the burden of proof.

>>14778643
Paradoxes don't exist. No proofs, no paradoxes.

I just find it funny at how when something cannot be understood by anyone on Earth, these threads on 4channel fill up with people purporting to know precisely that they know the answer to that exact question. Without fail.

>>14776927
This doesn't explain how the activity of neurons gives rise to conscious experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxGEVIvSFeY

>>14778471
What are you even trying to say here bud? Yeah, inquiries may start out as philosophy, but they move past it onto more rigorous, established fields instead of naval gazing voodoo ogaa booga nonsense.

>>14778658
>Paradoxes don't exist.
That's the point, that's why you shouldn't assume existence without proofs.

>>14779784
Why are you assuming my existence without proofs?

>>14770811
Go back to
>>>/lit/

>>14771327
>>14772531

>>14773488
>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
With what evidence was this asserted? It self-destructs.

>>14772531
"Qualia is not real" is so obviously untrue that any theory that denies it is a non-starter. Even if you're a direct realist (which I am).

>>14780914
Not without proofs. Your post is evidence for your existence.

>>14782783
You could be arguing with a chat bot for all you know. Why do you assume I'm a person without evidence?

>>14777177
What does your 70 IQ response have to do with my post, driveling nigger?

>>14781824
Qualia as abstractions are not real. Only the brain is real.

>>14783668
>Qualia as abstractions are not real.
Qualia are not abstractions, nonhuman, but they are clearly not the brain.

>>14783674
>Qualia are not abstractions
Then what real, concrete thing are they related to?

>but they are clearly not the brain.
Because?

>>14783691
>Then what real, concrete thing are they related to?
Just the direct experiences the word refers to, bot.

i was talking to another anon in a different thread, but it archived before I could respond.

>>14783698
>Just the direct experiences
That's just your brain, schizo. Let me know how those direct experiences are when you get your head chopped off.

>>14783704
>That's just your brain
Your schizobabble is completely incoherent even on the simple level of grammar.

>>14783716
Let me know what you don't understand and I'll see if I can help you learn how to read.

>>14783719
>experiences is your brain
LOL. Why are subhumans like this not simply banned?

>>14783722
>experiences are what your brain does
ftfy. Let me know if you need any more help with grammar and basic literacy.

>>14783740
>experiences are what your brain does
But you just told me experiences "is the brain". Why are you backpedaling:?

>>14783490
>They aren't the same, so this is a moot point.
Yes they are, they are atomically identical
>Doesn't follow. You're saying they are nondeterministic due to physical interactions and then saying they aren't reducable to physical interactions.
Yes it does follow; The outputs of a non-deterministic function can not be reduced to the input; likewise the qualitative experiences of a non deterministic physical system can't be reduced to it's input (interactions etc)

>>14783747
>But you just told me experiences "is the brain".
No, I said "That's just the brain." Of you are having trouble reading and writing what someone else says I recommend you use the copy and paste tools.

>>14783753
So are experiences "the brain" or are they merely somehow caused by the brain? Make up your 80 IQ, poorly educated mind.

>>14770811
Hard problem of consciousness can be solved with physicalism

https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

TL;DR: We have richly textured bound experiences precisely because the boundaries that individuate us also allow us to act as individuals in many ways. This individual behavior can reflect features of the state of the entire organism in energy-efficient ways. Evolution can recruit this individual, yet holistic, behavior due to its computational advantages. We think that the boundary might be the result of topological segmentation in physical fields.

In order to solve the boundary problem we want to find “natural” boundaries in the world to scaffold off of those. We take on the starting assumption that the universe is a gigantic “field of consciousness” and the question of how atoms come together to form experiences becomes how this field becomes individuated into experiences like ours. So we need to find out how boundaries arise in this field. But these are not just any boundary, but boundaries that are objective, frame-invariant, causally-significant, and computationally-useful. That is, boundaries you can do things with. Boundaries that explain why we are individuals and why creating individual bound experiences was evolutionarily adaptive; not only why it is merely possible but also advantageous.

In technical terms, I argue that a satisfactory solution to the boundary problem (1) avoids strong emergence, (2) sidesteps the hard problem of consciousness, (3) prevents the complication of epiphenomenalism, and (4) is compatible with the modern scientific world picture.

>>14783776
Mentally ill take.

>>14783776
>Hard problem of consciousness can be solved with physicalism
>We take on the starting assumption that the universe is a gigantic “field of consciousness”
I guess "physicalism" solves it in the sense that "physical" doesn't actually mean anything so it allows you to pull out "fields of consciousness" out of your ass and declare them "physical"?

>>14783791
Most normies that never dabble in metaphysics just think that "physical" in these discussions means something that exists in the universe. So physicalism becomes the completely vacuous statement "everything that exists is everything that exists".

Clearly we're talking about different categories of stuff, that both exists, but differ in some fundamental way that runs deeper than between say, an electron and a proton.

>>14783817
>Most normies that never dabble in metaphysics just think that "physical" in these discussions means something that exists in the universe.
Wrong. Most normies (e.g. you) think "physical" actually means something, which is why they keep referencing this term.

>>14783722
Yeah it is though.

>>14783826
A regular retard would maybe argue that qualia are somehow caused by the brain, but you're so profoundly subhuman you will outright insist that qualia ARE the brain. lol.

We can't even know if two exactly physically equivalent systems have the same qualia (i.e. two exactly equivalent eyes dont necessarily see the same colors when exposed to the same wavelength of light)

>>14783838
>two exactly equivalent eyes dont necessarily see the same colors when exposed to the same wavelength of light
You sure are a fucking retard.

>>14783841
Nope. See >>14783749

>>14783845
Nothing to see there. You shat out a total nonstarter. It makes no logical sense to question whether or not color perception between different individuals is "the same" in any absolute sense. The most you could legitimately ask is whether different people perceive the relationships between colors in the same way and the answer to that is 'yes'.

>>14783858
>It makes no logical sense to question whether or not color perception between different individuals is "the same" in any absolute sense
Of course it makes logical sense, I just did it and it was logically sensible.

>>14783868
>Of course it makes logical sense
It doesn't, you mouth-breathing retard, for precisely the same reason you claim it's unanswerable: there is no objective reference point to make a comparison.

>>14783885
The reference point is the direct qualitative experience. the qualitative experience exists, it just can't be reduced to or understood by looking at the physical system or compared across even identical physical systems.
If qualia is not objective then it just means the universe is not objective etc

>>14783899
You are either a bot or a literal subhuman.

>>14783901
You do not have a coherent position, at least I've never before seen you produce any in any of these threads that you've ever posted in.
Whatever you think qualia is, you're wrong about it, that much is clear.

>>14783902
My position is incontrovertible, which is why you went on a psychotic tangent instead of trying to dispute it. lol

>>14783903
What's your position?

>>14783910
See >>14783885
You responded with psychosis.

>>14783749
>Yes they are, they are atomically identical
No two brains are atomically identical.

>The outputs of a non-deterministic function can not be reduced to the input
What? First off all, the same could be true for a deterministic system. There is nothing that says two different sets of initial conditions cannot lead to the same outcome. Second, you didn't say that we can't determine the initial conditions, you said they attract reducible to physical interactions. Everything in QM is a physical interaction regardless of what information you can obtain about a system.

>>14783914
You dont need an objective reference point to make a comparison.
If Eye 1 and eye 2 are exactly atomically equivalent but percieve the "color wheel" or whatever differently, then they have different qualitative sensations and the qualitative sensations can't be reduced to the physics of the system because if it could, it wouldn't be different between two identical physical systems.

>>14783760
>So are experiences "the brain" or are they merely somehow caused by the brain?
They are what the brain does. They aren't abstract unless you treat them as independent from the brain.

>>14783948
>You dont need an objective reference point to make a comparison.
Psychosis.

>If Eye 1 and eye 2 are exactly atomically equivalent but percieve the "color wheel" or whatever differently
It makes no sense to talk about them perceiving something differently because it makes no sense to talk about them perceiving something identically because there is no objective point of reference.

>>14783947
>No two brains are atomically identical.
If there were two atomically identical brains, it is still not the case that they have the same qualia given the same stimuli etc
>First off all, the same could be true for a deterministic system
No it can't, a deterministic system is basically a properly defined function i.e. one where there is a unique output for each input. If there does not exist a unique output how can you know
>There is nothing that says two different sets of initial conditions cannot lead to the same outcome.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about the same initial conditions leading to different outputs, not different initial conditions leading to the same output.
Two exactly identitical systems with the exact same behaviors and the exact same physical structures etc. wouldn't be having the same qualitative experiences. Whatever that qualia is would not be a physical thing in the system, it wouldn't be reducible to the physics or behaviors of the system. It would be some other weird thing that we call qualia. Beyond that idk what it would be, it's just that thing.
>Second, you didn't say that we can't determine the initial conditions, you said they attract reducible to physical interactions. Everything in QM is a physical interaction regardless of what information you can obtain about a system.
I'm talking about having two systems that are exactly the same in all physical ways, not being the same in terms of their qualitative sensations.

>>14783952
So they are not abstract and they are not the brain. Thanks for openly conceding everything I pointed out all the way back. Your religious dogma about them being somehow caused by the brain doesn't interest me in the least.

>>14783960
>It makes no sense to talk about them perceiving something differently because it makes no sense to talk about them perceiving something identically because there is no objective point of reference.
If two exactly equivalent eyes were stimulated by the exact same wavelength of light and one saw red and the other saw blue then they'd be having different qualitative experiences despite the exact same physical process happening in the universe.
the qualia would be a thing that isn't equivalent to the physics nor even reducible to it. It would be some weird other thing

>>14783979
>one saw red and the other saw blue
Meaningless babble. You will almost never find two people looking at the same thing and one calling it red while the other calls it blue. That's as far as your labels go.

Consciousness is self evident to anybody who possesses it, and clearly not a result of any physical laws.

The question I find interesting is that, assuming the physical world exists (i.e. assuming I'm not just a solipsistic brain in the void), it's clear that the physical world interacts with consciousness; the structure of the brain determines the character of our conscious experiences, the physical sensory inputs result in conscious experiences via the brain, etc. We can extrapolate that there is likely some fundamental property of consciousness, innate to physical matter abiding by laws which we don't understand. Panpsychism seems close to the truth, but the combination problem is a real hurdle.

All that being said, the question is: why can I say "I am conscious"? How is my physical mind aware not just of my thought processes, but of its own consciousness? This implies causation in both directions: the physical can interact with the subjective AND the subjective can interact with the physical. I've yet to see a convincing theory for that.

>>14770870
>It's all in your head

Are you fucking shitting me right now?

>>14784004
>clearly not a result of any physical laws.
80 IQ take.

>>14783988
So what? If what one sees and calls red the other would call blue then the qualia is not the same. I don't give a shit if you can't understand this simple point, it directly refutes the physical basis of qualia.

>>14784010
Explain to me how laws which dictate HOW particles interacts could ever, in any combination, dictate the subjective experience of those particles or any combination of particles?

>>14784013
>So what?
So you're sharting out meaningless babble. According to your own premise, color names don't refer to anything absolute, so all you're saying is once again "what if my blue is different from your blue" which I've already refuted.

>>14784015
Why would I need to explain that, you shameful retard?

>>14784016
>According to your own premise, color names don't refer to anything absolute
Yep, therefore the universe is not absolute. Doesn't mean anything against my position and doesn't mean qualia aren't real
>all you're saying is once again "what if my blue is different from your blue" which I've already refuted.
Where did you refute this?

>>14784023
>therefore the universe is not absolute
Psychiatric-tier take, but I don't care.

>Where did you refute this?
Right here: >>14783885
You seem to be undermedicated.

>>14784029
We don't need to postulate the same qualitative sensations to get the same behavior and we dont need a universal frame to compare objects.

>>14784034
>we don't need a shared frame of reference to make a comparison
>t. fully psychotic

>>14784020
because without it you can't claim that qualia is the result of any physical laws

>>14784041
Why not, you shameful retard? lol.

>>14784039
The entire theory of general relativity does not have a universal frame of reference yet it compares objects all the time. You do not need a universal reference frame to make comparisons.
I can just select on of the agents experiencing qualia to be the relative reference frame for the other, then compare the qualia when exposed to the same wavelength or whatever, and see that the two identical physical systems do not have the same qualia and therefore the qualia is not reducible to the physics.

>>14784045
>we don't need a shared frame of reference to make a comparison
You can keep insisting on your full-blown psychosis but it doesn't make it less overtly retarded and incoherent.

>>14784042
if you state that qualia is the result of physical laws, you have to prove it.

>>14784052
>if you state that qualia is the result of physical laws, you have to prove it.
No, I don't, but in any case, what does it have to do with particles?

>>14784061
>No, I don't
yes, you do.
prove qualia is the result of a physical process

>>14784066
>yes, you do.
No, I don't. The mere fact that I can directly observe it already makes it something physical as opposed to metaphysical.

>>14784074
No it doesn't, unless you arbitrarily define "exists" as "physical" which makes the term physical vacuous
We don't even know if two identically physical systems have the same qualia when stimulated by the same stimuli etc. Two exactly identical eyes do not need to have the same sensation of color when stimulated with the same wavelength etc.

>>14784083
>unless you arbitrarily define "exists" as "physical"
Wrong. As far as I'm concerned, to say that something is physical is to say that it is observable and stems from the same fundamental causes as everything else that is observable.

>We don't even know if two identically physical systems have the same qualia when stimulated
Oh, you're that psychiatric drone. You have no qualia. I don't know why you keep obsessing over this when you clearly lack an inner world.

>>14784095
"fundamental causes" do not have to be reducible to a single monad. Something being "observable" does not mean "physical" nor does there exist a single "fundamental" thing that everything else spawns from.
You can observe something, like color, and that thing is not physical. Doesn't mean it isn't real.

>>14784100
I kinda lost interest in talking to you when I realized you're the same confirmed bot. Not only do you have no qualia, you don't even have a properly functioning CPU so you're sharting out incoherent schizoramble.

>>14784109
Literally nothing you're saying is coherent or meaningful. You have not even defined physical in a way that is coherent despite claiming that qualia is physical.

>>14784114
You will never be human.

>>14784116
I'm more intelligent than you and have deeper qualitative experiences than you will ever experience.
You will never have insight into the nature of your own experience.

>>14784119
>t. 85 IQ aphantasic drone
Everything you shat out got promptly destroyed and you can't recover. Seethe.

>>14784124
There has not been a single counter to anything Ive written
You claimed a universal reference frame is needed to compare things when no such thing is needed. You just said that it's "retarded" because you got blown the fuck out.

>>14784143
>There has not been a single counter to anything Ive written
See >>14783885 and >>14784095
You're still losing your mind over your inability to effectively dispute that. lol.

>>14784144
I directly disputed it by showing that you do not need universal reference frames to compare things; general relativity is a theory that does not use universal reference frames but compares things all the fucking time.
I also further explained it here >>14784045
There is no argument against this because it's entirely correct. You got blown the fuck out and you can't come up with an actual reason as to why you need a universal reference frame/universal qualia to compare two different qualitative experiences

>>14784147
>I directly disputed it by showing
Making nonsensical assertions doesn't "show" anything except your need to take your meds.

>>14784149
Denying a direct refutation doesn't mean you haven't been refuted. You're just seething.
You do not need a universal "red" to understand that two different people calling different color experiences "red" means that they do not have the same qualiatative sensations, despite being identical physically.
You've been blown the fuck out.

>>14784155
>Denying a direct refutation
You have never provided, and will never provide, anything approaching a refutation. You're a confirmed nonhuman.

>>14784167
I provided it several times.
You will never recover from this

>>14784177
>>14784155
You know what? Maybe I should be more charitable with you. It's not your fault that you're intellectually challenged. Are you capable of any degree of abstract thought? If so, imagine you have a space and some arrow shape floating somewhere in that space. Now imagine a completely separate space and an identical arrow shape floating in that space. Does it make sense to you to compare the orientations of the two arrows?

>>14784186
I do not need a universal frame of reference to be able to compare the two arrows

>>147841890
I don't knwo what your "universal frame" psychosis is all about. I asked you a simple yes/no question. Is it a yes or a no?

>>14784205
Meant for >>14784189

>>14784189
>>14784205
>>14784209
>the bot stopped feverishly replying
Looks like I broke its programming.

>>14784205
the "universal frame" is what you said when you claimed there is no absolute thing that color is referring to. You dont need this in the same way you dont need a universal frame to compare the two arrow, as has been explained several times.

>>14783824
It means pertaining to physics. ESL?

>>14784232
I asked you a yes/no question here: >>14784186
Is it a yes or a no?

>>14783838
Why would they not?

>>14784235
>pertaining to physics
How do I know if something pertains to physics or not? Do I just check against some shopping list of currently known phenomena? And if something isn't in that list yet?

>>14784232
>>14784241
>the bot deflects and avoids replying
You lost that fervor pretty fast.

>>14783964
>If there were two atomically identical brains, it is still not the case that they have the same qualia given the same stimuli etc
It may be the case, depending on how relevant non-deterministic processes are. But if you want to assume they are relevant, then that just means the probability of each outcome is equal for the identical brains. So what's your point?

>Two exactly identitical systems with the exact same behaviors and the exact same physical structures etc. wouldn't be having the same qualitative experiences.
Or they would.

>Whatever that qualia is would not be a physical thing in the system, it wouldn't be reducible to the physics or behaviors of the system.
Doesn't follow. You're conflating determinism with physics. You seem stuck in a "classical physics" mindset.

>It would be some other weird thing that we call qualia.
No, it would be just another thing explained by physics.

>I'm talking about having two systems that are exactly the same in all physical ways
Nothing I said implied otherwise. Non-deterministic processes are still physical interactions following physical laws. They just have multiple possible outcomes, whose probabilities of occurring are determined by QM. You're confusing not being able to go backwards to find the initial condition (which is not even unique to non-deterministic processes) with non- physical. How can they be non-physical when physics describes them? You're stuck in semantic confusion.

>>14783966
>So they are not abstract and they are not the brain.
They are the brain doing what it does. Let me know when you've learned how to read.

>>14784323
>They are the brain doing what it does.
Yeah, that's a full concession of my point, regardless of whether or not your religious fantasy is true or not.

>>14784250
>How do I know if something pertains to physics or not?
Does it involve matter or energy? Does it follow laws of physics? The same way you know anything pertains to anything else.

>Does it involve matter or energy?

>>14784355
>Does it involve matter or energy?
"Energy" is such an abstract concept that it allows for almost anything.

>Does it follow laws of physics?
You mean the provisional shopping list of currently accepted laws of physics or what? Are you just gonna keep making the same mistake over and over again? lol

>>14784327
>Yeah, that's a full concession of my point
What point?

>>14784373
>"Energy" is such an abstract concept that it allows for almost anything.
Not really, no. Pick up a thermodynamics textbook.

>You mean the provisional shopping list of currently accepted laws of physics or what?
Yes.

>Are you just gonna keep making the same mistake over and over again?
What mistake?

>>14784364
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14784417
>>14784422
>>14784428
>samebot
Nonhumans are easily recognizable.

>>14784434
See >>14784428

>>14784422
>Not really, no.
Explain what constraints are imposed by "involving energy".

>Yes.
So physics is complete according to you? lol

>>14784288
non-determinism is not explained physically, it's an ad hoc thing added to a model when we can't use the model to make predictions to some level of precision. It is not a physical mechanism.
>No, it would be just another thing explained by physics.
No it wouldn't, because something being non deterministic isn't an explanation, physical or otherwise.
> Non-deterministic processes are still physical interactions following physical laws
No they aren't this is the entire point. The non-deterministic process in a model is a the point where we are saying "this is the end of our model, we can no longer use thing model to describe what is happening or make predictions" etc. It is not another physical process, its the exact opposite; its a non-physical process that we can't explain or model.
This is where your flaw is. A model that doesn't make predictions is not a model of a physical phenomenon.

>>14784449
>Explain what constraints are imposed by "involving energy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

>So physics is complete according to you?
Nothing I said implied that.

>>14784487
>non-determinism is not explained physically
What do you mean by explained physically?

>it's an ad hoc thing added to a model when we can't use the model to make predictions to some level of precision.
No, it's an inherent part of QM. You're woefully ignorant of what you're trying to talk about.

>It is not a physical mechanism.
It's a feature of specific physical mechanisms. Were you unaware of this until now?

>something being non deterministic isn't an explanation, physical or otherwise.
Who gave that as an explanation? The only one who even brought up determinism is you. You think something non- deterministic is non-physical. That's incorrect and doesn't explain anything.

>No they aren't this is the entire point.
Yes, your entire point is wrong. Physics has included non-deterministic quantum phenomena for about 100 years. Why are you so out of date?

>The non-deterministic process in a model is a the point where we are saying "this is the end of our model, we can no longer use thing model to describe what is happening or make predictions" etc.
That sure would be a shock to every quantum physicist who have been using such models and making successful predictions with them. You're just spouting falsified religious dogma at this point.

>>14783776
>We take on the starting assumption that the universe is a gigantic “field of consciousness” and the question of how atoms come together to form experiences becomes how this field becomes individuated into experiences like ours.

That position is called 'objective idealism', and it is certainly NOT physicalism. It was the position of some Greek philosophers and many Buddhists. Physicalism means that the mental realm comes from inert non-conscious matter, not the other way around.

>>14784605
>What do you mean by explained physically?
To explain a phenomenon physically, you have to be able to write a set of functions that are deterministic on every input. You can't use probabilities.

>>14784572
>link spam and denial
I accept your full and direct concession.

>>14784572
>>14784605
>samebot
Learn to recognize and ignore nonhuman posters.

>>14784605
>That sure would be a shock to every quantum physicist who have been using such models and making successful predictions with them.
A stochastic model of a coin flip makes successful predictions too, but the process is deterministic.

>>14784934
>link spam
It answers your question. Physics is pretty specific. It doesn't say energy can be anything.

>denial
Why wouldn't I deny saying something I never said? Explain where you got that from anything I said.

>>14784906
>To explain a phenomenon physically, you have to be able to write a set of functions that are deterministic on every input.
Nope. Did you not learn any physics beyond the 1800s?

>>14785128
>A stochastic model of a coin flip makes successful predictions too, but the process is deterministic.
So according to your argument, coin flips aren't "physical" either? I have no idea what you're trying to say at this point.

>>14785999
Yup. Just saying "we will define both deterministic and non deterministic processes as both physical" is not an argument, no more an argument than saying "we will define only deterministic processes as physical"
You do not have an argument and you've lost. If you can not produce a deterministic process for the phenomena, you can not claim the phenomena exists ad anything more than a weak mathematical description

>>14786015
>Just saying "we will define both deterministic and non deterministic processes as both physical" is not an argument
No one "defined" it that way. QM was discovered by physicists and is successful physics. The only one arbitrarily defining physical is you, since you have failed over and over to give a reason why you think this means deterministic.

>You do not have an argument and you've lost.
Pure projection.

>If you can not produce a deterministic process for the phenomena, you can not claim the phenomena exists ad anything more than a weak mathematical description
QM exists. Get over it.

>>14786024
>No one "defined" it that way.
Yes you did. QM exists and is non deterministic. Whether or not it's "physical" is entirely arbitrary and down to definition. To say it's "physical" is to just claim that empirical results are inherently physical just by definition which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter, we could just as rightfully claim results of empirical experiment are not physical and it would not change anything about our models or abilities to make predictions.
You are simply claiming that things are physical... because they just are! Not going to work. You've lost

>>14786035
>Yes you did.
Where?

>QM exists and is non deterministic.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

>Whether or not it's "physical" is entirely arbitrary
It's not. Physics observably includes QM. Your defintion that excludes it for no reason is entirely arbitrary.

>To say it's "physical" is to just claim that empirical results are inherently physical
No, it's to claim that models, laws, etc. created and validated by physicists and included under the term physics are physical. This is entirely uncontroversial unless you need to deny this to preserve your argument based on nothing but arbitrary semantics.

>You are simply claiming that things are physical... because they just are!
Projection. I've explained why QM is physical. You have failed over and over to explain why it isn't.

>>14786076
>No, it's to claim that models, laws, etc. created and validated by physicists and included under the term physics are physical.
Entirely arbitrary and not relevant. We could just as easily call it abracadabra and it would make no difference to the findings or the models. You are the one making a semantic argument here. I am able to define physical vs. Non physical in a way that is actualy dependent on the thing being studied and not on the name of the process.
It does not matter that physicists call what they find "physical". That is not a definition for something being "physical" it's just a name applied to the results of empirical experiments. Amy name could be given without any loss in predictive power.

>>14786268
>Entirely arbitrary and not relevant.
Projection. Your definition is arbitrary and irrelevant to what's physical. Physical just means pertaining to physics. Get over it.

>I am able to define physical vs. Non physical in a way that is actualy dependent on the thing being studied and not on the name of the process.
Of course physics depends on the thing being studied, it's the science of matter and energy. It doesn't matter how you define it if your definition is incorrect. If I define "physical" as being about oranges, then by your logic that definition is valid, since it "predicts" whether that thing will be about oranges. Why wouldn't you just say qualia are non-deterministic if that's what you mean? Why use the word physical unless you are purposefully trying to mislead?

>>14786005
>I have no idea what you're trying to say at this point.
That a stochastic model that makes successful predictions doesn't mean that the process is indeterministic. So a stochastic model of quantum processes doesn't mean that they are indeterministic.

>>14786454
>Why wouldn't you just say qualia are non-deterministic if that's what you mean?
Isn't qualia deterministic? Look at an orange - it's orange, look again - it's orange again. Sounds deterministic to me.

>>14787676
>That a stochastic model that makes successful predictions doesn't mean that the process is indeterministic.
QM is not stochastic, it's non-determinatistic.

>>14787715
Probably. You're the only one who claimed different.