/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14777408
It's an emergent phenomenon we don't understand yet. Hold off on god of the gaps until neuroscience is further developed.

I dont know. But is strange for sure.

>>14777425
Neuroscience studies material reality of how our brain functions
immaterial shit like the nature of inner experience is out of its scope
Where are the images of the world I'm experiencing even forming. Brain has nothing but electrical impulses and even when it comes to computers you need to plug it to a monitor for those electrical impulses to convert to visuals and a subject like us to perceive them.

>>14777425
>emergent phenomenon
Vacuous buzzword.

>until neuroscience is further developed.
Neuroscience has nothing to say on this matter by definition so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were OP.

>>14777408
Just because an organism behaves as though it's seeing something in its mind's eye doesn't mean a literal inner world has to be created. All that's needed is the behavior, or in the case of other processes like pain, the behavior plus some physiological reactions like blood pressure increase.

>>14777408
I can guarantee there is not one person in the world to whom this idea actually makes sense. It is every bit as inconceivable to the most hardcore materialistic consciousness denialists as it is to you. They are arguing purely based on faith.

>>14777512
>Just because an organism behaves as though it's seeing something in its mind's eye doesn't mean a literal inner world has to be created.
Which makes your beliefs into pseudoscience if you're trying to argue that you can show scientifically that consciousness is caused by the brain doing this or that.

>>14777425
Calling it an "emergent phenomenon" is a "god of the gaps".

>>14777512
How does electrical signals travelling through nerve fibers and then to neutral networks in your brain convert to your inner experience as if these signals are painting a picture on a sheet of soul

>>14777523
It isn't really even a claim so much as a doubt that you need a claim.
If you don't need a literal inner world to account for the behavior of saying you experience one then there's no reason to look for one.
The question is really: Do you need to take literally the claim that a given person has an inner world, or is what you know really just that this person behaves as though there's an inner world?
Because in the latter case that's not any more mysterious than programming a robot to report that it's "seeing in its mind's eye" when it's processing spatial information in the absence of input to its camera feed.
The behavior and reporting certainly aren't speculative. Those both exist whether you're a dualist or a materialist. So there's nothing really being claimed in this case that everyone doesn't already agree to and instead just one thing not claimed that you probably do want to claim (the part where we should take the reports people make of inner worlds literally).

>>14777564
This nigga doesn't experience inner world lmao

>>14777547
>How does electrical signals travelling through nerve fibers and then to neutral networks in your brain convert to your inner experience as if these signals are painting a picture on a sheet of soul
By not doing that to begin with. They make you behave as though there's an inner world without literally inking one out in phantasm dust or whatever.

>>14777568
Neither would you. That'd be the point. I'm just willing to doubt it while you for whatever reason aren't. I'm not as trusting of the literal reality of what we behave as though an inner world has.

>>14777564
>If you don't need a literal inner world to account for the behavior of saying you experience one then there's no reason to look for one.
Real people do have an inner world tha tneeds to be accounted for and we're talking about real people, not about mindless bots like you.

>>14777569
So you mean I'm lying when I say I experience inner world

>>14777573
>Real people do have an inner world
We certainly behave as though we have them. Though that doesn't mean they literally exist.

>>14777577
>We certainly behave as though we have them
"We" meaning you and other unconscious bots? Real people have them and it's not up for any kind of discussion at all. It's a given.

the feeling of thinking comes from your brain allocating resources to a subject while it is being observed

the feedback of this process is what causes a manifestation of thought, you interrelate ideas of what you're experiencing and thinking about with past experiences and past thoughts

its real time model building but you already have a model and your models are influencing how the model is being built

Ill use this analogy: imagine you're building a new road through a city. The road is just a dirt track in comparison to some other roads around it. while you're building the road you pass by a school, the school sees the road came from a good direction so it supports the road. The road is now widening and is easier to walk.

You come up to another location in the city; perhaps its related to your job or what you study, the place agrees the road is good. Now your road is even wider and you can move quite quickly along it.

This goes so on and so forth meandering its way through the city until suddenly it hits another well used road and a sudden jolt of activity occurs, you have connected two disparate parts of the city and suddenly the the humble dirt track is a highway.

the road builder is the head of your thoughts, a combination an observer (your senses) and a resource manager(your baser brain that dictates how much resources your brain is allowed to use lest the rest of your body suffers)

the 'inner experience' is simply the sense organ parts of your brain firing independently of outside stimuli. Think of an idea you had earlier today and witness for yourself the building of a road completely inside your own head.

>>14777574
No, lying implies deliberate / knowing deception.
It's more like your brain's automatic processes are lying.

>>14777578
>it's not up for any kind of discussion
That's fine except it is up for discussion even though you might not want it to be.

>>14777579
I legit think people like this dude are bots

>>14777579
>>>/r/eddit

>>14777579
>the 'inner experience' is simply the sense organ parts of your brain firing independently of outside stimuli.
What?

>>14777610
the 'inner experience' is experienced in terms of the 'outer experience'.

now, the 'inner experience' is, by definition, an aspect of the 'outer experience'

so this implies that the 'outer experience' is experienced in terms of the 'inner experience'

this means that the 'outer experience' is experienced in terms of itself, so it cannot experience itself in terms of itself.

learn some neuroscience, chud

>>14777616
All of this is false.

>>14777621
is that why you can't prove it wrong?

>>14777580
>It's more like your brain's automatic processes are lying.
That's nice, but the only rational thing to do at this point is to chuck you out of the discussion.

>>14777489
>immaterial shit is out of its scope
The brain knows how to summon, bind and shape souls. If we study it well enough, we should be able to steal its techniques.

>>14777633
How will you know if you've succeeded? Are you starting to see why you're position is pure and blatant pseudoscience yet?

>>14777408
The only explanation that is consistent and can explain the situation is that qualitative experiences are fundamental. I don't know much beyond this. It gets down to a deeper philosophy about the nature of reality.
Basically, it is not the case that all extant things are capable of being quantified. Not all things are subject to deterministic mathematical description. This does not just apply to qualitative experiences but also other things that exist like the decay of radioactive particles, the collapse of the wavefunction, for example. Obviously these things are completely different but none are explainable by deterministic algorithms i.e. they are not explainable by any mechanistic process or material transformation.
This is where the true heart of this question is and where the argument comes from between the so called materialists vs the other side. The materialists are at their core saying that everything is explainable using deterministic mathematics and so qualitative experiences must be subject to such explanation as well. This is why they may even deny the existence of qualitative experiences; once they realize there is not quantitative description, but everything that exists must be explained with deterministic mechanations, well then qualia does not exist at all because it's not subject to such analysis. Or why they will claim the hard problem is equivalent to the easy problem; once we understand the mechanism of the brain we have explained the qualia as well because the qualia is just the quanta of the processes of the brain.

Only when you understand that it's NOT just qualia, but many things that exist that are fundamental not mechanistic or programmable on Turing machines or explainable with any mathematics do you realize the nature of this question and the debate. There does not exist a mathematical explanation for everything. It is not the case that the universe is deterministic, etc. None of this needs any special pleading or dualism.

>>14777638
>How will you know if you've succeeded?
The same way the brain learns of its success. By receiving meaningful input from a soul.

>>14777655
What are you on about, schizo? Maybe I wasn't clear enough: how will you know your off-brand brain clone gives rise to a mind?

>>14777408
Why couldn't physical experience lead to an internal experience? Why do you assume your internal experience is somehow non-physical?

>>14777667
>physical
>non-physical
>b-b-but why couldn't my unsubstantiated opinions be wrong??
Meaningless tripe.

>>14777690
I'm asking for substantiation of the idea that the physical experience of the brain is unable to create an internal experience.

>>14777692
>physical
Meaningless tripe.

>>14777408
The more you think about the origin of the universe the less sense it makes. It is not strange at all that it also contains something equally weird and seemingly inexplicable, namely consciousness.

>>14777408
Have you looked into theories about the 4rth dimension being extremely small? It’s possible that inner phenomena come from the 4rth dimension of matter itself, and we just happened to evolve to be able to “receive” these 4D signals and experience them in more depth than say a rock.

>>14777742
>uuhhh it's just a secret 4th dimension of matter that we just happened to evolve to receive for inexplicable reasons
Materialism truly is a cult.

>>14777628
Setting aside the topic of qualia, you should go read up on the million uncontroversial and well established ways the brain makes use of misdirection and false beliefs on a routine basis.
The memories people swear are accurate every day are really rationalized "what must have happened" stories invented after the fact, the sense of a smooth and uninterrupted cinematic intake of visuals is a huge lie covering up a bunch of spotty darting back and forth of little snapshots of your surroundings, and every night to help keep you sleeping your brain comes up with a slew of blatant lies like you're back in school even though you're 35 and haven't been there since you were 22, or your dead grandma's back because of a news article you read that explained a new experimental death reversing drug was discovered.
I don't even care about the original topic anymore and just take offense at the idea someone isn't aware how much brain function depends on misrepresentation of reality.
Split brain experiments and the absurdly extreme lengths stroke patients to deny their arms are paralyzed are even more interesting examples although I know bringing those up just invites a bunch of crying about evidence from broken brains not counting (which is stupid because seeing what happens when an organ breaks down actually gives you the best insight into how it works when not broken, like learning how a magic trick works thanks to an amateur stage magician fucking it up in front of you).
Don't even @ me, this was just a public service announcement. Thanks.

>>14777746
You still didn't explain why anyone should argue with a psychotic bot like you who denies direct experience.

>uhhh but what if my brain is just lying to me that i experience anything at all?
>my purely abstract 50th order derivatives that try to model this experience are surely real, though
>by the way, there's no way my malfunctioning bot brain is making me think this mental-illness-tier opinion is sound when it isn't
>brains only lie about things when it suits me
They're not people. Don't argue with them.

>>14777746
literally nothing in this post nor any of the phenomena you're talking about pertain to answering the hard problem.
Why is it that some people are so stupid that they can't even understand a simple problem? Nothing about the continuity vs discreteness of experience has anything to do with the hard problem; whether experience is continuous or discrete does not matter or answer the question. Nothing about memories being confabulated has anything to do with the hard problem; whether you actually remember something or make it up DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING in terms of qualitative experiences, etc.
Nothing that you wrote has anything to do with OPs question. I don't understand how such misunderstanding is possible.

>>14777764
See >>14777762. Please refrain from arguing overly nonhumans, especially when they flat out tell you they have no internal experience.

ITT: pseuds that took an intro philosophy course after leaving their christian hometown and are desperately trying to make it all make sense

>>14777529
One invokes the supernatural, requiring additional bits of information, and straying from occam's razor.
The other is an honest admission of our limited understanding without requiring magic.

>>14777777
>t. mentally ill drone

>>14777745
When someone asks a question about something we don’t understand, the only conclusion is that the answer is something we also do not understand.

>>14777777
I'm from New York city and Im smarter than you

>>14777784
>when someone points out the disconnect between my materialist dogma and reality, the only conclusion is some mysterious and invisible 4th dimension of matter
LOL

>>14777777
Wasted repeating digits

>>14777408
Argument from ignorance fallacy.

>>14777809
Nope

>>14777809
>referencing reddit fallacies
Dumb drone.

>>14777564
Eliminitivism is the same sort of refusal to look basic facts in the face that causes someone with a mouth full of dick to claim that they are actually pleasuring their "girlfriend," and "eating her out." The dick in your mouth is the most prominent thing you experience and you still reject it.

All to win an argument. Except it doesn't work, we can all see the dick in your mouth and no amount of saying the claim that you're eating out your girlfriend changes this.

>>14777791
Argument from ignorance isn't a demonstration of any disconnect, it's only a demonstration of your unwillingness to think.
>>14777811
>>14777817
You're still full of shit.

>>14777835
>You're still full of shit.
This question is not a matter of ignorance or lack of knowledge, which is why it's not an argument from ignorance.

>>14777837
It's formulated as "I don't know therefore magic", it's etalon argument from ignorance.

>>14777840
No, it's formulated as "there can not exist a mechanistic mathematical explanation for this even in principle, so it is not subject to such analysis".
This has nothing to do with magic. OP talking about souls is as much of a non-sequitur as anything else on this topic.

>>14777783
>>14777790
>>14777798
Turning this board into the dead sea at this rate.

>>14777850
you are not smart

>>14777851
Like recognizes like

>>14777835
>referencing the reddit fallacy again
Dumb drone.

>>14777840
> "I don't know therefore magic",
That's literally your materialist cult position.

>>14777857
nothing about this question has to do with your christian boogyman so you bringing it up makes no sense in these threads.
I guarantee that none of us arguing against the materialist position follow any religion. This is a matter of precision. There does not exist a deterministic materialist explanation for qualitative experiences, therefore deterministic materialism is a falsified as an ontology. This does not have anything to do with any abrahamic religion. It's pure scientific reasoning.

>>14777408
>Almost makes me want to believe in supernatural shit like souls.
Of course it makes you want to believe such things. You are a dumb person who is predisposed to thinking such things because you inherited such behavior from your ancestors. Finding cures for this is quite hard but I suggest learning some science and math.

>>14777866
Go eat a bagel and chill bro.

Just cause neuroscience texts are hard doesn't mean you should be wasting your time on this. It'll be okay

>>14777869
>t. YT+reddit education
Neuroscience has nothing to say about consciousness.

>>14777869
There is nothing in any neuroscience text or finding that has anything to do with solving the hard problem.

>>14777872
Because it's not even worth considering.

>>14777861
Knowing that we don’t know the answer I’m fine with. But what you’re failing to see is the logic.
If we admit we do not understand the answer, then the answer is something we do not understand or have knowledge on.
Therefore any new knowledge gained in any semi-relevant field may also provide insight to help us better answer ops question.
It is logical then, that testing new 4D particle models against what we don’t understand about the brain could reveal new information.

>>14777872
>>14777871
I mean, it literally does though. There's a button in the brain for conciousness that when pressed knocks a MF out. Although that is incredibly basic info and isn't really catching the whole interplay of a variety of information processing systems.

But forreal go eat a bagel and chill, your blood pressure is bad enough from all the smog already

>>14777877
Nope, it's just that it can't be understood by this form of analysis. Doesn't mean it's not worth considering, you're just angry that you can't figure it out by looking at synapsis.

>>14777882
This is what Reddit education looks like. Cringe.

>>14777882
This has nothing to do with qualitative experiences.
I have no idea why you idiots STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND what this question is asking. It is such a simple thing to understand

>>14777880
>Knowing that we don’t know the answer I’m fine with
Then stop sharting out nonsensical materialist dogma and just admit you don't see how consciousness could possibly follow from the tenets of your religion. Nobody does.

>>14777887
OooOOooo a network reweighing it's priors to generate a probablistic outcome. OooooOOooooOoo, a gene network is alliivveeee

>>14777890
what the hell are you talking about. this has nothing to do with qualitative experiences.
qualitative experiences are not weighted priors.

>>14777883
I can see why you believe that but the fact that you're wrong is obvious to most rational people.

>>14777892
One day you'll get those peaky shadows buddy, just keep scrabbling at the wall!

>>14777895
I am more rational than you, seeing as I don't reject phenomena just because I don't like them.

>>14777896
I have no what are you talking about
also, intelligence itself, not just conscious experience, is not a matter of a weighted neural network calibrating probabilities. so I really don't know what it is you're talking about. What you're saying makes no sense in terms of intelligence nor conscious qualitative experiences.

>>14777901
And the blind man does cry, "Eureka!"

For he knows that an elephant is a creature tall and spindly from the sensation of it's tail in his hand.

Caught in the illusions of sensation and the dazzling wonders of consciousness it is easy to think them the true wonders.

>Caught in the illusions of sensation and the dazzling wonders of consciousness it is easy to think them the true wonders.
Where do all these literal subhumans come from?

>>14777912
You are right I ment to type wanders of conciousness. Such is life, i truly am the fool.

I'd tell you to return to /lit/ but shamefully i must admit they are too intelligent for fools such as I.

>>14777908
Consciousness isn't the only wonder in this universe. I find evolution by natural selection to be the most riveting thing to be honest. It's splendid to look at the products of evolution in this world.

>>14777925
You would probably appreciate this connection between thermodynamics, evolution, and learning. Look in there for an answer to this is what is upon my mind.

>>14777931
>that desperate attempt to tie in """machine learning""" with actual science
Cringe.

>>14777942
>Optimization of functions is CRINGE and not SCIENCE

At least do your upper division coursework before posting here bro

>>14777949
I have no problem with function optimization or Bayesian inference. Your cult just needs to stop pretending its toys are somehow fundamental.

>>14777931
Will do, thanks anon

>>14777842
Yes, if it's magic, then mechanistic mathematical explanation can't exist even in principle, but it's magic because idealists are ignorant about the mechanism. Etalon argument from ignorance.

>>14777967
>i am mentally ill
Sorry to hear that.

>>14777861
There's no magic in materialism, though, try again.

>>14777942
You will be replaced by a dumb machine in the near future

>>14777975
I think the fact that anything exists at all is pretty magical. Wouldn’t you agree?

>>14777975
>hurrrrrr everything i can't explain just """emerges"""
Meds now. Your cult's magical thinking isn't science.

>>14777967
See >>14777651

>>14777980
I'm not reliant on your drone system so you're the only one getting replaced, wagebot. :^)

>>14777985
NTA but that post is schizo nonsense. "Quanta of brain process" LMAO

>>14777980
that’s fine. Less work for me

>>14777992
There is nothing in that post that's nonsense. It's to illustrate that qualia is not the only thing that is not subject to mathematical or deterministic laws

>>14778003
Sure thing schizo

>>14777866
>This does not have anything to do with any abrahamic religion. It's pure scientific reasoning.
It's rationalization of the sky jew, nothing scientific there.

>>14777992
Also a quanta of the brain process is just the synapsis which is discrete. This discrete quantitative excitation can't even in principle explain qualitative experiences.

>>14778009
See >>14778006

>>14778006
You are not intelligent
>>14778007
You are very unintelligent
>>14778010
Making a lot of unintelligent posts doesn't make an argument.

>>14777651
What you are describing is called panpsychism and the eminent neuroscientist Christof Koch is one notable proponent of it

>>14777982
The fact that anything exists is a travesty. Learn antinatalism, retard. Rational people know there's nothing magical or good about existence. Only consciousness schizos like you think existence is magical and good. Fuck off with your cryptochristian chud religion. Trump lost.

>>14778011
It's impossible to argue with schizos like you

>>14778014
I'll look into that, thanks

>>14777887
>what this question is asking
A question? A question is not an argument, is it? A question is merely ignorance.

>>14778016
I didn’t mean magical in the sense of wonderful. I meant magical in the sense of inexplicable.

>>14778018
There is nothing "schizo" about stating the fact that there are things that can't be described with math. There are a litany of examples across various fields of science and the theory of computation. Qualitative experiences are not special in this sense.

>>14778027
>There is nothing "schizo" about stating the fact that there are things that can't be described with math.
Name them

>>14778024
It's super explicable. Just learn the science of materialism, retard. We already know how everything happened. Literally go to school.

>>14778023
Philosophy is not the study or “love of wisdom”, but simply the practice of asking the right questions. Or in other words, completely useless, as someone on this board would say.

>>14778035
the fuck.. what grade in school are you in?

>>14778032
Decay of a radioactive particle
Emission of hawking radiation
Collapse of the wavefunction of a particle
Qualitative experiences
And more
The universe is not deterministic nor is it entirely describable with any Turing machine

>>14777956
It's almost like information theory doesn't exist for you. Then again, who needs a theory for something you posses only the vacuum of.

>>14777982
It's a result of a mechanistic process, so no magic.

>>14778045
It's almost like "information" is imaginary, mouth breather. It's almost like "information" is a complete and utter abstraction.

>>14778046
The universe itself doesn't even evolve according to any mechanistic deterministic process.

>>14778043
>Decay of a radioactive particle
>Emission of hawking radiation
>Collapse of the wavefunction of a particle
>Qualitative experiences
All of those have mathematical descriptions retard. Learn some actual QM instead of spouting buzzwords you know nothing about next time. Of course I know you won't do that since you're a schizo.

>>14778052
They do not have any deterministic evolution in any formalization

>>14777984
Emergence is a mechanistic process, so not magic.

>arguing with certified nonhumans that believe in pseudoscientific, refuted 19th century dogma
Always consider the very real possibility that "materialist" posters are GPTs programmed to wear you out.

>>14778056
Spouting buzzwords again I see. You only know about hawking radiation and wavefunctions through mathematics you absolute dumbfuck.

>>14778046
Mechanistic process just magically appeared out of nowhere. Bam. Magic.

>>14778058
>i believe in pseudoscience and magic
Okay. Why don't you go back to >>>/lgbt/?

>>14778060
If the mathematics requires a probability space then it is not deterministic or mechanistic, it's not subject to mechanistic evolution
Randomness is not mechanistic

>>14778050
It does evolve according to a mechanistic deterministic process.

>>14778060
>Spouting buzzwords
You mean like "physicalism" and "emergent"? Dumb drone.

>>14778064
Stop shifting goalposts schizo. You said they were not describable using mathematics. Or are you saying probability theory is not mathematics? Big yikes in that case

>Stop shifting goalposts schizo. You said they were not describable using mathematics.

>>14778072
Your schizophrenia has been conclusively established.

>Your schizophrenia has been conclusively established.

>>14778069
No it doesn't.
>>14778071
When I say describable with math I mean programmable on a universal deterministic Turing machine. The evolution of the universe is not programmable on such a machine because it is not deterministic and doesn't follow a mechanistic evolution
The next state of the universe is not a function of the previous state. There is a randomness that eliminates mechanical description

>>14778061
Processes don't appear, they happen over time.

>>14778080
>The next state of the universe is not a function of the previous state.
There's literally a very famous equation which can do just that. It's called Schrodinger's equation. Look it up. If you had learnt QM through some real books instead of retarded schizo sources, I wouldn't have to tell you this. All of this is also computable on a Turing machine perfectly well.

>>14778080
>No it doesn't.
It does, learn science. Evolution of the universe is described by the evolution operator, that operator is deterministic, as a consequence evolution is deterministic too.

>>14778086
The schrodinger equation does not predict the next state of the universe. There is no universal wave function. Collapse of a wavefuncrion is a real and non deterministic process. All outcomes are not realizes in different branches.
>>14778088
Nope. Evolution of particles is inherently random

>>14778094
>There is no universal wave function.
All serious theoretical physicists disagree
>Collapse of a wavefuncrion is a real
Lol. Your position is not even coherent

>>14778094
>All serious theoretical physicists disagree
Wrong but it doesn't even really matter to my point overall
>Lol. Your position is not even coherent
Wrong and completely retarded. Non deterministic collapse is completely coherent and it is in fact what happens when you try to extract information from the system

>>14778104
Learn to quote, schizo.
>Wrong
Sure thing schizo.
>Non deterministic collapse is completely coherent
No it's not. It violates relativity. Anyway, you're not even in a position to discuss these because you're just a schizo repeating schizo slogans. No more replies from me, just take your meds.

How does this pic make you feel?

>>14778116
You have no argument other than calling me a schizo. There is nothing about objective collapse theories that are in contradiction to any known phenomena dumbass, it does not violate special relativity. You're not going to win by pretending Im ignorant.
The universe is not deterministic, stop seething about it

>>14778122
Disgusting. Looks like something a science-denying "qualia" believer would draw.

>>14778134
Denying qualia is the science denying position

>>14778088
There is no deterministic equation for the decay of a single radioactive particle.

>>14778128
There's literally no consistent theory with randomness, nobody heard of it, nobody proposed it, fix your education.

>>14778048
I'd bemoan such ferric circumstances you've manfucatured if you weren't always so acidic. Instead it's akin to riding a ferrous wheel where you get close to understanding before your own complexity undermines you.

>>14778139
Didn't the primary contemporary of qualia renounce them at the end of his life?

>>14778160
There are plenty of theories that involve true randomness. Why does randomness scare you?

>>14778153
There's: ψ(t)=exp(-t/T)|1>+(1-exp(-t/T))|0>

>>14778169
Those theories are inconsistent.

>>14778171
You can not predict when the particle will decay using this, because when the particle actually decays is literally random and entirely non deterministic

>>14778163
You talk like a homo and that's probably because you are one, but even a homo should be able to see that claiming abstractions are fundamental is putting the carriage before the horse.

>>14778172
No they're not, unless you artificially define consistent as being deterministic,in which case you're already doomed to accept the universe isn't consistent anyway.
The universe does not evolve deterministically. Things sometimes literally happen for no mechanical deterministic reason and that's just how this shit is. It's okay you don't have to be afraid of this.

>>14778139
Only schizos believe in qualia and it's mostly the same science-denying schizos that produce "art". There is no place for your shamanistic bullshit in modern society. Fuck off.

Science was a mistake

>>14778176
The mathematician cries out in pain from such crude methods.

Abstraction is a method of interpretation, learning as a conceptual framework is being shown to contain isomorphisms in both evolution and thermodynamics. Information is a fundamental quantity when properly defined, might as well deny entropy as a stupid abstraction. Shame you are mired in your own self-image, perhaps if you were instead to gaze elsewhere you would find answers instead of navels.

>>14778183
You are actually a moronic incel and I have no idea why you're sperging out right now

>Only schizos believe in qualia and it's mostly the same science-denying schizos that produce "art". There is no place for your shamanistic bullshit in modern society. Fuck off.

>>14778185
>learning as a conceptual framework is being shown to contain isomorphisms in both evolution and thermodynamics
Yes, you sodotmine, and that's because from a high enough level of abstraction, everything looks like everything else.

>Information is a fundamental quantity
Abstractions can't be fundamental. We've already covered this.

>>14778193
>sodotmine
What the fuck. I mean 'sodomite'.

>>14777867

The funny thing is, I'm a materialist. It's the materialist position that accepts non determinism. Only crypto platonists think that everything is following the ideal deterministic mathematical forms. Materialists understand that the gloop of the material is not subject to determinism. It's a random material gloom, we're all random gloops of material substances.

>>14778193
>High enough level
I'm aware of your drug habits, please don't assume all share in such denigration of the mind.

Then neither is entropy, enthalpy, force, or energy. Such shame that is.

>>14777499
>Vacuous buzzword.
nice pleonasm pseud

>>14778201
>The funny thing is, I'm a materialist.
You will never feel a funny thing and I am truly sorry about your predicament, botfriend.

Why does the existence of qualia cause this one anon to sperge out so hard? I see him in these threads he's the regular along with the npc posting guy.
Why does qualia cause you to get so angry?

>>14778209
Qualia is a cope for people who want to feel special without invoking god

>>14778203
You're the one suffering from a deniggeration of the mind, you filthy /lit/ migrant.

>Then neither is entropy, enthalpy, force, or energy.
All of those are just attempts to get a mathematical handle on fundamental relationships that occur in reality. Of course there is no substance in the abstractions themselves. You and other information schizos like to pretend that information is a fundamental substance.

>>14778205
Material substances exist so I have to be materialis. So does qualia. I don't like mononisms of any variety. Reality is a pluralism of various substances that can't be reduced to each other. Scientific investigation is concerned with the material part, which does exist, but is not the totality.
I don't care if you want to post a picture of a bot or whatever because I remain correct and all the rest of you monists are wrong.

>>14778212
Wonderful so you agree that there is no way information is fundamental just like how conciousness is just an abstraction as well. Meaning, in fact, that people attempting to label it as something more fundamental than the material of reality are schizos themselves!

So glad to agree, even if it is between us fools

>>14778211
But qualia exists so it can't be a cope for anything.
If your entire position is based on your Christian boogeyman then I'm not interested anymore in debating this with you. Your well has already been poisoned by your childhood molestation. I do not suffer from these psychological reactionary weaknesses

>>14778221
And your proof of qualia? Proof of the unique nature of information intake irrespective to the physical mechanics of it's acquisition?

>>14778224
We can prove the existence of qualia by directly experiencing it. Furthermore simple inversion arguments separate qualitative experiences from quantitative information processing.

>>14778229
I can prove the existence of a purple dragon if I experience it while ingesting large amounts of DMT. That isn't as convincing an argument as you suppose. Hallucinations and overestimatation of our own capacity is fundamental human nature.

>>14778220
>conciousness is just an abstraction
So you're telling me you're a bot. Okay. Thanks for removing yourself from the discussion.

>>14777408
Inner experience is just how the brain interprets the process of energy conversion, there is nothing magic about it.

>>14778217
>Material substances exist so I have to be materialis
There's no way real people are shitting out these posts. This is GPT-2-tier logic.

>>14778237
Units of consciousness are information. Hilarious that you require such tricks to avoid the mirror before you. Avert, avert! Be afraid, for such a visage would crack your glaze.

>>14778242
>Units of consciousness are information
No idea what this psychiatric-patient-tier utterance is supposed to mean, but since you've already told me that you have no internal experience, I don't really care.

>>14778232
The hallucination is still a qualitative experience just like all other experiences.
There is literally no reason to deny qualitative experiences other than to be a midwit pseud. You do not actually have the rational scientific position here. The rational scientific position is to accept your sensory data and accept that not all things are quantitative. Monism is not true. I have no idea why you are married to this already proven wrong position

>>14778244
Ferric again i see. Such a shame, such a shame. Expand your motions to beyond yourself, then you'll see a thought itself. Perhaps the trouble is indeed your lack of info for you to see.

Good luck, farewell. Your troubles are unwell. The shadows grow as fires dim, so maybe you'll find one near the end. But still I usher to leave that cove to seek the light above your hole.

>>14778069
Okay. And how did that come about?

>>14778251
Fuck off back to >>>/lit/ with your shit-tier teenage prose. Zero intellectual content in your posts.

>>14778249
Your position as stands is strong as sand. The dragon exists as qualia does, in an idea within your mind. The place and placement is not as unique as you suppose, for it can be diciphered and ciphered at our own. DARPA made implants that do just that, we can extract the visual cortex's experience quite easily, and don't even begin the dreams we all share.

Qualia presupposes an idea of being special and unique in what is processed. What is unique is the arrangement of parts but two people can very much experience identical things with the right circuitry. We are just squishy, stochastic, and difficult to freeze.

>>14778184
Being alive was the bigger mistake. But you had no choice nor any say in whether or not you would be alive. And yet you are here.

>>14778249
>There is literally no reason to deny qualitative experiences other than to be a midwit pseud.
False. The only reason to do so is that he is a nonhuman spambot made out of human-shaped meat programmed to wear you out.

>>14778260
Never been never will, what you seek is above your will. Try again and again you see. Your mind is weak, as you will be.

I give in turn what is gifted to me, that vacuum you shared I'd never leave.

>>14778271
Vacuous homo shits out a post for another (You) is what he craves the most. Here's your (You), you retarded shill. I hope it gives you a little thrill. See? Anyone can shit out ungodly cringe rhymes.

>>14778280
That rhymed. Neat.

>>14778266
If you're talking about that thing where they tried to reconstruct the image based on the synapse pattern, first of all it was trash, secondly it doesn't do anything to challenge inversion arguments anyway so it is not a proof against qualia. It couldn't be because EVEN IF you claim qualia is emergent from synaptic patterns, you have no way of explaining how a non quantitative experience of a color arouse from the quantitative firing of the neurons other than just saying "it just does because we have these correlations" which isn't an answer, it's just some weird epiphenominalist position.
The clear answer that is most simple is to just accept that qualia exists and is fundamentally different from material substances.

>>14778283
This whole discussion is going downhill and you roll like a cart without wheels. You will never approach my poetic prowess so get your hands out of your mommy's drawers and stop posting shameful mess while you act like a homo and cross-dress.

>>14778280
Oof, close but no cigar. Your rhyme and meter a loss so far. One is given as they give, a shit in one hand all from you. Try again to say some rhyme, maybe then you will be fine.

Your arguments and conjectures have all boiled down to simplistic desires that lack basis in reality or ideas. Willing the world will never work lest you yourself are the worlds will. I'd suggest, again, to try to see beyond the eyes your mind does need. Call me again a bot in speech, but niggle instead your sparks and reach.

Side note: a rhyme is useless if the verbiage lacks any sort of higher meanings. Do try to make your insults at least interesting.

>>14778266
Two people cannot experience the same thing. But two people can be wired together, such that they become a single person. This has been done by Miguel Nicolelis in monkeys.

>>14778293
You honestly sound like you're off your meds. I know this gets thrown around here a lot, but you really do sound that way. I don't know what else to say.

>>14778286
You are the one arbitrarily assigning the term non-qualitative. Your argument is weaker than the ones for dark matter, because at least those had some proof outside someone wishing really hard for their feelings of sadness upon viewing the colour blue to be unique. The lack of quantitative capacity is due to the fact that our minds weren't made to numerically calculate responses. It's a stochastic system based on differential response networks. That is the fundamentals of cell circuitry. We are applying mathematical models from network theory in an attempt to clarify this and make it easier but, truly, it's hard because biology wasn't designed to be easy to study.

Saying the most straightforward answer is that there is an invisible force governing consciousness is absurd. You assign all who try to say this isn't a unique feeling as robots and as such have reasoned yourself into an untenable position. If you were to recant you would join the ranks of the robots you think as less than human. So instead you try to say the easiest answer is to cobble together an entire fantasy world to justify something that keeps you feeling like you are the one in control.

I mean, if you were really in control, why did you waste all this time?

>>14778311
Meds. Now.

>>14778304
Read more and practice textual analysis.
>>14778296
Ah yes, monkey torture. The true source of consciousness. Two things can't experience the exact same thing because no two things can occupy the same position in the same way. Not because there is some magic calculation engine that exists orthogonal to any reality we can directly measure with anything beside our brains.

>>14778291
If you were a real person, I would make love to you. Alas, bots don’t have holes.

>>14778326
>bots don’t have holes.
What about all the holes in your program's logic that caused you to write that excruciatingly cringe post?

>>14778311
Do you understand what an inversion argument is?
If qualia came from a "qualia field or force" like the other fields then it would itself be a material thing. I am arguing the exact opposite, that there is no such explanation for the experience.
Information also doesn't actually exist. Material exists and qualia exist. Information is a linguistic shorthand to describe these two actually extant things. There is no platonic "information" in reality. There are physical objects and qualitative gloops

>>14778331
I can’t wait for the day when AIs have their own bants

>>14778342
Yep. I'm getting tired carrying this one all on my own.

>>14778344
Once AI takes over all of my tasks, why should I live? I imagine I will masturbate 24/7. As opposed to the 18/7 that has occupied my free time for all of this time.

>>14778237
Why does a decrease in blood flow to the brain cause a decrease in consciousness?

>>14778364
What does "a decrease in consciousness" mean, concretely speaking, botfriend?

>>14778356
>Once AI takes over all of my tasks, why should I live?
You mean once better AI does?

>>14778380
You become less aware. Fewer qualia, if you will.

>>14778286
>It couldn't be because EVEN IF you claim qualia is emergent from synaptic patterns, you have no way of explaining how a non quantitative experience of a color arouse from the quantitative firing of the neurons
It emerges, that's how.

>>14778385
>You become less aware
>you
>Fewer qualia
What do you mean, concretely speaking? I understand what your verbal kludge is referring to, but the way you formulate it only shows the deficiencies of your mental model.

>>14778401
>I understand what your verbal kludge is referring to, but the way you formulate it only shows the deficiencies of your mental model.
How would you describe it? What are the deficiencies in my mental model?

>>14778418
You're conflating identity with consciousness in a way that makes no real sense regardless of what you think consciousness results from.

>>14778426
Okay, but how would you describe it?

>>14778452
A particular body stops exhibiting signs of consciousness. Talking about how "you" lose consciousness is as nonsensical as talking about how "you" "are" dead.

>>14778481
Wait, are you a materialist?

>>14778509
No. You sound mentally retarded.

>>14778519
Your description sounds materialist. What do you expect to experience in the event that blood flow to your brain decreases?

>>14778534
>Your description sounds materialist.
Well, I don't really care what it "sounds like" to you. That description works equally well whether you believe consciousness is entirely a product of the brain or not. Your "argument" only works on people who conflate consciousness with identity, which is a stupid thing to do whether you're a materialist or not.

>What do you expect to experience in the event that blood flow to your brain decreases?
I don't know. How is it relevant?

>>14778555
>That description works equally well whether you believe consciousness is entirely a product of the brain or not.
Do you think it’s entirely a product of the brain?

> Your "argument" only works on people who conflate consciousness with identity, which is a stupid thing to do whether you're a materialist or not.
What do you think I’m arguing for?

>>14778591
>Do you think it’s entirely a product of the brain?
I don't know. Even if it is, it's probably not an "emergent property" of neurons, and even if it was, such a hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

>What do you think I’m arguing for?
Literally some 19th century metaphysical dogma.

>>14777651
wavefunctions are mathematical descriptions you pseud

>>14780288
He said >deterministic mathematical description. Your position is so laughably weak you're forced to lie.

>>14777408

Have you considered the possibility that you're missing the entire picture, and that there are other natural forces at work aside from neural activity that you're not taking into consideration?

>>14780291
Define "wavefunction" and explain how it's not a "deterministic mathematical description", whatever that means.

>>14780312
"collapse of the wavefunction" which is not deterministic.

>>14780315
You didn't answer my question. Are you unable to define what a wavefunction is?

>>14780318
I did answer your question, in that you are not actually posing an argument against what I"m saying. The wavefunction is deterministic in the sense that we can compute the entire probability space. The collapse is not, it's inherently random and not subject to mathematical formalization.
The wavefunction being deterministic is not the same thing as the collapse being deterministic. And yes, there is a collapse, no, the entire wavefunction doesn't exist in different "branches", and yes, the collapse is entirely non-deterministic and not subject to mathematical formalization.

>>14780323
You didn't define a wavefunction anywhere in your post so you didn't answer my question.
> we can compute the entire probability space
That doesn't mean anything. You don't compute probability spaces, you compute probabilities.

>>14780328
NTA but anyone can see your utter desperation. Just stop posting.

>>14780328
You compute probability amplitudes.
It makes literally no difference as I am talking about the collapse, when the complex-valued probability amplitutes turn into a single real-valued answer of whether the particle is spin-up or spin-down, or whether it's in location A or B, etc.
This is random. There is no determinism here and therefore no way to formalize this process with deterministic mathematics. That's what I'm saying. The universe does not evolve deterministically. Particles LITERALLY just sometimes go "bleep bloop blop!" and move in random directions, or reverse their rotation, or decay into other particles, etc., and there is NO DETERMINISTIC REASON for this.

>>14780341
I know you're quite eager to show off the big words you've just learnt like "probability amplitudes" and "spins" but you're still not able to define a wavefunction for me. Just do it once and you can establish that you actually have some faint clue what you're talking about.

>>14780341
>he keeps getting baited by nonhuman elements

>>14780341
>>14780350
I'd like to see you define "spin" too for me btw

>>14777489
>immaterial shit like the nature of inner experience
Begging the question. How do you know it's immaterial? If it outside of the scope of science then what scope is it in? Your armchair musings? Sit in the timeout corner and wait for the adults figure it out.

>Where are the images of the world I'm experiencing even forming.
In the brain.

>Brain has nothing but electrical impulses
And chemical. Through a highly complex information processor compared of neuronal connections. What is your point?

>even when it comes to computers you need to plug it to a monitor for those electrical impulses to convert to visuals
Of course, since your brain doesn't directly interface with a computer. How else would the information for the image be transfered? You're not actually saying anything meaningful.

>>14780366
>How do you know it's immaterial?
Immaterial until proven otherwise. Burden of proof is 100% on your cult, and as we've already established, your burden is impossible. You lost.

>>14778296
Obviously, two-headed freaks have two loci of experience. But this raises the question of where the cutoff is.
This thought experiment can be instantiated many ways, e.g. let's imagine a Janus case -- a head with two face -- with semi-fused brains.
There just seem to be two possibilities, mathematically: either it's abrupt, or gradual. If it's the latter there is a mechanism for one locus to absorb and overpower the other, which is quite an eldritch concept.

If it's abrupt that raises the question why there is a such a structure in the universe that once it aligns, literally from one bit of information to the next (alright, I said 'abrupt', but for sanity's sake we will allow a tiny interval), toggles on conscious experience. Strange strange, if it's not fundamental. What would a materialist emergentist say could be the reason why this happens?

>>14780350
I'm not going to take the time to write down the schrodinger equation because it doesn't matter to my position.
If your only argument is to not engage with objective collapse then you just have no argument

>>14780385
Anon, I didn't ask you to write down the Schrodinger equation, I asked you to define a wavefunction, they're not the same thing.

>>14780399
But I already did. It's the complex valued probability amplitude that you assign to the set of outcomes, the square of the amplitudes have to add up to 1, etc. This is a meaningless question that you are only asking because you dont have an argument against the actual position which is that of non deterministic collapse.
Like if you have a particle in 1/root(2)|up> + 1/root(2)]down> and then you look and it's up, that process is literally random and there is no deterministic mechanism that makes it go from one to the other. It's literally random. There is no deterministic mathematics that describes that change.

>>14780411
You're finally getting somewhere but not quite correct. What is "the set of outcomes"? Different observables give different sets of outcomes. Do you assign probability amplitudes independently to all those different sets of outcomes?

>>14777499
>Vacuous buzzword.
How so?

>Neuroscience has nothing to say on this matter by definition
What defintion is that?

>>14777529
How?

>>14780642
>What defintion is that?
The normal one that acknowledges consciousness as an internal and subjective experience.

>>14780643
They're assuming a mechanistic explanation. Might be more aptly-characterised as "the mechanics of the gaps" but that's not as derisive.

>>14777695
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>>14780686
Why are you posting random wikishills links?

>>14777866
>There does not exist a deterministic materialist explanation for qualitative experiences, therefore deterministic materialism is a falsified as an ontology
Doesn't follow, that's not how falsification works.

>This does not have anything to do with any abrahamic religion.
It has to do with whatever religious beliefs you have but won't reveal because it will immediately be subject to the same arbitrary criticisms you have for materialism, and more. You're angry at materialism because it's way more successful than your preferred fairy tale. You will just continue to seethe and not make any substantive point.

>>14780704
>Doesn't follow, that's not how falsification works.
Yes it does follow, because if something exists that is not material, than the philosophy that everything is material is wrong.
>It has to do with whatever religious beliefs you have
I have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I am entirely scientifically minded.

>>14777872
>There is nothing in any neuroscience text or finding that has anything to do with solving the hard problem.
Define the hard problem without begging the question.

>>14780708
I don't even believe the hard problem is a problem unless you assume that everything needs to be quantitative in nature.
Because it is not the case that everything is quantitative in this universe, the hard problem is dissolved. Not because qualia or consciousness "dont exist", because they do and all empirical evidence indicates this, but because it's simply the case that not all things in the universe have a quantitative aspect or can be explained with deterministic mathematics/mathematics programmable on a deterministic turing machine.

>>14780708
The hard problem is your inability to form testable hypotheses about how consciousness arises, on account of your fundamental inability to show that this or that entity is actually conscious as you examine it from the outside.

>>14780739
>your fundamental inability to show that this or that entity is actually conscious as you examine it from the outside.
Most people are able to look at someone and know whether or not they're conscious. Have you tried getting your problem checked with a doctor?

>>14780755
>looks conscious to me!
That's not proof that something is conscious.

>>14780448
why do you keep engaging in this logic-chopping fallacious argument?
The mathematics of quantum mechanics do not provide a deterministic solution to collapse. They either reject collapse completely and try to replace it with the faggotry of "entanglement" (the measuring device/the scientist is entangled with the system and then in all branches of the multiverse the multiverse remove collapse) or they argue that there's a universal lorentzian or some shit that makes everything secretly deterministic.
I'm not interested in any of these arguments because they're all wrong and do not do anything to argue against fundamental randomness. Taking all the outcomes as equally true (despite never seeing anything but one answer) in order to shoehorn determinism will never suffice as a scientifically valid position.
The universe is not deterministic nor mathematical in nature. There are a shitload of things that are not amendable to any deterministic functional description.

>>14780757
Several people look at someone and they agree among themselves about whether or not the person is conscious. That's the proof that they're conscious.

>>14780770
>ummm but if we vote democratically on it our subjective feelings become proof
No, that's still not a proof. lol

>>14780775
Proofs are just a way that some person or group of people use to convince themselves of something. So it's a completely valid proof.

>>14780786
>truth is whatever the bughive says it is

>>14780795
Not my problem you don't know what a proof is

>>14780806
"Proof" is whatever convinces the bughive, and "truth" is whatever the bughive's conventional belief turns out to be. This is the position you are arguing from. lol

>>14780810
See >>14780806. I don't care about your hallucinations of bughives or whatever nonsense you picked up from pol

>>14780786
A proof is a given set of transformations the show that some set of statements imply some other set of statements. It has nothing to do with group consensus.

>>14780826
You're wrong and the fact that society disagrees with you proves it, chud. Fuck off back to /pol/. Science is about trusting the experts and reaching a social consensus.

>>14780829
stop poisoning the well
society also doesn't disagree with me, the vast majority of people, including scientists, believe something along the lines of "truth is a real thing" or whatever. It's not a social consensus and the majority of people dont think it is, so even by the social consensus idea, the social consensus is that truth is independent of human opinion etc lol

>>14777408
It makes perfect sense

>>14780826
It has everything to do with group consensus (note that I mentioned in >>14780786 that the group can also consist of just one member). Agreeing what the "statements", "transformations" are and whether or not they're applied correctly all require group consensus.

>It has everything to do with group consensus
People will still argue with this overt nonhuman. lol

>>14780840
No they dont, they require first order logic.
You are entirely wrong. A mathematical proof that is verified by a machine is true regardless of consensus etc. For example, the four color theorem was proven true regardless of the fact that many mathematicians at the time didn't like the machine assisted proof.

>>14780849
How did you decide which machines to grant authority to? How did you decide that it has no bugs? How do you know that there was no fault with its components? etc. You're not thinking hard enough. Just because a machine prints something doesn't mean someone has to accept it as a proof of anything.

>>14780854
You will never be a woman.

>>14780810
What is proof and truth to you? Were those things revealed to you in a dream?

>>14780381
>Immaterial until proven otherwise.
No.

>Burden of proof is 100% on your cult
No, it's on you to prove anything immaterial exists. Materialism has met its burden of proof over and over again and you never have.

>>14781032
if there exists a single counterexample to something, the something is wrong.

>>14781032
Putting your mental illness on display doesn't refute or even dispute anything I wrote. Try again.

>>14780899
>What is proof and truth to you?
We can have this conversation once you fully concede that bughive consensus doesn't establish what the truth is and that persuading the bughive does not necessarily constitute proof.

>>14780659
Internal and subjective does not imply neuroscience has nothing to say about it. Try again.

>>14780662
>They're assuming a mechanistic explanation.
That's not god of the gaps.

>>14781037
>Internal and subjective does not imply neuroscience has nothing to say about it
It does. There is no possible means to probe it.

>>14781036
Well I'm not the guy you were originally talking with so sure I'll go along with that, whatever. But I'm curious what you base the truth on

What do people mean when they say "magic" in this conversation?

>>14781049
They mean they are nonhuman drones and that the concept of an internal experience is incomprehensible to them.

>>14781045
>I'm curious what you base the truth on
That which I can't deny without denying my own sanity and capacity for reason as a consequence.

>>14781049
Something which is not material, so outside of the material world, in other words paranormal or supernatural

>>14781055
That seems pretty vague

>>14781056
but that definition is circular and vacuous.
if something exists that is not material, it still exists, while not being material. That does not make it magic, it still exists.
Why do you think your position is strong when you have to arbitrarily decide that you're correct by definition? That's the weakest argument possible

>>14781062
Does something exist if it is no matter or energy? How do you observe something which is not part of the physical world

>>14781060
What part of it did you not understand?

>>14781064
I understood it, but as I said it seems pretty vague and very subjective

>>14781067
>I understood
>it seems pretty vague
Which one is it?

>>14781063
you're not understanding. I dont care about the "physical world", I care about the actual world.
Reality exists. The universe exists. We exist. We are talking on computers that exist. etc. None of this has anything to do with "physical" unless you again arbitrarily decide that "physical" is just synonymous with "exists". I don't give a shit about vacuous and circular definitions, they are braindead and retarded.
If something exists, it exists. Being "physical" or "not physical" are entirely meaningless. Qualia exists. You claiming it doesn't exist because you have arbitrarily decided that only "physical" (which again has no definition other than "exists") things exist and you don't undersatnd what qualia would be in a "physical" existence is not an argument against the direct experience of qualia.

>>14781073
I'm sorry but I simply don't possess the metacognitive faculties to understand your argument therefore you're wrong. The brain isn't magic, chud. Go back to /pol/. Trump lost.

>>14781076
stop poisoning the well please

>>14781082
Name one difference between what I wrote and what you believe unironically, that isn't down to your subjective feelings.

>>14777408
*withdraws outer experiences*
*multiplies them, divides them, adds them, subtracts them and combines them inside*

HoW iS tHiS hApPeNiNg!?!?

"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

>>14781088
well what I think is that when people say "material" what they are actually saying is "describable with deterministic mathematics programmable on a deterministic universal turing machine" and that I think that there exist a litany of extant entities in the universe/reality that are not deterministic nor definable or programmable on deterministic turing machines, that the universe is not deterministic, nor computable, nor is qualia or consciousness uniquely special as a thing that is not amendable to such formal description etc.

Qualia exists because I directly experience it and there does not exist an algorithm to describe qualia because it's fundamentally not quantitative (and thus not programmable on any turing machine), and deterministic math only deals with quantitative deterministic transformations (matrices, all transformations have a unique complex matrix associated with them etc) but the universe is not describable in it's totality with only mathematics (the pythagoreans and those who think "all is number" etc are not true), there also does not exist a grand unified field equation, etc.

>>14781069
It seems like a vague definition for the truth, if it's just based on what you feel about something. In the same way that "Lord of the Rings is a book about a ring" is a vague description, even if it's easy to understand

>>14781117
>In the same way that "Lord of the Rings is a book about a ring" is a vague description
So you mean my description omits information that is crucial for you to understand what I'm talking about? Maybe you can ask some relevant questions so that I could fill in the gaps in your understanding.

What do people mean when they say "material"?
When I give the definition that material means describable with deterministic mathematics that is an actual definition that is not circular nor is it vacuous.
When you give definitions like "material means things that aren't not material!" that is not a definition at all

Don't worry, it's just an abstraction your brain finds useful for processing data, there's no disjointed experiences knocking about in your head.

>>14781133
>What do people mean when they say "material"?
They don't mean "tickles my Rick and Morty center".

>When I give the definition that material means describable with deterministic mathematics that is an actual definition that is not circular nor is it vacuous.
That's not a definition of "material" that anyone sane would come up with. It's just a definition of "material" you invented as a contrast to your own materialistic schizo pet theory.

>>14781143
>They don't mean
they mean*

>>14781143
so what's the definition of material? Give a definition that isn't circular or vacuous.
What is it for a substance to be material vs not material?

my post is not showing up

>>14781149
>so what's the definition of material?
"Material" = "tickles my Rick and Morty center".

>What is it for a substance to be material
It means I get to wank myself off to corporate nihilism.

>>14781149
Understanding what people mean by "material" doesn't involve arguing about definitions. Definitions have nothing to do with this.

>>14781173
It does have to do with definitions, because if you can't even define what "material" is, then you have no basis to argue that qualia doesn't exist because it isn't "material".
Define material in a way that isn't vacuous or circular. WHAT does it mean for a substance to be material? What does it mean for a substance to not be material?

>>14781183
>It does have to do with definitions
Dumb drone.

>you have no basis to argue that qualia doesn't exist
What does that even have to do with anything? Your Bayesian rhetoric spitting program is glitching out.

>>14781195
I'm not using bayesian inference because bayesians are retarded.
I'm demanding the incels in this thread who sperge out about qualia not existing to define what it is they're even talking about
They say only physical or material things exist but don't have a definition of physical or material beyond "what exists or is studied in physics" which is a circular and vacuous definition.

>>14781206
>I'm not using bayesian inference
You are bayesian inference, botfriend. How else do you explain your demands to define "material"?

>>14781218
Because I'm not going to deny the existence of my consciousness or my direct qualitative experience as being non existent just because some incels say only material shit exists when they don't even know what it is they're even talking about and have no definition of what it is for something to be material or extant in the first place
what does it mean for something to be material or non material and why is it the case that qualia being non material means it doesn't exist etc.

>>14781230
>they don't even know what it is they're even talking about
Why do they need a definition to know what they're talking about, considering that what they're talking about is presumably the fundamental substance of existence rather than some wank abstraction like the ones your bayesian rhetoric generator works with?

>>14781236
why is material the fundamental substance of existence?

>>14781249
I don't know. Go ask r/rickandmorty. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your GPT-tier argument.

>>14781252
why is material, as opposed to like a platonic ideal, the fundamental substance? How can you differentiate between any monadic-fundamental thing from the other based on these things like "material" vs "ideal" etc.?
What does it mean to be material vs non material, and why does this material-ness render qualitative experiences not real or whatever, etc?
monism of any form is clearly fucking retarded and wrong and there is no evidence at all that any monistic philosophy of ontology is correct. Until you can produce a clear definition of what it means to be material that is not circular or vacuous, you do not have an argument in favor of materialism as you dont even know what it is you're arguing for.

>>14781265
>why is material, as opposed to like a platonic ideal, the fundamental substance?
I don't know. Go ask r/rickandmorty.

>What does it mean to be material vs non material
You know what I mean. :^)

>Until you can produce a clear definition of what it means to be material
Why would anyone need to produce such a definition when the whole premise is that matter is the fundamental substance of existence rather than some wank abstraction?

>>14781265
By the way, define "qualia". :^)

>>14780690
Because you claimed physical is meaningless, a ridiculous claim.

>>14781339
Then define physical in a way that isn't circular or vacuous.
I've been asking for a definition now for some time and none have been provided.
That wikipedia article is not a definition that is neither circular nor vacuous.

>>14781339
It is meaningless in the context of this discussion. The wikishills article agrees.

>>14780707
>Yes it does follow, because if something exists that is not material, than the philosophy that everything is material is wrong.
Non sequitur. You were supposed to show how a materialist explanation not existing -> materialism is falsified.

A materialist explanation not existing doesn't imply something exists that is not material. That's god of the gaps fallacy.

>I have no religious beliefs whatsoever
You believe the immaterial exists based on a god of the gaps argument. You're not scientifically minded.

>>14781370
>t. mentally ill drone

>>14780734
>Because it is not the case that everything is quantitative in this universe, the hard problem is dissolved.
How so?

And you didn't answer my question.

>>14780739
>The hard problem is your inability to form testable hypotheses about how consciousness arises, on account of your fundamental inability to show that this or that entity is actually conscious as you examine it from the outside.
How do you know with a sufficient understanding of the brain we would not be able to tell what is conscious externally? That's begging the question. Try again.

>>14781377
NTA but obviously if you don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole, you don't suffer from the hard problem of making it fit. Can you prove that you're sentient? I can recognize you all over the thread just by how botlike and nonhuman your posts are.

>>14781033
Right, you only have to show a single immaterial thing. The burden of proof is on you but so far you've failed to give even one example.

>>14781383
>How do you know with a sufficient understanding of the brain we would not be able to tell what is conscious externally?
The post you're replying to directly addresses your retarded question. Read it again. lol

>>14781370
>>14781377
Give a definition of material that isn't circular or vacuous.

>>14781034
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right. When you start posting childish insults instead of participating in the argument you immediately tell everyone that you've reached the limit of your intellectual ability. No more (You)s for you until you post something of substance, schizo.

>>14781401
There isn't any debate going on that someone needs to win against you. People are having a discussion and then you, a nonsentient subhuman, barge in, shit and piss all over yourself and scream "prove me wrong". It's sad to watch.

>>14781041
There is, it's called neuroscience. There is no other possible means to determine anything about conscousness. Cry more.

>>14781388
the existence of qualia
the redness of red is not quantitative or material. We don't even know if two atomically identical eyes or I see the same color when exposed to the same wavelength of light because color is not quantitative. It's a quality.
If I define material as that which can be quantitified, then the universe is teeming with things that are not material.
You are not even giving a definition of material that isn't circular or vacuous so you don't even have a basis to argue that materialism is true or that qualia doesn't exist because it's not material or whatever. What is the definition of material, that is not circular (material is material stuff) or vacuous (material just means the thing exists and non material means it doesnt exist!)
>>14781407
give a definition of material that isn't circular or vacuous

>>14781345
>Then define physical in a way that isn't circular or vacuous.
Physical just means pertaining to physics. Physics is neither circular nor vacuous. What is so hard to understand?

>>14781413
>physical means physical
This is entirely circular and it has no semantic content.
Give a definition of what it means for something to be material or physical that is not circular or vacuous.

>>14781350
>It is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
Begging the question.

>The wikishills article agrees.
Where?

>>14781376
See >>14781401

>>14781407
>it's called neuroscience
Every neuroscientist I've ever spoken to agrees that you're a mentally ill cultist.

>>14781420
See >>14781406
Also daily reminder that your corporate drone politics are gonna blow up in your face in a very serious way pretty soon.

So are you going to give a definition of what it means to be material that isn't circular or vacuous?
Saying "physical pertains to physics" is circular; what is this "physical" that this so called "physics" pertains to? You have to actually give the definition
What is the "material thing"? What is a material object and how can you know if an object is material or isn't material?

>>14781418
are you going to give a non circular and non vacuous definition of material substance? Or are you going to continue to not give it while thinking you have a coherent idea (which you dont)

>>14781384
I don't think you know what the hard problem is. It doesn't specify a quantitative explanation. The context it's used in typically begs the question by assuming that a full understanding of the brain would not give a full understanding of consciousness.

>Can you prove that you're sentient?
Crudely. You can look at my brain for activity present in other sentient animals.

>I can recognize you all over the thread just by how botlike and nonhuman your posts are.
I've only posted sporadically in this thread. Your paranoia and childish insults are more indicative of your own character than mine.

>>14781418
>bot #1

>>14781433
>bot #2

The best part of it is that both of these bots are arguing about a long-discarded, pseudoscientific 19th century metaphysical dogma that no modern scientist subscribes to.

>>14781434
>I don't think
Oh.

>>14781389
>The post you're replying to directly addresses your retarded question.
Where?

>>14781438
It's a single sentence that answers your question. I accept your full concession.

>>14781399
Matter and energy.

>>14781441
>uhhh materialism is m-m-matter

>>14781441
Again you're being circular. You're saying "matter is matter"
Are you going to give a definition of matter that isn't circular or vacuous?
What is a material substance? What does it mean for a substance to be material?
What is qualia that makes it non material and therefore non existent? What is material, what is required for something to be material, and why does qualia not meet the definition? If qualia does not meet the definition, why does that mean qualia does not exist, as opposed to meaning that there exists things that are not material as well as things that are material?
WHAT IS MATERIAL and HOW CAN YOU KNOW when something is material? What criteria does something need to meet to be matter? Why is it hte case that only matter exists i.e. what criteria does matter have that makes it exist that non-matter doesn't have that makes in not exist?

answer
the
question
without
being
circular

>>14781339
>>14781377
>>14781388
>>14781401
>>14781407
>>14781413
>>14781418
>>14781441
>samebot
Learn to recognize poorly coded GPTs and stop replying.

>>14777408
>How can neural activity in your brain produce phenomenal/inner experience?
it just works like everything else in the universe

>>14781370
I am substantially more scientifically minded than you.
"scientifically minded" does not mean "believe in something that i have no definition for and claim that things that are not this thing, for which I do not even have a definition for, do not exist".
You do not even have a definition for material and yet you claim that only material things exist. That is not scientific at all
you are not scientifically minded at all.

>>14781460
You have no definition for qualia, homo.

>>14781410
>the existence of qualia
Qualia, insofar as they exist, are completely material. They are just the brain doing what it does.

>the redness of red is not quantitative or material.
The brain thinking about redness is completely material. Redness as a concept divorced from the brain is just an abstraction and doesn't exist.

>We don't even know if two atomically identical eyes or I see the same color when exposed to the same wavelength of light because color is not quantitative.
But that's wrong. Two identical sets of eyes and brains will react the same to the same stimulus. Of course, since everyone's brain is actually different, we would expect that at least some aspects of qualia are unique to each individual. Nothing to do with quantitative or qualitative.

>If I define material as that which can be quantitified
Horrible definition.

>You are not even giving a definition of material that isn't circular or vacuous
Wrong. See >>14781441

>Qualia, insofar as they exist, are completely material

>>14781468
Literally nothing you've written here gives a definition of material and is not correct at all
>Qualia, insofar as they exist, are completely material. They are just the brain doing what it does.
Why. what makes something material vs non material
>The brain thinking about redness is completely material. Redness as a concept divorced from the brain is just an abstraction and doesn't exist.
How can I know this, if I don't have a defiinition of what it means to be material vs non material that isn't circular or vacuous?
>But that's wrong. Two identical sets of eyes and brains will react the same to the same stimulus. Of course, since everyone's brain is actually different, we would expect that at least some aspects of qualia are unique to each individual. Nothing to do with quantitative or qualitative.
How can I know this if I don't have a definition of amterial
>Horrible definition.
lmfao no it isn't you fucking moron, it's an actual definition that I can use to delineate material vs non material substance. You do not have any definition at all
>Wrong. See >>14781441
Saying "material is material" is not a definition.

>>14781464
Yes I do
"matter" is that which is entirely definable by determinstic mathematics and whos functions can be programmed on a deterministic turing machine
"non-matter" are the set of all extant objects who do not meet this criteria (note that because they do not meet this criteria, I can not give a formal mathematical description of them; not because qualia or other non-quantitative processes don't exist, but because they are not amendable to such formal quantitative definition)

>>14781476
>Yes I do
Where is it?

>>14781417
>>physical means physical
That's not what I said. Misrepresenting me makes you look desperate.

>This is entirely circular and it has no semantic content.
No it's not. Physics is well defined and has a lot more content than your religious beliefs.

>Give a definition of what it means for something to be material or physical
Material just means made of matter and energy. Physical just means pertaining to physics, which is a broad field that describes how material behaves. I suggest you start by picking up a used introductory physics textbook or reading the Wikipedia article if that is too hard for you. None of this is circular or vacuous, it's based on hundreds of years of empirical observations and testing.

>>14781422
Proof?

>>14781482
>being this desperate

>>14781484
You've already conceded multiple times. Everyone ITT has been wiping the floor with you. lol. Paid shill or nonsentient?

>>14781477
I literally just gave it below that line
>>14781482
>That's not what I said. Misrepresenting me makes you look desperate.
Yes it is. You said "physical is that which pertains to physics" without defining what physics is or what physical is.
>No it's not. Physics is well defined and has a lot more content than your religious beliefs.
Then define it. What makes something material vs non material. What is this well defined definition? You are the one being religious here seeing as you do not even have a definition for what you're talking about but you believe that it's the only thing that exists.
>Material just means made of matter and energy.
Saying 'material means being made of material" is a circular definition. What is this "material" that "matter" is made out of?

Seriously, continuing to give the same circular definition is not going to help your position.
"pertaining to physics" is not a definition because you have to define what physics is.
Saying "it's what physicists study" is not a definition because I don't know what it is that they are studying without a definition of the thing that they're studying.
Saying "it's about matter and energy" is not a definition because you haven't said what matter is.
Give a definition that is not circular or vacuous. So far you have provided none.

>>14781428
>So are you going to give a definition of what it means to be material that isn't circular or vacuous?
Who are you talking to?

>Saying "physical pertains to physics" is circular
How? I don't think you know what circular means.

>what is this "physical" that this so called "physics" pertains to?
It's an adjective. Did you know that adjectives can be formed by adding a suffix to a noun? For example "fuzz" can be turned into an adjective by adding a -y: fuzzy. Maybe you haven't reached the third grade yet.

>You have to actually give the definition
I did. What part of it don't you understand?

>What is the "material thing"?
In what context? I don't recall referring to "the material thing."

>What is a material object
An object made of matter and energy.

>how can you know if an object is material or isn't material?
Is it made of atoms and energy? Does it behave like other material things? Does it follow the laws of physics?

>>14781491
>I literally just gave it below that line
You are literally out of your mind, just like the other bot.

>>14781433
>are you going to give a non circular and non vacuous definition of material substance?
I did. Are you going to respond to anything I said in >>14781418?

>>14781506
>How? I don't think you know what circular means.
It is circular because without saying what physics is, I do not know what it means to pertain to physics. "physical pertains to physics" requires a definition of both physical and physics. Without this, you are giving a circular definition.
>It's an adjective. Did you know that adjectives can be formed by adding a suffix to a noun? For example "fuzz" can be turned into an adjective by adding a -y: fuzzy. Maybe you haven't reached the third grade yet.
What is the "physics" mean that you are turning into an adjective by adding the y? What does it mean to be "physics"?
>I did. What part of it don't you understand?
No, you did not. Give a definition of physical that is not circular.
>In what context? I don't recall referring to "the material thing."
Saying "material is matter and energy" is circular
>An object made of matter and energy.
What is matter that this object is made out of?

>>14781521
>I did.
You have not yet given a non circular or non vacuous definition of what matter is.

>>14781437
Childish.

>>14781440
No, that served doesn't explain how with a sufficient understanding of the brain we would not be able to tell what is conscious externally. It simply assumes it. If you can't answer the question then you admit it's just an assumption.

>>14781446
Not what I said.

>>14781447
>Again you're being circular. You're saying "matter is matter
That's not what I said. I said materialism is matter and energy. You didn't ask what matter is. If all you can do is misrepresent what I wrote then we're done here. Nothing I said is circular.

>What is a material substance?
A substance made of matter and energy.

>What is qualia that makes it non material and therefore non existent?
Qualia is what the brain does. Completely material. Maybe you're talking about qualia as an abstraction separate from the brain. Abstractions don't exist.

>HOW CAN YOU KNOW when something is material?
See >>14781506

>Why is it hte case that only matter exists
Are you asking for an intelligent reason why the universe is the way it is and not some other way? I don't see why there would be, unless you assume an intelligence behind the universe.

>answer
>the
>question
>without
>being
>circular
I airway did. Explain how anything I've said is circular without misrepresenting what I said.

>>14781460
>I am substantially more scientifically minded than you.
Then why did you make a god of the gaps fallacy? I guess you admit to that side you completely avoided defending that your argument doesn't follow.

>"scientifically minded" does not mean "believe in something that i have no definition for
Correct. What's your point?

>You do not even have a definition for material
Incorrect.

>>14781476
>Literally nothing you've written here gives a definition of material and is not correct at all
I literally gave a definition of material, and despite a lot of seething and whining, no one has refuted it. See >>14781441

>Why
Because the brain is material.

>what makes something material vs non material
If it's matter and energy then it's material. If not, it's immaterial.

>How can I know this, if I don't have a defiinition of what it means to be material vs non material that isn't circular or vacuous?
But you do. Can you point out what's wrong with my definition? It's pretty straightforward.

>it's an actual definition that I can use to delineate material vs non material substance.
Not really. For example, by your definition abstract math is "material."

>Saying "material is material" is not a definition.
Non sequitur. I didn't say "material is material." And by replacing "matter and energy" with "material" as if they are interchangeable, you imply that my definition is correct. Thanks.

>>14781485
See >>14781401

>>14781489
>You've already conceded multiple times.
Where?

I guess you have no proof. Why did you lie?

>>14781491
>Yes it is. You said "physical is that which pertains to physics"
That's not "physical means physical." Why did you misrepresent me and then quote me saying what I actually said?

>without defining what physics is or what physical is.
I already gave a wikipedia article explaining what physics is earlier in the thread. And I gave a definition of physics here: >>14781482. You're just denying what's right in front of your face because you can't deal with basic reality. Anything else?

>Saying 'material means being made of material"
No one said that. Of all you can do is misrepresent me, all the same questions that have already been answered, and ignore the answers, then we're done here.

>What is this "material" that "matter" is made out of?
Matter is made up of units called atoms.

>>14781751
Saying material is matter is not a definition because you're using the thing in the definition.
>Not really. For example, by your definition abstract math is "material."
"Abstract math" is not what I said. I said definable on a deterministic universal turing machine. This is a process I can use to measure the environment. It's not something that exists out in the environment. My definition is not circular and defines the method and what the method consists of for measuring the thing that I am defining as "material". It has nothing to do with what actually exists, only things
Your definition is circular because you're saying material is a real thing but defining it as itself and then saying you're not doing this. What is "material"? What is it? What makes something "material" vs "not material" and why does only "material" exist? What are the properties of material?
What is physics? What does it mean to "pertain to the actions of physicists"?
Why will you not define the things you're talking about in a way that isn't circular?

>>14781768
You're not giving me a definition of physics that isn't circular.
What makes something "physical
>Matter is made up of units called atoms.
So atoms in this case means the particles of the standard model? i.e. the things that exist and are material are the particles of the standard model?

>>14781499
>Seriously, continuing to give the same circular definition
What circular definition? You continuously fail to show anything I've said is circular and then act like I'm the one going in circles. If you have nothing else to say then this discussion is over.

>"pertaining to physics" is not a definition because you have to define what physics is.
I did. Try responding instead of denying reality.

>Saying "it's what physicists study" is not a definition
That's not what I said. You really have nothing except misrepresentation.

>I don't know what it is that they are studying
All you have to do is read: >>14780686

>Saying "it's about matter and energy" is not a definition because you haven't said what matter is
That doesn't follow. Words can only be defined with other words. Do you expect an infinite regression of definitions in order to have a valid definition? If you actually don't know what matter is then all you have to do is ask. You haven't asked, so don't blame me for your own failure.

>Give a definition that is not circular or vacuous.
I did.

>So far you have provided none.
Then explain how anything I've said is circular or vacuous. You won't.

>>14781787
I'd like a definition of "matter" where no where in the definition is the word "matter" nor any other string that contains that string as a substring at any point within the definition. Same for "physic"

>>14781793
basically I want a definition where you are defining it based on other things, like how you seem to be doing with the particles of the standard model
we use sensory experiences to test the world and build machines and experiments to further our sensory experiences. Is matter all the things that are the most reductive in our quest to map the world in this fashion?

qualia obviously must be physical, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get your very physical meathooks to type out all these posts discussing them.

>>14781523
>It is circular because without saying what physics is, I do not know what it means to pertain to physics.
Your ignorance doesn't make it circular. Did you think this through before typing? And I did explain what physics is, and I gave you a detailed article about it. So not only is your argument illogical, the premise isn't even correct.

>What is the "physics" mean
See >>14780686

>No, you did not. Give a definition of physical that is not circular.
I did. How is it circular?

>Saying "material is matter and energy" is circular
How?

>What is matter that this object is made out of?
It's anything composed of elementary fermions.

>>14781536
Incorrect. Explain how anything I said is circular or vacuous. You won't.

>>14781814
This is just you basically saying 'physically' is synonymous with 'exists' which renders the term vacuous. You're can literally swap your statement out with "qualia obviously must be extant, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get your very real meathooks to type out all these posts discussing them." and there would be no difference in the semantic content.
So is physical just a vacuous term to mean real/it exists? Why not just say "qualia must exist"?
If that's not what you're saying, what is the difference between "physical" and "exists"?

>>14781820
You keep talking about the wikipedia article but that doesn't mean anything. It defines "physical" as the study of "matter" where "matter" is defined as objects with properties "mass" and "energy". These are scalars and vectors etc.
Basically you're just boiling it down to a description of mathematical functions that you use to try to talk about the behavior of these particles, which is just what I'm saying when I talk about defining these materials as deterministic algorithms; I'm not talking about the thing that actually exists I'm talking about things we can actually talk about and measure.
I don't see the need to define massless particles as not being material because they're not different enough to warrant a separate definition.
And so even if we do this, we can not predict to arbitrary precision the evolution of any of these materials, because there exists a non-deterministic thing that makes it impossible. That's the thing that isn't material. Material things exist and non material things exist, as things that are deterministic and things that are not deterministic.
Your definition is circular because you just define "material" as "matter and energy" but don't give definitions for what "matter" is.

Ultimately this comes down to you wanting to be able to, in principle, predict or understand any system to arbitrary precision. You can't. It's not possible even in principle because the universe is not deterministic. There does not exist a unified field theory etc

>>14781769
>Saying material is matter
It's also energy.

>is not a definition because you're using the thing in the definition.
What thing? The word being defined is material. The definition I gave does not use the word material. You're just making shit up.

>"Abstract math" is not what I said. I said definable on a deterministic universal turing machine.
Why would abstract math not be definable on a deterministic universal Turing machine?

>It has nothing to do with what actually exists
Then what you're talking about has nothing to do with materialism and its irrelevant to this discussion.

>Your definition is circular because you're saying material is a real thing but defining it as itself
Where?

>What is "material"? bla bla bla
See >>14781710

>What are the properties of material?
Mass, volume, color, temperature, charge, melting point, hardness, etc.

>What is physics?
See >>14780686

>What does it mean to "pertain to the actions of physicists"?
Who said this?

>Why will you not define the things you're talking about in a way that isn't circular?
Show anything I've said is circular. You won't.

>>14781776
>You're not giving me a definition of physics that isn't circular.
You're not explaining how anything I've said is circular. This is just another misrepresentation.

>What makes something "physical
Is it made of matter and energy? Does it follow the laws of physics?

>So atoms in this case means the particles of the standard model?
No, those are subatomic.

>>14781793
>I'd like a definition of "matter" where no where in the definition is the word "matter" nor any other string that contains that string as a substring at any point within the definition.
Then why didn't you ask for a definition of matter from the beginning? See >>14781820. You're blaming me for your own failure to ask the question you wanted.

>>14781851
>It defines "physical" as the study of "matter"
No, it defines physics as the study of matter and various related phenomena.

>And so even if we do this, we can not predict to arbitrary precision the evolution of any of these materials, because there exists a non-deterministic thing that makes it impossible. That's the thing that isn't material.
Incorrect. Material includes non- deterministic behaviors of matter and energy. Physics includes non- deterministic QM.

>Your definition is circular because you just define "material" as "matter and energy" but don't give definitions for what "matter" is.
That doesn't make it circular. Do you know what circular means? Again your argument is both illogical and based on a false premise. I did give a definition of matter, when asked for it.

>Your definition is circular because you just define "material" as "matter and energy" but don't give definitions for what "matter" is.
No. You're just making shit up. Nothing I said implied that. In fact, physics says the opposite, that you can't understand any system to arbitrary precision.

>>14781851
>It defines "physical" as the study of "matter"
No, it defines physics as the study of matter and various related phenomena.

>And so even if we do this, we can not predict to arbitrary precision the evolution of any of these materials, because there exists a non-deterministic thing that makes it impossible. That's the thing that isn't material.
Incorrect. Material includes non- deterministic behaviors of matter and energy. Physics includes non- deterministic QM.

>Your definition is circular because you just define "material" as "matter and energy" but don't give definitions for what "matter" is.
That doesn't make it circular. Do you know what circular means? Again your argument is both illogical and based on a false premise. I did give a definition of matter, when asked for it.

>Ultimately this comes down to you wanting to be able to, in principle, predict or understand any system to arbitrary precision.
No. You're just making shit up. Nothing I said implied that. In fact, physics says the opposite, that you can't understand any system to arbitrary precision.

>>14781935
>Then why didn't you ask for a definition of matter from the beginning?
I did. Defining something by using the word in the definition is a circular definition which is what you've been doing the whole time.
>>14782000
>No, it defines physics as the study of matter and various related phenomena.
It defines
>Incorrect. Material includes non- deterministic behaviors of matter and energy. Physics includes non- deterministic QM.
The material is a vacuous definition as all things that exist can either be deterministic or non deterministic. I.e. you are defining material in a way that captures all possible phenomena which makes it equal to "exists". Basically see >>14781834 you're doing the same thing.
>That doesn't make it circular. Do you know what circular means? Again your argument is both illogical and based on a false premise. I did give a definition of matter, when asked for it.
When you define something using the word in the definition it's a circular definition which is what you've been doing the whole time. Defining material as "matter and energy" is a circular definition
>No. You're just making shit up.
Nope.
>In fact, physics says the opposite, that you can't understand any system to arbitrary precision.
Because not everything is material

Define deterministic vs non deterministic

Do you not have a definition for deterministic vs non deterministic? The definition is pretty simple it's just if a function always produces the same output on the same input

the materialist anon has been completely btfo, can't even define material in a way that isn't circular, doesn't know what a turing machine is and doesn't know what determinism vs non determinism is, and best of all can't give his own definitions and needs to link to outside sources.
Better luck next time champ.

>>14782026
>I did
Where?

>Defining something by using the word in the definition is a circular definition which is what you've been doing the whole time.
Then quote me doing so. You can't. Why do you think lying about what's written right here in the thread is going to help you?

>The material is a vacuous definition as all things that exist can either be deterministic or non deterministic.
Doesn't follow. The definition of material has nothing to do with determinism.

>you are defining material in a way that captures all possible phenomena which makes it equal to "exists".
If you think that describes all possible phenomena then you're a materialist. You think ghosts, gods, souls, etc. are not possible? Then what are you complaining about?

>Defining material as "matter and energy" is a circular definition
"Matter and energy" doesn't contain the word "material" so by your own argument my definition isn't circular. Try again.

>Nope.
Then she how anything I said implied that. You won't. Because you're making shit up.

>Because not everything is material
Completely wrong, the uncertainty principle applies to material.

>Define deterministic vs non deterministic
Determinism means that every set of possible initial conditions has a single outcome according to the laws of physics. Indeterminism means that multiple outcomes can occur from the same initial conditions, occurring randomly.

>>14782226
>Determinism means that every set of possible initial conditions has a single outcome according to the laws of physics. Indeterminism means that multiple outcomes can occur from the same initial conditions, occurring randomly.
I agree with this
So what makes you say that the exact same atomic construction of two eyes that have the exact same input/initial condition will produce the same qualitative sensation of the sensory data? i.e. one eyes sees red where the other sees blue on the same wavelength of light, to further illustrate the example.

>>14782260
>So what makes you say that the exact same atomic construction of two eyes that have the exact same input/initial condition will produce the same qualitative sensation of the sensory data?
Because typically nondeterministic effects are not significant for macroscopic phenomena.

>>14782268
theres no difference between classical and quantum systems every system is a quantum system.
The absorption of photons in your eyes is quantum mechanical in nature
etc

>>14782283
>theres no difference between classical and quantum systems every system is a quantum system.
I'm not talking about different systems, I'm taking about different scales. It's quite common for different factors, forces, etc. to dominate at different scales.

>>14782292
absorption of photons in an atom happens at the atomic scale and the photoelectric effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, and mammal eyes absorb single photons in their atoms etc
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/264L/images/photons-on-retina.html

>>14782299
And?

>>14781851
Universe is deterministic though, indeterministic models are just stochastic models applied to deterministic processes, like coin flip. A stochastic model of a coin flip doesn't make it indeterministic, it's just a simplified modeling approach.

>>14782837
Not in QM.

>>14782468
and so there is no reason to think that we see the same qualia just because physical systems are the same or the behaviors/reactions of the system.
i.e. two exactly identical eyes do not in fact see the same color when stimulated with the exact same wavelength of light. You and and exact atomic clone of you do not see the same color red when exposed to the same wavelength of light.
Thus qualia exists and is not reducible to physical interactions.

>>14783432
>and so there is no reason to think that we see the same qualia just because physical systems are the same or the behaviors/reactions of the system.
They aren't the same, so this is a moot point.

>Thus qualia exists and is not reducible to physical interactions.
Doesn't follow. You're saying they are nondeterministic due to physical interactions and then saying they aren't reducable to physical interactions.