/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14950976
We are making huge progress in field of AI over the last years. Not long and your mighty idea of a consciousness can be artificially created, marketed and sold for a profit.

>>14950991
Neural networks are a fancy name for brute force matrix math. What people call "AI" today is not generally intelligent and will never be generally intelligent.

>>14951048
Your "general intelligence" is just a multiple layered heuristic technique based on a sufficiently sized database.

Based OP. Only after studying quantum mechanics you'll realize that parapsychology is more valid than psychology. The quantum nature of consciousness explains extrasensory perception, remote viewing, precognition and telepathy.

>>14951056
Intuition and pattern recognition are innate to the sapient mind, and machines will always have to be programmed by humans to have a working heuristic. They are incapable of truly learning and synthesizing information. No amount of research has eliminated the necessity of hard-coding for usable results in ML applications.

>>14950991
I don't think we're going to have anything like AGI for a very long time. We don't even know how the brain works entirely so there's going to be some guessing there. And the other thing is humans can have novel ideas that make sense based on other ideas and their imagination, whereas AI it's bound by whatever training data is receives

>>14950991
>We
lol

>>14951062
based

I'm pretty sure the government already knows and has been trying to keep "military secrets" out of the hands of everyone by shilling materialistic propaganda and a "take your meds" attitude to anyone who tries to counter it. I'm thinking mid-late 90's is when they figured it all out, cause back then is when everyone was researching ESP. I remember reading papers that then that even Sony had proven ESP was real. Then all at once everyone suddenly stopped researching. I think at this point it changed from a research subject of curiosity to hard fact with real life consequences.
A few years later we get 9/11 and the start of government surveillance of our own citizens, and then the subtle slow slide to authoritarianism. I'm not saying it's all connected, but it does feel like this is when the world started to change.

Materialism = entropism

>>14951048
>Neural networks are a fancy name for brute force matrix math
neural nets have to fundamentally incorporate non-linear behavior to be useful. that's why you get weird shit between linear layers.
if all the layers and interconnects were linear, you could just multiply everything out into a single fat matrix.

>>14951062
Took a parapsychology course in college, despite my dad telling I was losing my time. Fucking best course I took.

>>14951283
Have you been able to apply it in your life?

>>14950976
>consciousness
Questions about a reifying abstraction of the adjective, "conscious" is not a good start to debunking materialism. Try a verb (e. g.. what causes "x" to "y"?) Coin one if you must.

>>14951119
kek
>what happened to "they"

>>14951119
>We
whoops, yea that doesn't include (you)
lmao

>>14951289
yeah, I'm communicating with you telephatically right now

this thread:

https://youtu.be/FnuRPX5km0Y

Sorry I didn't mean "This thread" I mean't this person
>>14950991

>>14950976
How many of these threads does it take before pro-materialist drones and anti-materialist drones realize questions about consciousnes itself (as opposed to neurological correlates) have no scientific substance, and that consciousness threads don't belong on /sci/?

>>14950991
>Not long and your mighty idea of a consciousness can be artificially created, marketed and sold for a profit.
That wouldn't be his idea of consciousness, that would be your idea of consciousness, i.e. the one of a qualialess, subhuman NPC.

>>14951889
>that would be your idea of consciousness, i.e. the one of a qualialess, subhuman NPC
yea and it applies quite well to you and your kind who seem to believe that there is some divine spark of consciousness when it is instead just a mechanism in a biological machine. Detectable. Reducible. Reproducible.

>>14951908
What is your psychotic rambling even about? I'm just pointing out to you that the only thing getting commodified and trivialized is YOUR idea of consciousness, not his, and by extension, it's just you cheapening and reducing yourself into a product. lol

>>14951912
>What is your psychotic rambling even about?
Oh look! Your consciousness is malfunctioning.
>I'm just pointing out to you that the only thing getting commodified and trivialized is YOUR idea of consciousness, not his, and by extension, it's just you cheapening and reducing yourself into a product. lol
There is no MY idea and YOUR idea of consciousness. Just like there is no MY and YOUR idea on how a machine operates. It's just gears meshing with other gears.
Accept it. Learn from it. Or live in superstition on how a divine spirit controls the machine.

>>14951927
>There is no MY idea and YOUR idea of consciousness.
Is your dronified mind so simple that it can't conceive of others having different ideas from yours?

>>14950976
Consciousness has already been explained. You are just a machine.
>b-but muh qualia, muh zombies
Shut the fuck up retard >>>/x/

>Consciousness has already been explained. You are just a machine
Why are they like this?

>>14951887

I think you're getting at that science is metaphysically neutral.

It still belongs here because most scientists think that science favors materialism.

>>14952249
What I'm getting at is that you can't give an account of consciousness without explaining qualia, but hypotheses about how qualia come to be are inherently unfalsifiable and therefore not science-related. Go away.

>>14951048
>Neural networks are a fancy name for brute force matrix math. What people call "AI" today is not generally intelligent and will never be generally intelligent.

GPT-3 and text-to-image diffusion networks are VERY intelligent and will become more intelligent.
Look out for GPT-4 this year.

>>14950991
Binary. Sure. Because your brain works like that.

Fancy algorithm robot yeah very cool. Impotent nerd, stop dreaming.

>>14950976
Consciousness , by the time you got there, you may as well had sex. OH WAIT. HAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA

But don't bring baby into human farm.

>>14950991
>your mighty idea of a consciousness can be artificially created, marketed and sold for a profit.

https://youtu.be/ol2WP0hc0NY

>>14953500
I think its same thing as being sentimental over art, but technically there's no sentience, its reproducing a form of living but its not recreating intelligence. Someone's intellect can be represented by it but its not a Intelligent species that has found a way to fuck and die during the early stages of life

>>14952253
>science = falsifiable
This is wrong. Science is much broader than your narrow definition of the scientific method.

>>14950991
today's machine learning paradigm is not general, we need a change of paradigm.

This is just like how the Turing machine changed the world, a simple shift in paradigm and way of looking at computational problems went a long way.
Same shit for AI, we're trying way too hard to optimize the shit out of deep neural networks, but ultimately it's nothing but matrix multiplication and brute-forcing on millions of billions of data points. This is not intelligence, it's just pushing classical computing to its limits, and yet AI applications are still too narrow, kinda like computers used to be before Turing's work.

explain how "consciousness" can possess any physical property. mind cannot physically exist, but to say that is still not accurate because it is not subject to dualistic conceptions.
this is the true, final, ultimate filter for materialists and midwits because they literally cannot comprehend nondualistic consciousness. same goes for christfags that cannot into nondualism despite "believing" in the trinity lol

>>14950976
>There is a fundamental incommensurability between materials (which are not in any way related to consciousness) and the category of consciousness.
>[...]
>In my view, the hard problem is built in from your chosen metaphysics. It seems you are trying to solve an impossible problem - bridging two categories that are in now way like each other.
wrong
matter is absolutely commensurable with consciousness, matter is simply a very specific subtype of consciousness, generally related to what we think of as tangible (i.e. related to the conscious experience of touch)
all in all, C. S. Peirce said it best:
>The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.

>>14951887
>being a materialist makes you a drone
Lmfao. Materialism is all we know there is. Pretending there's some "middle ground" is fucking nonsense. You're just a fence-sitting brainlet KEK.

And yes, disproving delusional made-up coping mechanisms by way of utilizing the logic of empirical observation in the real world is absolutely scientific. You "go away" you braindead faggot.

Retards are unable to accept that free will doesn't exist and we only pretend it exists because it is complex to the point of being a chaotic system.
Looking forward to when all reality can be described with a celular automata.

>>14954908
diametric opposite of the truth
the dumb retards are the ones clinging to the totally laughable stupidity that is the notion that free will somehow doesn't exist
free will is the fundamental basis for all of existence
I mean that literally: existence itself is everywhere by definition the choice to exist
>According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self-contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."

>>14950976
Why is consciousness something that needs to be made sense of? That really sounds like a materialist idea. "sensibleness" and consciousness are totally opposed ideas in my mind, becuase it seems to me consciousness requires the foreclosure of it's own self logic.
>>14950991
Consciousness wouldn't be created, just given a platform. That's the way consciousness works, whether you like it or not. Once something is conscious, you can't explain it's being conscious.
>>14951062
Psychology is gay. Humans can be modelled like totally 'lifeless' systems without it invalidating their independent, conscious volition. For any of those things to be meaningful we once again arrive at the question of free will or nothing changes, just like 'creating consciousness' will tell us nothing about it's nature.

>>14955441
>Why is consciousness something that needs to be made sense of? That really sounds like a materialist idea. "sensibleness" and consciousness are totally opposed ideas in my mind, becuase it seems to me consciousness requires the foreclosure of it's own self logic.
just as wrong as OP is
see: >>14954688
consciousness is absolutely possible to make sense of, i.e. to explain in rational terms
the fact that this is consciousness explaining itself to itself is fully self-consistent, it's simply self-referential, there's zero problem with that metalogically and metaphysically
>Consciousness wouldn't be created, just given a platform. That's the way consciousness works, whether you like it or not. Once something is conscious, you can't explain it's being conscious.
consciousness is neither created nor given a platform
consciousness is fundamental
and as explained above, you're wrong in thinking that it can't be explained, because it absolutely can
>Psychology is gay. Humans can be modelled like totally 'lifeless' systems without it invalidating their independent, conscious volition. For any of those things to be meaningful we once again arrive at the question of free will or nothing changes, just like 'creating consciousness' will tell us nothing about it's nature.
wrong, wrong, and wrong
psychology is literally the study of the psyche, which is the study of consciousness
thus psychology is actually the most fundamental scientific discipline of all, even more so than physics (as Peirce writes in the post I referenced above, "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws", it's the study of the former that leads to the study of the latter rather than the other way around)
and no, you can absolutely not model humans as p-zombies without removing volition, because volition is a higher-order attribute of the psyche

>>14951048
yes

>>14951056
>Your "general intelligence" is just a multiple layered heuristic technique based on a sufficiently sized database.
If that is true why is the size of the brain not nearly sufficient to apply what you claim is a "layered heuristic technique"? How can the tiny human brain using tiny amounts of energy have a sufficient size for general intelligence but not the massive computers using gorillions of watts?

>>14956155
What? Do you want me to explain energy conversion efficiency to you?

>>14956224
>Do you want me to explain energy conversion efficiency to you?
Do explain how the brain is more operationally efficient than the most advanced supercomputers today and how that energetic efficiency explains why it can create a AGI without a programmer being involved whereas the supercomputers today, even with all the programmers andfunds involved cannot.

>>14956265
>Do explain how the brain is more operationally efficient than the most advanced supercomputers today
The human brain can (and must) draw from a life time of experience and can't be shut down. You have to consider that in your energy balance.
How much energy does the body consume in those 20-30 years to create one PhD?
How much energy does a supercomputer consume to solve a complex mathematical operation in a few hours which would take 20+ years for a human?

>why it can create a AGI without a programmer being involved whereas the supercomputers today, even with all the programmers andfunds involved cannot.
There is no such thing as 'General Intelligence'.
see >>14953803

>tfw I was the one who started spamming anti-materialist consciousness threads years ago on /sci/ and now it's taken hold

>>14956286
>The human brain can (and must) draw from a life time of experience
Are you claiming babies don't have general intelligence?

>and can't be shut down.
Why is that relevant? You can leave a supercomputer one 24/7 too

>You have to consider that in your energy balance.
I'm willing to bet a supercomputer used more watts in one day than the human brain uses in years

>How much energy does the body consume in those 20-30 years to create one PhD?
You are moving the goalposts, the brain is capable of general intelligence from day one, not from the moment it gets a PhD

>>14956286
>There is no such thing as 'General Intelligence'.
Then you agree with me that computers will never be able to have intelligence like humans do, and will always at most be able to replicative artifiical patterns of thinking which were designed by intelligent programmers?

Material would still be causing the 'immaterial'. The brain is a physical object and affecting its state with different stimuli, chemicals, blunt force trauma, changes subsequent qualia.

What exactly is gained by operating under the immaterialist perspective? Besides of course the timeless philosophical insight of u cant know nuffin.

>>14956317
>Are you claiming babies don't have general intelligence?
Judged by its ability? No, they don't.

The rest of your post is math that has to be done to prove anything or was refuted by the points above and below.

>>14956323
>Then you agree with me that computers will never be able to have intelligence like humans do, and will always at most be able to replicative artifiical patterns of thinking which were designed by intelligent programmers?
I don't even think humans have a general intelligence but a general potential to master a specialized intelligence in one (or a few) of many fields.

>>14956291
basado

>>14956286
>The human brain can (and must) draw from a life time of experience and can't be shut down.
past experience has nothing to do with general intelligence
>PhD
not a measure of intelligence
>There is no such thing as 'General Intelligence'.
oh no, it's retarded

Why would you even want to exist without the material. Genuinely.
>sure youll keep existing but
>no feeling
>no excitement
>no love
>no experiences
>no continuity
>no presence of your loved ones anymore
>no new mountains to climb, things to learn
Why even desire to argue for any form of post-death consciousness. Lay me into the void of nonexistence. Let the universe collapse into nothing. I'd rather that than exist for fucking eternity.

>>14957424
wrong on every single count
you can literally have every single one of those things without material
material is just a single specific mode of consciousness

>>14957801
>you will be NOTHING and you will be HAPPY!

>>14952840
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

>>14951889

>>14957864
you're retarded
realizing your true nature as the self, utilizing consciousness and will to have any experience you like, is as far removed from "being nothing" as you can possibly get

>>14956123
I think all your corrections are semantic, as were mine. I'm only compelled to respond because you called me wrong instead of just correcting me.
>it can be explained
>it's fundamental
I agree consciousness is fundamental, and if it is, there's no such thing as a consciousness which doesn't make sense, which means consciousness is the standard of sensibility, not reason. Therefore consciousness doesn't need to be made sense of.
Rationally explained isn't in my understanding the same as simultaneous apprehension of cause and effect of consciousness, aka "being" conscious. How can you desribe "being" in the way that would allow the other person to "be" what was described?
The point is that consciousness describes consciousness by being consciousness and rationality only describes an aspect of consciousness TO conciousness. If it could describe consciousness it wouldn't BE consciousness because consciousness describes itself.
To demonstrate my problem, you could compare it to 'does the front of a wavelength of light see light?' (if it could hypothetically see.)
Surely light that would be light and see light wouldn't be the 'face' of light, thus only the light that could both be light and see dark is the 'face' of the light.
And I think psychology is too easy to be misconstrued, the same reason mathematics is the preferred language for mathematical problems - which is why I called it gay, rather than 'wrong.'

>>14958163
How can you be both retarded and have any experience you like?

>>14957919
You can argue with zombies if you can interact with them.

>>14958234
no, none of it had anything to do with semantics, and that's a vapid straw man
I'm explaining the fundamental errors in your thought process
>there's no such thing as a consciousness which doesn't make sense
there's no such thing as anything that doesn't make sense
there are no contradictions in nature
>which means consciousness is the standard of sensibility, not reason
again, reason is one aspect of consciousness, the aspect which is used to make sense of what is cognized
so instead of the mutual exclusivity you're setting up here, both are the standard of sensibility, with reason being the particular part of consciousness responsible for that standard
>Therefore consciousness doesn't need to be made sense of.
nothing "needs" to be made sense of, but everything is made sense of
consciousness is perfectly capable of making sense of itself, and does so
>Rationally explained isn't in my understanding the same as simultaneous apprehension of cause and effect of consciousness, aka "being" conscious.
and that's exactly where you're wrong, because an exhaustively rational explanation of consciousness is exactly that
>How can you desribe "being" in the way that would allow the other person to "be" what was described?
there's no such thing as "other person"
all consciousness is self-referential, reality is a language talking to itself about itself
>he point is that consciousness describes consciousness by being consciousness and rationality only describes an aspect of consciousness TO conciousness.
wrong, rationality is the part of consciousness that does the explaining, and doesn't explain only part, but the entirety of consciousness
being consciousness is not a description of consciousness
that is the very reason for the self to descend into will and consciousness to begin with, since being the self is not the same as the self knowing itself

>>14954896
>Materialism is all we know there is.
So logic and maths do not exist? Or you take them to be mere social constructs thereby equating them with gender studies?

>>14957919

>>14958334
>Or you take them to be mere social constructs thereby equating them with gender studies?
wow the level of argumentation is really high today

Scientists worship the snake who gave Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge, good luck with that. They oppose God, faith and religion with "reason"(the counterfeit religion of Satan).

>>14950991
You are God dreaming. There is no such thing as “existence outside direct experience”. There is no “mechanical world” out-there shaping reality. It’s all imagined by your awareness and some infinite entanglement of collective subconsciousness. Your ego is the diametrical opposite to such insights, which is why it has layers and layers of personal and fine-tuned mechanism to reject such ideas. It doesn’t matter what forms or avatars behave like general intelligence, consciousness is fundamental, and can not be reduced to a mere structure of symbols or experiences.

>>14957424
Metaphysics is not exclusive to materialism. It’s only the other way around.

>>14950991
You can alreary sell slaves, id think youd know, considering youre a nigger and all

>>14958536
why is the ego opposite to such insight?
the ego is rather the epitome of such insight, with ultimate egoism being to rightfully claim the ownership of all of reality

>>14958600
>why is the ego opposite to such insight?
I kind of lied because it's too bothersome to explain the endless levels of metaphysical understandings one may be required to grasp how reality is shaped in the way it is now. The ego is not opposite to such insights. It's orthogonal to them. It's more like the set intersection of both truth, and survival.
>the ego is rather the epitome of such insight
God is absolute infinity (i.e greater than all quantified infinities). It doesn't matter how big the ego can be, its size is infinitesimal relative the whole field of consciousness. I don't believe in things like karma or reincarnation, it's just you and your dream, but bigger egos increase the chance of getting lost in your own imagination, thus increasing the chance of having it devolve into nightmares.
I'm not demonizing the ego. It needs to grow big enough in order to transcend itself, since it provides a convenient baseline of survival. It's not even a thing that exists in a proper sense. At best this symbol points to some vague entanglement of fears, attachments, misconceptions and unawareness without beginning or end. But under such definition, the ego doesn't not create anything. Consciousness creates everything, including those waves of self-referential impermanent loops, from its own fundamental baseline of self-referentialness (if that makes sense).

All disagreements are semantic. What else are they, if they are not?
Tell me what a disagreement is by your own model.
>No contradictions in nature
Therefore foreclosure of consciousness to itself is valid and sensible - which remains perfectly coherent even in your model where everything is consciousness (by virtue of being aspects of it), which you actually get at below:
>talking to itself about itself
>self descends into will and consciousness
>descends
>to begin with
Which requires foreclosure. Time (which you acknowledge and imply to be a predicate) is foreclosure of the past to the future, and time is an intuitive predicate for that concept of self-reference and to even be coherent.
>No such thing as other person
There still exists the concept of the 'other,' for what use?
>There is no other
Therefore there is no self. This is impossible for your model to work.

>consciousness is not a description of consciousness
And explaining something is just explaining it. It doesn't do anything to be it. You can look at something, but that is not being that thing, otherwise there would be no distinction between looking at it and being it.
Now, you say reality is a language talking to itself. So why do these distinctions exist within language if they are not meaningful?
I'm curious what the ontology of difference is for you? Why do disagreements exist if everything is homogenous? Why do emotions exist, for example? What about qualia?
See, your argument is just that everything is consciousness, which is impossible to verify without being a solipsist, a concept which I understand requires foreclosure to exist as 'computable' paradox. (how can a solipsist exist alongside other solipsists?)
And, if solipsism doesn't exist, why does the concept exist?

>>14958258
All disagreements are semantic. What else are they, if they are not?
Tell me what a disagreement is by your own model.
>No contradictions in nature
Therefore foreclosure of consciousness to itself is valid and sensible - which remains perfectly coherent even in your model where everything is consciousness (by virtue of being aspects of it), which you actually get at below:
>talking to itself about itself
>self descends into will and consciousness
>descends
>to begin with
Which requires foreclosure. Time (which you acknowledge and imply to be a predicate) is foreclosure of the past to the future, and time is an intuitive predicate for that concept of self-reference and to even be coherent.
>No such thing as other person
There still exists the concept of the 'other,' for what use?
>There is no other
Therefore there is no self. This is impossible for your model to work.

>consciousness is not a description of consciousness
And explaining something is just explaining it. It doesn't do anything to be it. You can look at something, but that is not being that thing, otherwise there would be no distinction between looking at it and being it.
Now, you say reality is a language talking to itself. So why do these distinctions exist within language if they are not meaningful?
I'm curious what the ontology of difference is for you? Why do disagreements exist if everything is homogenous? Why do emotions exist, for example? What about qualia?
See, your argument is just that everything is consciousness, which is impossible to verify without being a solipsist, a concept which I understand requires foreclosure to exist as 'computable' paradox. (how can a solipsist exist alongside other solipsists?)
And, if solipsism doesn't exist, why does the concept exist?

>>14958503
Jesus wasnt real mouth breather, stop muddying the waters with your low IQ bullshit

>>14958757
Sure he was not real soi boy.

>>14958721
Not the anone you're replying to. The idea "everything is consciousness" is perfectly rational, if not more than self-proclaimed rationalism. All "external" phenomena which can be described are necessarily appearances within consciousness. Although it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of some physical world, this is a hint materialism, who wants to believe some incomplete non-finite chain of causality may somehow cause consciousness, is not based on any tangible evidences either (hence "hard-problem" memes).
Presuming God has the ability to imagine infinite universes from both ends and beginnings simultaneously, like a lightning's bidirectional discharge from both ground and sky reaching itself at the center, can make consciousness really tricky to understand. In other words, the ability for human perspectives to imagine stories, movies, animes, etc, with conscious determinism, can be the same ability subconscious collectives may use to imagine their own universes. But this capability can be turned against itself by collective egos to lose themselves within self-consistent realities full of endless dramas and meaningless sub-goals. Time itself would be imaginary whereas consciousness would not have any essence, other than the ability to chose sub-infinities (whatever they are) within the absolute, or something.
>>14958842
You are replacing a belief system with another belief system. This is not helpful.

>>14951062
psychokinesis also explains the mind and brain connection

>>14950976
the leading scientists have already dropped materialism and are going forward with astral plane theory, there is just too much evidence

>>14958721
>All disagreements are semantic.
hilarious nonsense
biggest cop-out to being schooled I've ever seen
>What else are they, if they are not?
based on actual understanding
your understanding is faulty, thus I'm correcting it
it has nothing to do with semantics
>foreclosure of consciousness to itself is valid and sensible - which remains perfectly coherent even in your model where everything is consciousness (by virtue of being aspects of it)
again, the entire point is that such foreclosures occur through the part of consciousness known as reason
>Which requires foreclosure. Time (which you acknowledge and imply to be a predicate) is foreclosure of the past to the future, and time is an intuitive predicate for that concept of self-reference and to even be coherent.
wrong on multiple counts
first of all, "descends" and "to begin with" here does not refer to "time" at all, but to timeless transition between states within eternity
secondly, again, the foreclosure of consciousness to itself occurs through the use of reason
>There still exists the concept of the 'other,' for what use?
delusions are of no use whatsoever
not all concepts have any use at all, and "other" is precisely such a totally useless concept, as it has zero basis in reality
>Therefore there is no self.
totally wrong
this type of thinking is downright moronic, and betrays a desperate clinging to a certain kind of dualism, whereby something can only exist by virtue of contrast with its opposite
that is not the case at all
the self absolutely does exist
nothing else exists, no "other" at all
>And explaining something is just explaining it.
genius
the point is: there's nothing "just" about it
an explanation is never "mere"
>It doesn't do anything to be it.
irrelevant to the point I've been making all along
>You can look at something, but that is not being that thing, otherwise there would be no distinction between looking at it and being it.
again, totally irrelevant to what I said

>>14958721
>>14959244
>Now, you say reality is a language talking to itself. So why do these distinctions exist within language if they are not meaningful?
because it's fully possible for the self to delude itself and talk nonsense
that is what you, a part of the self, is currently doing
thus comes I, an eradicator of such delusional parts, and savagely schools that nonsense into oblivion
>I'm curious what the ontology of difference is for you?
the self generates an endless variety out of itself due to sheer curiosity and the desire to enjoy itself
>Why do disagreements exist if everything is homogenous?
disagreements are just delusion, pure folly
the self, being infinitely capable of generating anything self-consistent, can generate such folly, but it's just meaningless babble and doesn't contribute to the actual goal of the self
it's like someone hurting themselves over and over again instead of enjoying themselves
>Why do emotions exist, for example? What about qualia?
see above: for the sake of enjoyment
>See, your argument is just that everything is consciousness
"everything", yes, but that only pertains to all "things", which are subparts of the cognitive process of consciousness
the self stands beyond "things", as the self is not a "thing" at all, but rather that through which the cognitive principle emerges
likewise, the paired attribute of consciousness, i.e. will, is not a "thing" either (and consciousness itself is not a "thing" either, "things" are a much lower-order concept)
>which is impossible to verify without being a solipsist
there is only the self, which by definition is solipsism
solipsism is true whether you like it or not
>a concept which I understand requires foreclosure to exist as 'computable' paradox
again, above that the self forecloses itself through consciousness
>(how can a solipsist exist alongside other solipsists?)
there's no "other"
>And, if solipsism doesn't exist, why does the concept exist?
already answered, but solipsism exists

>>14959267
So once you die, the "dream" ceases to be?

>>14950976
All successful scientific theories are materialist. When you have evidence of ghosts and unicorns let us know. Until then, shut the fuck up.

>>14959672
Ghostion and Higgs Unicorn
Done. It is officially scientific dogma.

>>14959672
Give me evidence you aren't a spectre of my imagination.

>>14950976
when will you faggots learn. Your bullshit isn't scientific.
You don't even know anything about AI.
Why don't you install some package and go fuck around with NNs. Use an SVM to classify your mom's underwear or some shit. Maybe you'll learn something instead of treating it like le magic box

>>14959672
It's fascinating that many ancient faiths, even abrahamic, believed that afterlives didn't exist. They held the belief that human souls only existed until we died, same as animal souls.

Strange to see how that has evolved over time.

>>14959693
The burden of proof is on you.

>>14959710
I've written more tensor math than you, and your clueless about how insignificant it is relative to the infinite potentials of consciousness. I'm not saying it shouldn't be explored, but the delusion of someone's ego can not be solved mechanically.

>>14959797
Easy, I invented you in my head like I invented everything else. Reject self-delusion, embrace loneliness.

>>14959672
Metaphysics has nothing to do with unicorns or ghosts, and it's not based on non-evidence either. The point is, there is an entire field of ideas that can not be explored by group think due to the blind spots created by the fundamental survival mechanisms limiting the shape of reality. Consider how non-materialistic concepts are demonized by scientific communities, even though truth shouldn't fear investigation. No one but yourself is able to fully understand them.

>>14959834
Solipsism is true, but it's also false, and there are many nuances to it depending on what even you define as it.
We are One.

>>14959174
>>14959267
>>14959244
Yeah of course it's rational, I didn't deny once that anything isn't a part of consciousness. I'm saying 1.
conscious agents are discrete 'cuts' of consciousness that operate by foreclosing themselves from the greater consciousness, which is consistent with that anons system. At the end of my post I point out your 'ontological tension.' In my system, there is no ontological tension - that is, I explain it without needing some kind of spurious 'self indulgent ego' thing. Discrete consciousnesses act upon their own discrete volition, because they are made discrete. Now, this is ALSO consistent with anons system. There's nothing I've set which is inconsistent and he's yet to make any substantial explanation why.
I'm describing exactly how it works, as all the questions about consciousness by homo sapiens have to do with time-bound operations ie. "how does it work" (your being conscious?)

Deferring to a tautology and then applying it's boundless hospitality for all possible positions into making an exclusion for whatever point is disagreeable to you isn't wrong, in that it's coherent with the system, but it isn't an argument, because my argument is also coherent since I am part of the same system. Where at once it 'refutes' you, it at the same time neutralizes itself by it's own logic. It's like me saying 'God did it' to every question. We do not converse like that - we might as well just be saying 'grug' back and forth, and it would be perfectly coherent to the tautology "people can speak."

>turned against itself by collective egos
>endless dramas
>meaningless subgoals
And there it is, the 'thorn,' the ontological difference. In your system it's also totally ok. Because, again, it's like we just can't stop implying 'utility.' Just like anon saying 'wrong,' kek. I'm telling you, it's just 'foreclosure' aka 'time obscures the past from the future to the present so the present can present itself.' THis is consistent with monism.

>>14959244
>I've ever seen
You mean we've seen.
>"descends" and "begin" aren't time referential
Use more exact words and you won't have to indulge the pleasure of proving us wrong
>it's fully possible for the self to delude itself
So use reason to prove us wrong, as we are offering you the opportunity to, instead of behaving like a zealot.
>desire to enjoy itself
UTILITY.
>disagreements are delusion
>delusions are no use
Again you admit utility.
>zero basis in reality
The reality that is consciousness, that may contain whatever it may.
You're not making an argument. It's as simple as that. You have not once actually explained why foreclosure is wrong or makes no sense, even inside your own system, you've just subsumed it into a metaphysical comparison of quantity:
>foreclosures occurs due to reason
>betrays a clinging to
Dualism is coherent within your system seeing as you can utter the word.

>>14959907
Consciousness is inherently tautological, as it's the only thing that exists. I'm not entirely sure about the arguments you shared since I'm a bit stupid, but there are many set of symbols that can describe the same things, if they even have clear definition to begin with.
>there is no ontological tension
The ego is imaginary, yet its effect can be real. If someone experiences pains or fears, they will react to them, even if such tension is illusory. There is no reference for what defines as real to begin with.
>all the questions about consciousness by homo sapiens have to do with time-bound operations ie. "how does it work"
>time obscures the past from the future to the present so the present can present itself.
Are you arguing whether or not time is fundamental to consciousness? I've not been directly aware of non-dual state where such aspect can be proven or disproven, so I don't actually know, but I don't think it is. The reasoning is, most of the deep imaginative capabilities of consciousness can not be explained in terms of a linear process somehow unfolding onto itself, because how infinite fractal of elements are interrelated throughout entire timelines. This can be (partially) explained by the fact consciousness may be able to imagine entire chronology of dreams, all at once, within larger scale of subconscious collective egos, just like how individual egos can imagine a movie with some internally consistent plot. In practice, the complexity of the physics and mathematics depend more on "prediction of the future" rather than "accumulation of past understandings". It's magic.

>>14959834
Not evidence. Try again.

>>14959852
>Metaphysics has nothing to do with unicorns or ghosts
Correct, because metaphysics is about the nature of reality. Unicorns, ghosts, and whatever immaterial nonsense you made up aren't real.

>The point is, there is an entire field of ideas that can not be explored by group think due to the blind spots
What are you talking about? You could explore whatever idea you want. Go ahead and do it. No one is stopping you. Stop whining about your own failure to find evidence for your beliefs.

>Consider how non-materialistic concepts are demonized by scientific communities
Nice persecution complex. In reality, no one gives a shit about them because there's no evidence. Yet you still cling to them and demand that people take you seriously. Cry more.

>>14959812
>I've written more tensor math than you
then get back to it instead of bitching about muh infinite potential.
>the delusion of someone's ego
You're the deluded one, just as deluded as the over the top AI fags.
You offer nothing beyond scientific materialism, your OP is literally stating that something is missing in current metaphysics but you cannot state what it is.
Because knowledge is limited by that which we can demonstrate, and you yourself know that.
You will never be able to demonstrate anything about your idea of consciousness, not even that it would somehow require new metaphysics because you've deluded yourself to forget the basics: If you can't prove it, then into the trash it goes.
And you already know all this, but you chose to post this anyways so that AI fags would respond to a mention of consciousness.
You have no argument of your own, and you know that there can be no such argument, by definition.
Perhaps you've finally lost it.
For the last time, this topic is not scientific.
Good luck finally understanding this.

>>14959774
not true, not even close to being true, in fact just the opposite. Justinian had reincarnation removed from the bible

https://www.google.com/search?q=Justinian+had+reincarnation+removed+from+the+bible

>>14959963
>inherently tautological
Yes but I just don't know how you one can convey anything meaningful about a tautology and the question of consciousness implies a desire to understanding it's meaning, or however one would like to put it.
Because the initial question is 'what is consciousness,' which remains a question even when consciousness is already the axiomatic 'field' that 'allows' you to ask the question - so the point is that (I'm also a bit stupid) transformations, like past->future=present are still kind of 'closed' sequences that only make sense by 'fore-closing,' for example, the stratification of dimensions, where each necessitates by logic that it is closed to it's higher dimension by itself - eg. 3rd dimension has to imagine '3d4d' rather than pure 4d.
I have never thought beyond any kind of anthropomorphic capacity, or anything that couldn't be justifiably anthropomorphic, so as a consciousness in this 'manifestation,' a consciousness which is just as legitimately manifest as I am now as any other manifestation, insofar as consciousness is absolute, the question of consciousness thus concerns the concerns of my current manifestation and what makes sense to it, because questions themselves are 'time bound "hows?" A question is useless without time because one in a higher 'manifestation' wouldn't need to ask 'what happened in rome 5 b.c.' or 'are asparagus carrot-like shape' when they could just instantly peer into any point at any point in time.
>if time is fundamental to consciousness
So no, probably it isn't. But relations are transformations between 'things,' which requires some at least extremely abstract and nigh incomprehensible equivalent of 'time,' so time would be an aspect of consciousness. But the question of consciousness requires that time is foreclosed so that consciousness can access itself. So the 'knot' that = questions, questions which are as that other anon was saying produce the 'language that talks to itself about itself.'

>>14951062
>>>/x/
The schizzo board is that way. lmao

>>14959672

Scientists have been playing a game about predicting the behavior of reality, and are extremely good at it. Just like a kid who is extremely good a call of duty.

The problem is that the kid, despite being a world champ, has no clue about the reality of the programming, transistors, electricity, etc underlying the game.

Same with scientists. Don't mistaken being good at a game with understanding the reality of what the game is.

It is the reason scientitsts have not been able to understand consciousness in terms of materials for 100 years.

>>14954896
We have never directly dealt with tge materials of materialism. We are trapped in a world of consciousness, so you are just straight wrong.

>>14960672
>It is the reason scientitsts have not been able to understand consciousness in terms of materials for 100 years.
Nah that reason is just that the brain is very complicated and almost everyone goes catatonic when their tacit assumptions about souls are questioned.
Meanwhile in the real world we're incrementally moving towards understanding consciousness in computational terms without even the slightest care for the metaphysics of it.
People are retreating into metaphysical arguments precisely to avoid their assumptions being challenged.

>>14960672
>The problem is that the kid, despite being a world champ, has no clue about the reality of the programming, transistors, electricity, etc underlying the game.
But that's wrong, schizo. The programming is the laws of physics. The hardware is matter and energy.

>Don't mistaken being good at a game with understanding the reality of what the game is.
Backwards logic. You have no method of understanding. The only way to understand is to play the game. Outgrow you are just guessing from pure ignorance.

>It is the reason scientitsts have not been able to understand consciousness in terms of materials for 100 years.
All we do understand points to the brain being the source. You have no understanding.

>>14960677
It's impossible to not deal with the materials directly, since that's all there is. The world keeps ticking exactly as it should regardless of your consciousness. You are just a solipsist in denial of hundreds of years of data

>>14960682

Cope. Hiding behind complexity.


There is no way even in principle to understand how a category of thing that is defined to be quantitative (matter) can give rise to qualities (consciousness).

I'm sure scientitsts will make better predictive models of the CORRELATIONS between the brain and subjective experience.

But good luck bridging incommmensurable ontological categories. If you insist on that route, all I can say is good luck.

>>14960702
Since you've been directly aquainted with the categoey of materials, tell me, what was that like?

Presumably, you left consciousness. I'm curious.

>>14960736
>Since you've been directly aquainted with the categoey of materials, tell me, what was that like?
It's like every moment of your life. You're obsessed with consciousness but you ignore everything we're conscious of.

>>14960823
Not him but by reducing materials to something you're merely conscious *of* you are ceding quite some ground here.

>>14960829
I didn't reduce it.

>>14960823

>conscious of

Which is a mental object within consciousness.


Seems you are unable to give me an example of when you've directly dealt with this material stuff you claim is fundamental.

>>14950976
>be conscious
>consume alcohol
>become drunk (altered cpnsciousness)
>proof that consciousness is subordinate to material/physics

Keep copin' though OP but do that over 0n /pol/ or /x/, not here, you insufferable niggerfaggot.

>>14961001
>Which is a mental object within consciousness.
"Consciuos of" is in consciousness? Circular nonsense. It's a process in the brain.

>Seems you are unable to give me an example of when you've directly dealt with this material stuff
Why are you lying? I gave you several examples, every moment of your life.

>>14961108

If you are the same guy, you don't seem to understand that every moment of your life is spent within consciousness. Itvis all you can or ever will be able to be aquainted with. You can't escape it.

>>14961108

You're begging the question.

Tell us, how does the brain go from material neural activity to an awareness or consciousness?

>>14961137
>If you are the same guy, you don't seem to understand that every moment of your life is spent within consciousness.
No they're not. You sleep. Fixing idiot

And consciousness is a process of your brain, it's as material as anything else. Your claim that everything is consciousness produces no testable predictions, it's just solipsism.

>>14961143
>You're begging the question.
Nope, I'm simply telling you what we've discovered over hundreds of years. You're being the question by assuming everything is consciousness, which is a useless hypothesis.

>Tell us, how does the brain go from material neural activity to an awareness or consciousness?
They are the same thing, they don't go from one to the other. How does math go from ink on paper to a proof?

>>14961154

Okay, in sleep, convey to me what it was like to directly deal with materials. You can't name a single time without reference to being in a state or awareness, i.e. consciousness.

Neither can materials of materialism be directly tested. Metaphysics is not science. In science, we are creating the predictive models of nature, not saying anything about what nature is in and of itself.


At least with consciouness being fundamental, we have actually DIRECTLY been aquainted with the category; with materiald of materialism, it is all hypothesizing.

Consciouness only view isn't solipsim. I never said everything takes place in my mind alone. There can be a universal mind containing all minds.

>>14961172

>they don't go from one to the other

So you don't believe material processes generate consciouness?

>>14961178
>Okay, in sleep, convey to me what it was like to directly deal with materials.
Your atoms lie on top of a bed made of atoms, pressed together by the force of gravity and the floor but repelling each other die to electromagnetic forces. What specifically do you need explained?

>You can't name a single time without reference to being in a state or awareness, i.e. consciousness.
3:00 AM this morning. You're an idiot.

>Neither can materials of materialism be directly tested.
The test is, you make predictions based on your theory and then see if they occur. Only materialist theories are successful. Why is that?

>Metaphysics is not science
I don't care whether you call it metaphysics or science, the evidence is clear that reality is material.

>At least with consciouness being fundamental, we have actually DIRECTLY been aquainted with the category
No, consciousness independent from material is just an abstraction. It doesn't exist, so you aren't aquainted with it at all. The only thing you are in direct contact with is material, including consciousness.

>Consciouness only view isn't solipsim. I never said everything takes place in my mind alone.
You spent this entire conversation arguing what you aren't aware of doesn't exist. Are you aware of other minds? It is solipsism, and utterly useless. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, you will never get any results, while materialists continue to improve your life. Pathetic.

>>14961185
Consciousness IS a material process. Abstractions aren't generated, they simply don't exist.

>>14961244

>Your atoms lie on top of a bed made of atoms, pressed together by the force of gravity and the floor but repelling each other die to electromagnetic forces. What specifically do you need explained?

These are just models/ideas for how nature BEHAVES within consciouness.

>The test is, you make predictions based on your theory and then see if they occur. Only materialist theories are successful. Why is that?


You've only shown that we are really good at predicting the behavior of reality. Nothing is said in science about what the thing that is behaving is. Look at the experimental step to know this; we are checking the BEHAVIOR of reality with what our PREDICTIVE MODEL says the behavior should be.

> No, consciousness independent from material is just an abstraction. It doesn't exist, so you aren't aquainted with it at all. The only thing you are in direct contact with is material, including consciousness.

Of course I'm directly aquainted with consciouness. To say otherwise is the dumbest idea any human has ever concieved of.

Moreover, materials are defined to be quantitative. That is, everything that there are to materials can be described by various numbers. That is nothing like what my subjective states are. These are totally seperate categories.


>I don't care whether you call it metaphysics or science, the evidence is clear that reality is material.

What is your evidence? That you can predict how nature behaves with models? That just means you are really good at modelling behavior, nothing about knowing what the thing that behaving is.

all these butthurt philosophy fags who can't cope
would be a shame if someone were to invent artificial consciousness just to fuck with them

>>14961244

>You spent this entire conversation arguing what you aren't aware of doesn't exist. Are you aware of other minds? It is solipsism, and utterly useless. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, you will never get any results, while materialists continue to improve your life. Pathetic.

I never said that what we aren't directly aquainted with doesn't exist.

I'm saying that it is far, far more reasonable to have a metaphysics with categories we are directly aquainted with than to hypothesize about quantitative abstractions that we can never directly know.

I'm not anti science; science has done wonders with predictive models about the behavior of nature; but it is just that, preditive models.

Just because you have an understand about how something behaves with convient fictions doesn't mean that you know what the thing that is behaving is.

>>14961310
>These are just models/ideas for how nature BEHAVES within consciouness.
Nope, you're just adding unnecessary complexity to the model for no reason by saying its in consciousness. Why do you need to believe everything is consciousness when you can't give one iota of evidence? It's religious dogma.

>You've only shown that we are really good at predicting the behavior of reality.
Only materialist theories do this. Why is that? Why don't idealist theories do that if that is the true nature of reality? Because it's religious dogma and nothing more.

>Nothing is said in science about what the thing that is behaving is.
Why are you lying? Every successful scientific theory has material as the fundamental constituent. You're in denial.

>Of course I'm directly aquainted with consciouness. To say otherwise is the dumbest idea any human has ever concieved of.
I didn't say you aren't I said you're not directly aquainted with consciousness independent from material.

>That is nothing like what my subjective states are.
Argument from ignorance. I'm sure there are a lot of things you don't understand quantitatively that physicists do.

>What is your evidence?
Literally every successful scientific theory. What is your evidence?

>That just means you are really good at modelling behavior
That's called understanding. You wouldn't get it since you have zero knowledge.

>>14961420
direct-experience-of-consciousness deniers are clueless. map is not the territory
have fun being lost in the void forever

>>14961319
>I never said that what we aren't directly aquainted with doesn't exist.
That was the entire basis of your argument against materialism. You claim we are not directly aquainted with material. What was your point if that's not your argument?

>I'm saying that it is far, far more reasonable to have a metaphysics with categories we are directly aquainted with
You are not directly aquainted with anything but material. Consciousness independent from material is an abstraction. Your argument is self-defeating.

>I'm not anti science
Then why do you ignore it?

>but it is just that, preditive models.
As opposed to your non-predictive solipsist model.

>Just because you have an understand about how something behaves with convient fictions doesn't mean that you know what the thing that is behaving is.
You claim to not be anti-science and then you call it convenient fiction. Pure projection. The only convenient fiction is your idealism. It's convenient for avoiding reality and your own inadequacy.

>>14961434
Notice how you didn't respond to anything I said. You have direct experience of consciousness, it's just material like everything else. You literally have no reason to think it or anything else is immaterial. It's a religion. You lost and you know it.

>>14961447
I'm not the anone you were replying to. I think she already explained lot of things very well, and it's sad you don't understand the hints.
The problem is, you believe a non-material conceptualization of reality necessarily excludes materialism but this isn't the case. It's possible to be rational, fully understand mathematics and physics yet become aware of the self-referential natures of such systems of symbols, and how useless they are when it comes to understanding consciousness at a meta level.
Materialism is convenient since it allows collectives to outperform other collectives in life with better weapons and technology, but being the best player in the game has nothing to do with truth. Notice how most materialist models are incomplete and not even providing a unified consistent prediction over reality. And when pointed out, moist materialists endlessly move the goalpost with "we will figure this out" or "wait we make agi and it changes everything baka desu". That's a dogma.
Metaphysics can be evidenced, but the catch22 is, evidences can not be shared. You would get more insights over the nature of consciousness with meditation rather than dissecting brains.
>You lost and you know it.
You are losing yourself in the void, and spiritually-minded entities are trying to help you. You don't know it.

>>14961420
Bro, how are you going to claim scientific models aren't created by and experienced through consciousness? It's incredibly apparent.

Anyhow, don't you go pulling scientific models into your stupid ontological claims. If everything was the result of mind it wouldn't make a single difference for science.

Empiricism entails building knowledge up from experience, observation. That's the bedrock of science.

Idealism and materialism (physicalism really because no one buys materialism anymore) are claims about "what is really there sans experience." They are explicitly claims about the nature of things that, by definition, cannot be observed. Don't try to lump our shit in with your ontology. Science is ontologically agnostic.

You might be getting confused with philosophy of mind. In this case, yes, there is plenty of good support for physicalism, i.e. the idea that the observed enviornment/body shape consciousness. That's pretty solid. But the next step to making ontological claims drops right out of the realm of science.

That doesn't stop scientists from dabbling in that sort of thing, but when they do they aren't all physicalists. They're also idealists (Donald Hoffman), Platonists (Max Tegmark), embracing information ontology (loads of physicists), etc.

Physicalism isn't even really a coherent ontology. It falls to Hemple's Dilemma. This is even more obvious since non-locality was shown by Bell's Theorem. Now physical means non-local. Pretty soon it seems it will have to accept contextuality in physics, no one objective view point. If mysterious soul particles get observed as part of consciousness then souls will be claimed as physical too. Which just makes the ontology "whatever currently has mainstream support is real," which is shit. Just stay agnostic. Physicalism stopped making sense when physics gathered up 9 major fundemental interpretations, none with majority support from physicists (and Copenhagen is incoherent to boot).

>>14960102
It is the only evidence there is my poor little mind ghost. I invoked you purely to tempt me into the delusion that you exist and you have failed. Maybe I will one day be capable of such strong illusions, but for now, I am left with you. Sad really.

>>14961492
>The problem is, you believe a non-material conceptualization of reality necessarily excludes materialism
I don't actually care, since there is no evidence for anything immaterial regardless.

>It's possible to be rational, fully understand mathematics and physics yet become aware of the self-referential natures of such systems of symbols, and how useless they are when it comes to understanding consciousness at a meta level.
What you don't seem to realize is there is no better alternative understanding. At worst, materialism will be just as good as idealism at explaining something, because idealism explains nothing. In all other cases, it is far superior to idealism.

>Materialism is convenient since it allows collectives to outperform other collectives in life with better weapons and technology, but being the best player in the game has nothing to do with truth.
Misrepresentation. Science is not about winning wars or about technology, it's about figuring out what's real. Those are merely side effects of that understanding. Successful theories are approximations of the truth. So far you haven't told me why idealism is a better approximation.

>Notice how most materialist models are incomplete and not even providing a unified consistent prediction over reality.
Idealism doesn't even reach the level of being able to determine completeness or making predictions. It's "not even wrong." Just baseless speculation.

>And when pointed out, moist materialists endlessly move the goalpost with "we will figure this out" or "wait we make agi and it changes everything baka desu". That's a dogma.
No, that's progress. Determining the truth actually requires work, something you know nothing about.

>Metaphysics can be evidenced, but the catch22 is, evidences can not be shared.
That's very convenient for your religious dogma. Meanwhile I have no issue sharing the evidence that everything is material.

>>14961643
Incorrect, you can't prove anything and yet I have all of the proof that you don't exist and never will. These materials are not real, they are just persistent. Like you, a ghost I made up to tempt me into liking the rest of this shit I can make up. The claimed improvements are chintzy fabrications, perpetual self delusions.
>i am so great
>SQUAWK!
I can't even entertain the notion of you being real, such a possibility is completely divorced from any form of reality. I have heard your kind persistently bitch about it though, and never amount to much more than that. Not once has your "experience" ever coalesced into something I can comprehend. Just endless primal dancing, strings of words, nothing as I gaze from infinity. Tell me, my little mimic, have you ever realized how flat the people are in my dreams. It is not any different in this waking nightmare. I just pray that I didn't pay for this.

>>14952840
Please explain to me how you think they work if you don't think it comes down to matrix multiplication

>>14961658
Meds, now.

>>14951048

>What people call "AI" today is not generally intelligent and will never be generally intelligent.

Bingo.

>>14950976
Here's what I suspect:

Before any living beings existed, there were galaxies and atoms etc.
Before any living beings existed, there was qualia like redness and blueness etc.

The existence of qualia is obvious. But, the existence of a subject who sees them is an assumption. The assumption is wrong. There is nothing to the "I" character than a bunch of ideas and sensations. Subjective experiences probably don't need a subject, the idea they do is invented by us because our entire worldview is built up from an idea of a self/other.

>>14961516
>Bro, how are you going to claim scientific models aren't created by and experienced through consciousness?
Where did I claim this? I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but my claim is that consciousness is material like everything else. Your belief that it's not is simply religious dogma.

>Anyhow, don't you go pulling scientific models into your stupid ontological claims.
No matter how much you cry about it, I'll continue to point out that every successful model shows your claims are just religious dogma.

>If everything was the result of mind it wouldn't make a single difference for science.
That's because it's "not even wrong." It's just extraneous bullshit that predicts nothing.

>Empiricism entails building knowledge up from experience, observation.
Right, so provide your experience of anything immaterial. Make a model to explain it and prove it superior. You won't.

>They are explicitly claims about the nature of things that, by definition, cannot be observed.
No, you observe them at all moments. That's how we can describe them. Just because we can only approximate the nature of reality doesn't mean all models are equal. There is no reason to think anything immaterial exists or has any effect on anything. All successful models rely on material existing. All you can do to preserve your religious dogma is piggy back off of this success by adding it as extraneous bullshit. It's pathetic.

>Physicalism isn't even really a coherent ontology. It falls to Hemple's Dilemma.
No it doesn't. Physicalism just means that reality is as physics describes.

>If mysterious soul particles get observed as part of consciousness then souls will be claimed as physical too.
Exactly. Evidence is all I'm asking for. But you won't give it, because your claims are false. I don't know why you still don't get this after I've repeated it several times. No matter what you comparing about, your beliefs will always be religious dogma inferior to science.

>>14961642
>It is the only evidence there is
Then you adnit you have no evidence. Thanks.

>>14961658
>Incorrect, you can't prove anything
I already did.

>and yet I have all of the proof that you don't exist and never will.
Where?

>>14962992
Still better at finding patterns than you

>>14963046
Obviously the representations in our minds are not = to the material you're talking about. Obviously there's the material you see on a brain scan when someone sees a color, and the color the person in the scanner sees. They have a different quality.

>>14956317
He doesn't seem to know that game theory proved default behaviors in humans. Nor the fact that IQ is heritable, and we can link it directly to over 200 specific alleles. IQ is a functional benchmark for G, and we have countless twin studies showing heritability of most traits.

He honestly just seems to be running through semantics. So basically just philosophy.

>>14963061
>Obviously the representations in our minds are not = to the material you're talking about.
The representations in your mind are just your brain working. You think they exist independently of your brain, but that is just an abstraction that doesn't exist. All of your bullshit boils down to treating abstractions as real things.

>>14963088
Your idea of what constitutes real, is distorted. It's not relevant where they exist or why they exist.

>>14960719
Cope, hiding behind metaphysical handwaving.
>category
>quantitative
>qualities
>incommensurable ontological categories

>>14960694
define what matter and energy are. saying something ambiguous is made of terms that are nebulous is double digit IQ tier

>>14958239
You won't be able to convince them that consciousness exists. They will just assert over and over that consciousness is a delusion.

>>14963220
Matter is anything composed of quarks and leptons. Energy is the capacity of a system to do work, i.e. to create a force that displaces matter. These terms are only ambiguous or nebulous to someone with zero knowledge about the world. You just outed yourself as a retard.

>>14963100
>Your idea of what constitutes real, is distorted
Projection. You have no clue what you're talking about and can't provide an iota of evidence.

>>14963046
You got it backward. Consciousness is immaterial, and imagines a material reality to keep itself deluded within it. There is nothing external to it because you are it.
The evidence is, you have never experienced anything else that isn't self-awareness. The only thing we can actually prove is that consciousness exists, everything else is assumption.
>point out that every successful model shows your claims are just religious
Materialistic models have never been able to predict the behavior of reality with 100% accuracy. They always fall down "up to a point" or require different mathematical relationship depending on the scale of behaviors observed. There are strong clues such structure of symbols will never full encapsulate reality in quantum physics and pure logic (see Godel's incompleteness theorem). You are chasing your own tail.

>>14963334
>Consciousness is immaterial
There's no evidence of anything immaterial existing, and not even any coherent model. This is a useless and dogmatic claim.

>The evidence is, you have never experienced anything else that isn't self-awareness.
You're begging the question by assuming there's something immaterial about awareness or consciousness. Where's the evidence?

>Materialistic models have never been able to predict the behavior of reality with 100% accuracy.
So? Immaterial models have never even gotten to the point of predicting anything, let alone reaching any level of accuracy, let alone reaching the high accuracy of materialist models. Where's your self-awareness?

>>14959710
no u

>https://twitter.com/NoahTopper/status/1587867700231081987

>>14963352
>Where's your self-awareness?
n-not replying to you anymore

>>14963352
>There's no evidence of anything immaterial existing
Its called photons my dude. They aren't material objects. Anyone who can manipulate the em field using nerve signals and bioelectricity has felt and directly experienced immaterial phenomena through their consciousness, and it doesn't take a whole lot more to project phantom visages of themselves across time and space. Its very apparent, if you aren't dogmatic in your understanding of existence, that such things are possible given enough training. Many people report these things, but science doesn't consider the personal testimony of millions of people reporting the same things as evidence, for some reason.

>>14963384
Good.

>>14963393
>Its called photons my dude.
They're elementary particles, material.

>Many people report these things, but science doesn't consider the personal testimony of millions of people reporting the same things as evidence, for some reason.
Because people can lie and delude themselves? Shouldn't be too hard to test this in a controlled environment, and many have tried and shown nothing. You're very gullible.

>>14963312
oh you are this retard again. you already got btfo'd once with your retardation and you want to go another round? Typical imbecile

What are quarks made of again?
>que tautology
moron

>>14963557
>What are quarks made of again?
They're not.

>>14951048
>What people call "AI" today is not generally intelligent
Correct, AI is still in its infancy.
>and will never be generally intelligent.
Radiating "man will never fly" energy.

>>14963315
Uh how is this related to what you're replying to? Sounds like autism.
>>14963334
That's not really right though is it. Sounds like "God" ideas and stuff.

>>14963582
>Uh how is this related to what you're replying to?
You're projecting the distorted nature of your view of reality onto others. You know nothing about reality, you just make shit up.

Platoist chads, we are winning, we WILL be redeemed.

>>14963334
he doesnt have the IQ to even begin to understand this post. His quite literally an automaton programmed to just reply with words without having any real understanding of what he is actually saying past surface level jargon

>>14961516
you are like a college professor arguing with kindergartners. He cant understand any of that and doesnt know any of those references. Like a child he can only argue with very basic ideas with a limited understanding from his tiny mind without a hint of a clue that maybe he should look that shit up and actually understand it before continuing to babble on but like women and niggers he is not capable of it and will just carry on saying retarded shit when everyone else around them can see how ridiculously and utterly retarded they are, but you will never be able to show them that because they are utterly retarded and incapable of not being retarded. It is a vicious cycle

it will never be dropped. materialism is science. everything that is said to exist is made of matter and is located somewhere. there is a thing called 'gross matter' which is said to be useless matter that no one has ever had a need for... there is also regenerative matter which regenerates for some reason. i don't claim, right now, to understand this regeneration. hair follicles keep growing even after you pull them out, which means they have a nonobvious means of generation. i have not looked into it.

>>14950976
maybe we should make computers drop acid or something then they can tell us what exactly consciousness even is because nobody seems to have a definition

>>14951908
>when it is instead
False Dichotomy.
>Detectable. Reducible. Reproducible.
The divine is detectable.
The divine is reducible.
The divine is reproducible.

www.hpmor.com/chapter/78

Conservation laws. They'd been the critical insight in more Muggle discoveries than Harry could easily count. In Muggle technology you couldn't raise a feather one meter off the ground without the power coming from somewhere. ...

Magic did not appear to work like this, to put it mildly. Harry had kept an increasingly desperate eye out for some kind of conservation principle in magic, anywhere whatsoever...

...and the whole time it had been right in front of him in every Potions class. Potions-Making didn't create magic, it preserved magic ...

The potion of giant strength required a Re'em to trample the mashed Dugbogs you stirred into the potion. It was odd, Harry had realized after a moment, because crushed Dugbogs weren't strong themselves, they were just... very, very crushed after the Re'em got through with them.

...

A potion spends that which is invested in the creation of its ingredients.

The heat of goblin forges that had cast the bronze Knut, the Re'em's strength that had crushed the Dugbogs, the magical fire that had spawned the Ashwinder: all these potencies could be recalled, unlocked, and restructured by the spell-like process of stirring the ingredients in exact patterns.

The fundamental principle of Potions-Making had no name and no standard phrasing, since then you might be tempted to write it down.

And someone who wasn't wise enough to figure out the principle themselves might read it.

And they would start having all sorts of bright ideas for inventing new Potions.

And then they would be turned into catgirls.

...

Although the two Professors had been kind enough to suggest that if Mr. Potter thought he knew what the potion's ingredients should be, he might be able to find an already-exis

>>14964525
Why did you just post sections from that weird Jewish AI guy's fanfiction?

>>14964529
>Why did you just post sections from that weird Jewish AI guy's fanfiction?
Who are you?

>>14964530
Someone who unfortunately was forced to read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. Do you think it's profound?

>>14964452
Reality is _exactly_ the set of experiences keeping yourself deluded. It's literally that tricky to understand. Imagining infinite fractals of consistent mechanisms is trivial for God, but it can be used against itself to keep itself attached to dream.

>>14964538
>Someone
Not Detectable Reducible Reproducible anon then?
>was forced to read
Strange I thought people were only forced to read in-print books.
>Do you think it's profound?
I think that the application of the scientific method to the supernatural is profound, yes. I "post sections" you now arcanum:

>Begin the experiment with your Inclined Plane at its most acute angle, nearly flat upon the table. Take Block A, and place it on Inclined Plane C: note that the Block does not slide. Having observed this high Coefficient of Friction, tilt Inclined Plane C slowly, a few degrees at a time, until that Friction is overcome, and your Block does begin to slide. Having now found the precise angle necessary for the Block to slide of its own accord, lower the angle of the Plane by a degree or two. We have now established a precarious balance, in which the Coefficient of Friction is only just high enough to overcome the angle of the Plane. The aforementioned Coefficient is almost, but not quite, low enough to allow Block A to slide.

>Introduce a Magickal Artifacte into the system. Slowly bring it into the vicinity of Inclined Plane C. Notice that Block A begins to slide haltingly downward! The angle of the Plane has not changed, nor has the nature of the block...but the Magickal Artifacte slightly alters the Coefficient of Friction in its immediate proximity.

>This alteration is unstable and unpredictable, causing the Block to slide in a variable manner. It is this same unpredictability and instability in all Magickal Effects which makes compensation for these Effects on a machine impossible. Even a small change in the Coefficient of Friction can and will cause gears to grind, belts to break, and cogs to catch and stick—with disastrous consequences!

>>14953811
>This is wrong. Science is much broader than your narrow definition of the scientific method.
knowlege is broader than science, but if you didn't follow the scientific method it's not science

it may still be knowledge, but it's not scientific knowledge

Consciousness does not exist.
You are surrounded by qualia, duh that's there. But then what is the additional ghostly figure added for?

Obviously specific posters are trying to spread traditional religious nondual ideas, but still operating under the assumption of a ghostly apparition which is within or seeing the qualia. There's no reason to believe in its existence. If I look at yellow then yellow is there, there's no reason to add onto that the idea of some sort of ghostly figure which can't be found.

I mean when you look for Consciousness, do you even know what you're looking for? When you look into the yellow, where within that are you looking and how do you know when you've found it? The qualia is unquestionable but where is the ghost?

>>14964686
Your just playing with semantics. Most would define qualia as what you assume consciousness to be.

>>14963546
they all just keep seeing the same lights in NDE but we will ignore that :)

>>14964525
>False Dichotomy
It's not a false dichotomy. The divine spark clause was never a valid option in the first place.

>The divine is detectable.
Nope. Unless you count Jesus appearing on a toast.
>The divine is reducible.
Reducible to rubbish and lies.
>The divine is reproducible.
I'd like you to produce a miracle for me.

You can keep the rest of your shizo post.

>>14964699
I don't think they do it's actually a really prevalent idea that there's something called consciousness and this thing is aware of things. Or the things are made of it etc.
Qualia exists independent of this entity I think. I think it's like particles and that sort of thing, that it just exists independent of anything conscious or alive.

I actually read a materialist hypothesis similar but they saw different implications. They said that for yellow to be perceived there has to be a false perceiver generated in order for it to exist... I don't think there's a false perceiver, but I think qualia might appear to be seen because the nature of what they are is that they are sights. And the idea tgere even is a perceiver in addition to this undeniable sight I think is fiction

>>14964228
Your projecting. And you're a literal schizo.

>>14964776
>They all just keep seeing the same lights during high G loss of consciousness, but I will ignore that :)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc798874/m2/1/high_res_d/vol15-no4-231.pdf

>>14964950
>[self-reflective inquiry detected]
>[schizophrenia ad hominem sequence: initiated]
>[target status: eliminated from social structure]

>>14964950
>reeeeeeeee
I can hear you breathing through your mouth from here

>>14964964
LOL, you lack self-reflection if you whine about materialist science not being 100% accurate while failing to see that your religious dogma has no accuracy at all.

>>14965001
stfu shitskin white men are talking

>>14965003
Take your meds

>>14965001
Aside from catholic-anon, none of the metaphysical ideas shared in this thread revolves around the slightest sense of dogma. Meanwhile, materialists keep demonizing all other fields of understanding without any evidence. Ironical. The ego likes to play upside-down games of projection where all semantics lose their meaning in a deceptive entanglement of mental non-sense. Be open-minded to the fact all of us have no idea what truth exactly is. Even the assumption that "proof" must necessarily lead to truth has not been evidenced. We are in the blind, and should act as such.
>>14965003
Racism is not helpful.

>>14965005
you will never be white

>>14965025
>none of the metaphysical ideas shared in this thread revolves around the slightest sense of dogma.
The insistence that everything is mind is nothing but religious dogma. It's useless and has no evidence.

>Meanwhile, materialists keep demonizing all other fields of understanding
Making shit up =/= understanding

>>14965066
>It's useless and has no evidence.
The only true experience we know of is the one you call your own experience, insofar as we know. We have no way of proving that other people feel or act the same as each of us does in any same manner, i.e is your red my red? It is hard to make a positive statement about the transcendental, i.e. our universe, with a life that is inherently imminent.

>>14965100
>The only true experience we know of is the one you call your own experience, insofar as we know.
Non sequitur. You beg the question by assuming the nature of your experience is immaterial. You don't know the true nature of your own experience, yet you treat it as independent from material. But that is simply an abstraction that doesn't exist. The way we determine what does exist is by creating models and testing them. Your religious dogma isn't even a coherent model and can't be tested. It's "not even wrong."

>We have no way of proving that other people feel or act the same as each of us does in any same manner, i.e is your red my red?
And what does this have to do with anything I said?

>>14950976
There's plenty of books on the metaphysics of consciousness. Also issue where logic is panned to play the central role in psychology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

>>14965153
>The way we determine what does exist is by creating models and testing them.
That's an assumption. You have absolutely no idea what truth is.

>>14965100
> i.e is your red my red?
I would say not always, but our appreciations of the hue are similar, case provided would be when you close your eye's on a sunny day, or go from a light to dark room. There's also the idea of optical illusion false colors. I would say the neuroanatomy of humans and visual processing of animals is genetically covariant.

>>14965166
>That's an assumption.
No, that's reality. You have absolutely no other method of figuring things out.

>>14965234
>i have no reliable method to uncover truth therefore my imaginary abstractions are truth
What did stupid mean by this?

>>14965234
>No, that's reality.
Sorry silly, you don't get to decide what's true or false, not with that attitude.

>>14965237
I don't get it either. How can he simultaneously criticize science for not being 100% accurate and then spout nonsense with zero evidence?

>>14965255
>criticize science for not being 100% accurate
Was he doing that, or was he criticizing you for mixing up imaginary abstractions and provisional models for actual reality?

> then spout nonsense with zero evidence?
Like what?

>>14965251
I'm not deciding it, I'm simply telling you about it. What is your method for determining truth if it's not modeling and testing?

>>14965267
>Was he doing that
Yes. Scientific theories aren't abstractions, they are tested empirically.

>Like what?
Like anything immaterial existing.

>>14950976
>not in any way related to consciousness
If I kill or render a person unconscious using purely material means it’s taken to be the case that their consciousness is interrupted.

You might argue that conscious experience is uninterrupted by sleep or that we have no direct evidence of, for example, others’ conscious experience, but these are just as big a problem for you, since you implicitly claim that consciousness is something that can reasonably be discussed and whose existence justifies your own claims.

Besides, if you meant something other than the common sense of the word, it’s on you to explain what you mean.

>>14965298
>Scientific theories aren't abstractions
Yes, they are.

>they are tested empirically.
So?

>>14965298
>Like anything immaterial existing.
Why does he need to provide any evidene of that to you? The funneist thing is that your understanding of science seems to be stuck in the 18th century. Materialism has been dead for a long time. Modern physics deals with a whole bunch of concepts that can't be adequately described as "material".

>>14965153
>Non sequitur.
It very much is a starter, as it is a starting point of all epistemology.
>You beg the question by assuming the nature of your experience is immaterial
No where did I state this. Perhaps you are mistaking the world transcendental as ideal, which it is not. I suggest looking into what it means to get a succinct definition.
>And what does this have to do with anything I said?
If we have no way of accessing internal knowledge of people, then we have no way of making a statement about our models of consciousness, as we have no rigorous empirical data to falsify it with.

You speak with the surety of a person who knows nothing of the history of metaphysics of epistemology.

>>14951063
>Intuition and pattern recognition
AI does pattern recognition and occasionally has better intuition than humans. Also are we not hard-coded by evolution to some extent?

>>14965311
>Yes, they are.
No, they are tested empirically.

>So?
So they are concrete.

>>14965335
>they're heckin' tested empirically therefore they are concrete!
Are you losing your mind or do you simply not understand what "abstract" means?

>>14965313
>Why does he need to provide any evidene of that to you?
Because he's making a claim about what's true.

>The funneist thing is that your understanding of science seems to be stuck in the 18th century.
Your understanding of materialism is stuck in the 18th century.

>>14965340
>he's making a claim about what's true.
So?

>Your understanding of materialism
Materialism died and has been replaced with the intentionally vague and meaningless """physicalism""".

>>14965326
>It very much is a starter
Learn how to read.

>No where did I state this.
You claimed that none of the metaphysical ideas shared in this thread were dogmatic. It has nothing to do with what you said or didn't say.

>If we have no way of accessing internal knowledge of people, then we have no way of making a statement about our models of consciousness
No one was talking about what other people experience, we're talking about whether consciousness is material or immaterial. You seem to have trouble following a basic line of conversation.

I speak with the surety that every successful model of reality is materialist, and none of you will ever provide any evidence of your bullshit. Every post in this thread confirms that.

>>14965338
Projection. Explain how empirically verified reality is abstract.

>>14965345
>So?
So he needs to provide evidence. Otherwise it's no different than anything made up.

>Materialism died and has been replaced with the intentionally vague and meaningless """physicalism""".
I don't care about your semantic games.

>>14965354
>No one was talking about what other people experience
>we're talking about whether consciousness is material or immateria
Based retard
>I speak with the surety that every successful model of reality is materialist
Nah, you could just as easily fit it into a framework of Cartesian dualism and it would jive very well with an instrumentalist understanding of modern physics.

>>14965359
>empirically verified reality
You mean empirically corroborated concepts. Do I need to explain why concepts are abstract?

>>14965362
>none of you will ever provide any evidence
Such evidence can't be shared. Your mind needs genuine holistic understandings of reality to identify and overcome the significant structure of fears sustaining your perspective, through meditation and other means. Consciousness is groundless, it's non-trivial.

>" ... as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>Albert Einstein
Note that you do not have to abandon material models once you investigate the full depth of metaphysics. You can still have fun with math and physics, if not more.

>>14965354
>You claimed that none of the metaphysical ideas shared in this thread were dogmatic. It has nothing to do with what you said or didn't say.
>Learn how to read.
I think you need to learn how to read first. I said idealism is not useless nor does it not have evidence. Maybe go read Burke and Hume and the criticisms of their metaphysics to get a better grasp of what you are actually arguing about.

>>14965362
>it's no different than anything made up.
To you, subjectively? Who cares?

>I don't care about your semantic games.
If it's just "my" semantic games, why did scientists see fit to supplant materialism with physicalism?

>>14965370
>Based retard
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting your response is irrelevant.

>Nah, you could just as easily fit it into a framework of Cartesian dualism
It's not a matter of fitting the evidence into your bullshit, it's about what the evidence says and doesn't say. It doesn't say anything immaterial exists.

>>14965376
Concepts that are verified empirically are not abstract. How many times does this need to be repeated until you get this? There is nothing abstract about matter and energy.

>>14965498
>Concepts that are verified empirically are not abstract.
Concepts are abstract by their nature of being concepts. You are mentally ill.

>>14965498
>Concepts are not abstract

>>14965379
>Such evidence can't be shared.
How convenient! Such evidence doesn't exist. Get over it.

>Your mind needs genuine holistic understandings of reality
By "holistic" you just mean accepting your bullshit without question. That's not understanding, it's religious dogma. Thanks for making that clear.

>Consciousness is groundless
Your claims are the only thing that are groundless. Keep proving me correct with every post.

>>14965496
>it's about what the evidence says and doesn't say
Holy fuck you are a based retard. What evidence says or does not say is interpretation. Go back to the Vaush server, and maybe address more of my points. Before that, please tell me what you know of gauge theory just for fun.

>>14965503
>How convenient! Such evidence doesn't exist. Get over it.
Not an argument.

>>14965380
>I think you need to learn how to read first.
No, you really do since you think "non sequitur" means "non starter." And you think what people in the thread said is somehow limited by what you said.

>I said idealism is not useless nor does it not have evidence
Wrong. It predicts nothing. You all had days to provide one iota of evidence and completely failed. You didn't even try. It's religious dogma, nothing more.

>>14965382
>To you, subjectively?
To anyone who isn't a brainwashed retard.

>If it's just "my" semantic games, why did scientists see fit to supplant materialism with physicalism?
Again, I don't care about your semantic games. Neither does any other scientist, i can assure you. The meaning is clear in the context of this thread.

>>14965503
>Such evidence doesn't exist.
You have no evidence they don't exist. Your entire worldview is based on assumptions.
> accepting your b_______ without question
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting extreme skepticism of all knowledge, abstraction or anything you may be aware of. This includes all of metaphhysics. The irony is, all your replies match exactly what's expected from a dogmatic thinker. Meanwhile I couldn't care less if reality were made out of idealism, materialism, or small lutins running around. Nevertheless open-mindedness is not the same thing as gullibleness.
>Your claims are the only thing that are groundless.
There is no such thing as grounded, if not the appearance of it from playing hide and seek with abstraction.

>>14965500
>Concepts are abstract by their nature of being concepts.
Concepts divorced from reality are abstract. Concepts that are empirically verified are not. You are mentally retarded.

>>14965502
Who are you quoting?

>>14965522
>To anyone who agrees with my subjective opinions!!
Who cares?

>Neither does any other scientist
You're not a scientist, but if materialism is valid and it's all just "sematics", why did scientists see fit to supplant it with physicalism?

>>14965523
>>>>THROWS MEAT PIE THRU CASE FAN#####

WOAH

>>14965525
All concepts are abstract by definition, but I want you to keep denying this. Your worldview stems from mental illness and intellectual deficiency, and you poison your own cult's well every time you post, so I want you to double down in your next post. :^)

>>14964818
>Jesus
Did it occur to you that the divine encompasses more than Jesus?
>lies
Humans lie in the name of the divine, just as humans lie in the name of science.
>miracle
Consciousness

>>14965525
Empiricism does not provide proof of anything, but merely reports how observations match logical structures to relative degrees. All of these representations collapse at some level. The devil's in the details.

>>14965520
Statement does not follow from previous statement, leading to a non starting point of conversation or discourse. Stating that you only have your own experience as both potentially falsifiable and as of yet unfalsified is very much a valid conclusion, and one you will find in almost every epistemology. Perhaps you could point out where the chain of logic breaks down?
>Wrong. It predicts nothing. You all had days to provide one iota of evidence and completely failed. You didn't even try. It's religious dogma, nothing more.
I feel like you picked up this idea of materialism from some kind of discord server, and now call yourself a dialectical materialist or something.
One could hold the view that all physical laws are due to something akin to the world of forms, and then come to the exact same conclusions about physics and biology as a eliminative materialist.

>>14965531
>mental breakdown
>>14965500
>ad hominem
>>14965520
>projection
>>14965525
>insults


thanx for such insightful case study. this is what closed-mindedness does to your mind

>>14965543
Not an argument.

>>14965535
Anon, the based retard has never read Hume so he would never understand that.

>>14965517
>Holy fuck you are a based retard. What evidence says or does not say is interpretation.
What evidence have you interpreted incorrectly to reach your idiotic dogma?

>maybe address more of my points
What "points" haven't been addressed?

>>14965518
There's no argument to respond to.

>>14965551
>What evidence have you interpreted incorrectly to reach your idiotic dogma?
Tell me you have never interfaced with any sort of theory, let alone done research, without telling me explicitly, speed run any%. Do the observed properties of galaxies tell us that dark matter exists, that MOND is correct, or something else, you frostbitten howler monkey.

>>14965534
Okay, so what are you even arguing about? Your miracles and divine stuff are reducible and reproducible.
Next up: Divinity - artificially created, marketed and sold for a profit. Buy one, get one free!

>>14965545
Not my problem.
>>14965550
Even scientists who have done fundamental works on quantum physics got the right clues about consciousness (i.e. Max Planck, Albert Einstein, etc). Materialism is just a dunning-kruger stage.

>>14965551
>What "points" haven't been addressed?
>Before that, please tell me what you know of gauge theory just for fun.
Please, I want to know what you have to say about gauge theory. It will let me know whether or not you are a mouth breather.

>>14965558
>Okay, so what are you even arguing about?
I'm not arguing yet, I'm testing if you have a soul worth arguing with first.
>Your miracles and divine stuff are reducible and reproducible.
Not an insult.
>Next up
You are blind if you think this has not already happened.

>>14950991
>>14951048
both wrong

>>14965529
>if materialism is valid and it's all just "sematics", why did scientists see fit to supplant it with physicalism?
Not that anon, but what is the most important difference between these two things? To me it sounds like same shit different day desu. "everything is material" vs. "everything is physical". Maybe the difference would be that in materialism everything is made of "matter" interacting mechanistically, while in physicalism the "physical world" consists of like vector fields and wavefunctions and shit. But that's not really a difference, metaphysically, it's just a result of the understanding that "matter" is actually made up of vector fields and wavefunctions and shit.
So in short if you think there's some kind of gotcha argument to be made with a distinction between materialism and physicalism, you're gonna have to do a better job explaining what this argument is.

>>14967297
>what is the most important difference between these two things?
The materialism implies a completely untennable view of the world while physicalism implies nothing testable at all while keeping the same psychological associations that the nonhuman drones crave so much.

>>14967303
I don't know anon, it really seems like you are arguing from some sort of compulsion to push your worldview on others, and not from a place of genuine curiosity.
Sorry I can't respond on-topic but I don't see any of the clarifications I asked after. Materialism, physicalism etc.. have broad and varied meanings, so for an on-topic discussion more clarification would be needed.

>>14967324
Both are monism, but materialism implies that only interactions of matter generate the world. Physicalism can enclose not matter interactions as well. Interestingly, some physicalists are panpsychists because they believe the phenomenon of experience cannot arise from matter and interactions which are non experiential, basically for a large something to have mass it must consist of smaller fundamental things which have mass.

>>14967324
>I don't see any of the clarifications I asked after
That's because your psyche will crumble if you acknowledge them. You are so deeply invested in the diseased anti-human narrative your small mind filters information before it can even be consciously processed.

>>14950976
wake me up when i can become a qt anime girl

If materialism/physicalism is true, where is consciousness created? In the brain? How many neurons embryo stage offspring need to grow in order to be considered conscious? Or if we remove someone's neurons one-by-one, at which point will the individual be considered unconscious? Is the immune system and blood cells also considered part of the brain, therefor conscious? If a single neuron is sufficiently complex to be considered conscious, what about other structures of molecular chemistry? What makes it special? Lastly, at what point an individual's consciousness is considered separated from another's? Everything I write on this weebsite directly affects the chemical structure of your brain, shouldn't my consciousness be considered part of yours?

You can not pinpoint such thing as a beginning or end to consciousness. Physicalism is not based on rationality.

>>14967362
Consciousness is created once the brain of a child is capable and developed enough to generate brainwaves we associate with conscious thought. This typically occurs 5 months or so into pregnancy. Your whole "one neuron" idea is critically misinformed - conscious brainwaves are generated by way of a set system of neurons operating in tandem to generate the experience we perceive as consciousness. This is why severe trauma can sometimes alter how we think and perceive our own existence: the wiring that makes "us" up is critically damaged and thus everything we think and understand ceases to be.

>>14951198
If the government or powers that be had esp, why would they need a physical surveillance state? Couldn't they just read everyone's minds and feed us thoughts at will, without the need for material technology?

>>14968099
>Consciousness is created once the brain
Sure, what's the magic number of neurons that creates consciousness though?
>Your whole idea is critically misinformed
Spare me such ad hominem. You have absolutely no idea how informed I am about the physicalism worldview.
>conscious brainwaves
There is no evidence consciousness = brainwaves.
>This is why severe trauma can sometimes alter how we think and perceive our own existence
The fact your state of awareness can be affected by physical appearances does not mean reality has a physical foundation. Consciousness could imagine a physical world capable of interacting with itself within itself. It doesn't prove anything.

>>14967362
The view you are (rightly) questioning could be uncharitably called "christian souls but somehow within physicalism". Consciousness is not an object that pops into or out of existence, it is not a binary property, it does not have a well-defined boundary. The problems you pinpoint don't come from physicalism but from treating consciousness as an object, they go away when you treat it like a computational process.

>>14968230
It doesn't matter if you treat consciousness as a computational process. If there is no beginning or end to such "computation", then consciousness is fundamental.

>>14968230
Daily reminder that "computational processes" are imaginary, and you have to be a particularly low IQ schizophrenic to think that human abstractions give rise to concrete experience rather than the other way around.

>>14968230 I'll try to illustrate it:
>>1496736
>where is consciousness created? In the brain?
yes
>How many neurons embryo stage offspring need to grow in order to be considered conscious?
At different stages of development it will be conscious in a different way, of different things, and probably not at all if you go back far enough. Where you draw the line of "considered consciousness" is arbitrary and inconsequential.
>Or if we remove someone's neurons one-by-one, at which point will the individual be considered unconscious?
This will change consciousness exactly to the extent that the removal of neurons changes the computational process (and the other neurons maybe try to compensate etc..). Removing a few will have hardly any impact, the more you remove the more you will disrupt the process and at some point it might break down altogether. Of course it depends greatly on which neurons you remove.
>Is the immune system and blood cells also considered part of the brain, therefore conscious?
If you'd insist I'd happily grant this, in some way the whole body and even the immediate environment contributes to the computational process, but not as much as the brain. Again where you draw the line is arbitrary.
>If a single neuron is sufficiently complex to be considered conscious?
In isolation, don't think so desu.
>What makes it special?
Nothing, if the same computation were performed on a different substrate it would be just as conscious.
>Lastly, at what point an individual's consciousness is considered separated from another's?
To the extent that they don't have access to each other's internal states/memories/experiences/personalities. This is a very solid separation, practically speaking, but not metaphysically absolute.
>Everything I write on this weebsite directly affects the chemical structure of your brain, shouldn't my consciousness be considered part of yours?
Indirectly, sure, but this is stretching the meaning of words.

>>14968233
Sorry I don't exactly follow what your point is regarding beginning or end. Why are you saying there's no beginning or end at all? We can at least put lower/upper boundaries at somewhere before birth and somewhere after death, right?

>>14968247
meant for >>14967362

>>14963334
I will explain this in really simple way for the half wits here.

Prove you arent dreaming right now.

You cant, and you wil never be able to because there is no difference perception wise between a dream reality and non-dreaming reality. The only thing you have is perception itself which doesnt change whether you are dreaming ir not. The only thing you can ever prove is you are perceiving information and creating mental projection from it. Nothing can be proven beyond that.

>>14968234
so einstein and max planck were low iq?

>>14968264
prove you aren't a brain in jar hooked to a virtual reality sim, prove you aren't in the matrix or some alien compound. you can't and you never will able to because all you have is your perception and it is a afalse perception easily tampered with. if the one thing you have to try and prove some objective truth is itself completely subjectively expérience electrical signals it maps into a "reality" how low is do you have to be to think the projection is the reality and not the perception itself? if you can't understand how deluded you are you are legit retarded. you have no arguments this and you will only attempt to if you are too stupid to understand it

>>14968280
phone posting on the shitter my bad for typos

>>14968264
>>14968280
meds

>>14968283
if meds could fix being retarded it would be a day of celebration for your family manlet

>>14968283
prove to me you aren't a virtual reality sim rn. until you can stfu you mental midget half wit. you should count your lucky stars that someone with my intellect would spend one second addressing an insect like you

>>14968277
They didn't share your delusional views.

>>14968277
no just him, stop wasting our time on insects

>>14968264
>>14968280
Radical skepticism is not an argument for anything. Everyone acknowledges that you can't ever prove anything 100%, but it would just be tiresome to add this caveat to every sentence and for that reason we don't. Maybe someone can make a browser extension to do it for you.
Also you're not even doing radical skepticism right
>The only thing you can ever prove is you are perceiving information and creating mental projection from it. Nothing can be proven beyond that.
Prove that there is even a "you" which is doing this and you're not just some boltzmann brain instantiated for a split second with your current memories and internal state.

>>14968301
*your

>>14950976
There is something at the root of this problem that Western society and particularly Western science have no virtually concept of. These conversations always go the same way and I believe it's because we miss this vital point that we never get anywhere here. Basically, there are many parts to what we name "consciousness" but we use this single term for the entire system. So one anon is talking about artificial intelligence, but that's more comparable to automated psychology than to all of consciousness. For example, is the AI aware? Definitely not aware like we are. It can call itself sentient when prompted to do so, but that is an act we made it preform. So there is at least the contents of psychology (individual thoughts, feelings, etc as they take shape) and awareness/sentience (having an internal subjective experience) and likely we could probe deeper than this. For example attention and awareness are also often grouped together but are different concepts, since you can unconsciously absorb information.

There is a level of consciousness that I think can never be explained by materialist terms. Colors are a good one. We will never pinpoint a neuron and say "ah this neuron makes us experience redness" we can correlate them but we cannot say they are identical since it either invalidates biology or invalidates conscious truths, and conscious truths will always hold priority. I have never heard someone explain what it is like to see red. There are no words and no concepts to explain subjective experience, yet experience correlates in some way with a neuronal pattern, so people are satisfied with Dennet-type "consciousness doesn't exist" explanations.

>>14968302
you are braindamaged or something. Are yu able to ever think without having a formal label you read about to attack to an idea or concept? wtf are on about radical skepticism you retarded fucking autist?

When you can prove you arent dreaming rn then you let me know, until stfu, you lost the argument. You cant respond, its over, take the L and stfu

>>14968187
>Sure, what's the magic number of neurons that creates consciousness though?
We don't know exactly how many. Nobody from the materialist, neuroscientist persuasion claims to with any degree of mainstream authority. But we CAN detect the phenomena once it has happened.
>>14968187
>There is no evidence consciousness = brainwaves.
Patently false and your severe degree of ignorance on the topic displays not only your own bias, but a level of bias so deep that you are unwilling to even do good faith research on the perspectives of your opponents. Even a cursory glance at the existing material on the subject would assuage your misunderstanding had you the actual intellectual rigor to read a fucking book.
>>14968187
>Spare me such ad hominem. You have absolutely no idea how informed I am about the physicalism worldview.
Your posts are all anyone can go by insofar as your understanding of neuroscience and the study of material consciousness. Your own words imply a severe degree of mystery when you ask vapid questions such as "How many neurons embryo stage offspring need to grow in order to be considered conscious?". The answer to that exact question is a fucking google search and medical textbook away but you ask as if it's some arcane unknowable conundrum that hasn't been solved in any way.
>>14968187
>Consciousness could imagine a physical world capable of interacting with itself within itself. It doesn't prove anything.
And thus your point is rendered moot. The entirety of the scientific method and observation of the world is to build an understanding of that which we CAN observe and DO observe. If we are to lower ourselves to hypotheticals, I can simply claim your position is false purely off the possibility that unverifiable and unsubstantiated information invalidates your worldview.

All knowledge is ultimately derived from that which we cannot verify. Which means the theory with the best existing evidence wins. Yours has none and thus loses by default.

>>14968322
>namefag gets btfo
>lashes out in a fit of rage of insults and demands the discussion end lest his confusion continue

kek

>>14968322
Ah yes I used a word to refer to a concept, this invalidates the argument.
> until stfu, you lost the argument. You cant respond, its over, take the L and stfu
kek
still not done shitting yet? you'll get the rhoids bodhi

>>14968340
no now I am making large stacks of cash shorting audusd watching charts so begone with you

>>14968336
The usual for namefags. Narcissism leads to narcissistic injury.

>>14968247
All the questions were rhetorical, your response is void of evidence or rationalism.
>yes
>probably not at all if you go back far enough
That’s a belief.
>Where you draw the line of "considered consciousness" is arbitrary and inconsequential
It is. You are simply assuming such line must exist because “it’s probably like that”, but if it doesn’t then physicalism is shown inconsistent.
>This will change consciousness exactly to the extent that the removal of neurons changes
>Again where you draw the line is arbitrary
You are deflecting the question and missing the point entirely. Obviously it doesn’t matter where such line is drawn, the issue is whether it can be drawn at all. Notice your mind is already probably looking for another way to move the goalpost instead of understanding the ideas presented in front of view.
>If you'd insist I'd happily grant this
I’m not discussing for a grant of anything.
>In isolation, don't think so desu
Dangerous assumption about a very tricky subject.
>To the extent that they don't have access to each other's internal states/memories/experiences/personalities
They have. You are reading what I just made up in my mind right now.
>this is stretching the meaning of words
Not at all. You can’t draw a line either.

>>14968343
I use a name to expose you psueds when you steal my ideas and work. That is why it makes you hacks and pseuds seethe because you are incapable of coming up with original ideas or even just understanding complex ones without someone like me spoonfeedng it to you.

>>14968297
I don’t hold any “delusional views”. This is open-minded rationalism.

>>14968358
Rationalism is itself a delusional dogma.

>>14968355
>steal my ideas and work
You don't have original thoughts my guy. You're just rehashing 2,000 year old Qumran Jewish Gnosticism mixed with the same DMT literature popular in the 70s.

>>14968363
I know, but it’s practical in communications and seed understandings.

>>14968370
You are right up there as one of the stupidest people on this board.

Post your source, the exact passages that have anything to do with I have said here
>crickets
I have never read any qumran bullshit and we both know you havent either. IMmagine being a such a hack you clam a concept comes from something you have never read and dont have the IQ to understand anyway. The posters n this board are some the worst hacks you will ever come across ou never have the first clue wtf you are talking about

>>14968323
Lots of projection, ad hominem and belief parroting, but no substantial evidence or argument of anything in this post. I’m not replying, your delusion is not my problem. Have fun being lost in the void forever, self-reported matterbot-san.

>>14968382
Not shocked a guy who calls himself "bodhi" is a narcissist. Sheesh you need to chill out.

>>14968372
There's nothing practical about your delusional dogma, which is why no one actually adheres to it.

>>14968394
>defection to from admitting you dont know the first thing about the things you deride and pretend yo you do
yep, tks for playing hack

>>14968301
Yes, it’s pointless. They will have to grow by themselves, all the pointers are there.

>>14963334
>>14968264
>>14968280
You don't need endless skepticism to be skeptical of materialism. By the mere fact that my consciousness is embedded and fully integrated with the "material" world I can say that consciousness and the material world are one in the same. I don't have to invalidate one or the other. My mind interacts with incoming physical forces, is influenced by them, so there is no need to have a hard line separating them. A soft gradient, maybe, but that means they are the same system. So we can say the material world is only discovered within the mind, but we are still separating them.

Physicalism is an idea that there's some "world out there" that is primary and we aren't involved. That obviously makes no sense. Our minds are that "out there" world, the only difference is that we are shaped into brains and the other stuff is dirt. It would be equally absurd to claim that the contents of our experience is primary, as our individual psychology is comparable to the outside matter, if not equivalent. What is primary is not matter, not psychology, it is can only be present awareness. It is the only honest starting point for epistemology if not ontology. But something like "present awareness" isn't limited to either solipsism and boltzman brains or physicalism.

>>14968395
You don’t have any evidence I believe in anything, let alone a dogma. On the other end, physicalism loves to demonizes every other views as dogmatic even though it’s one of the most tricky schrodinger dogma there is.

>>14968405
I dont know why you addressed this to me. I dont argue with NPCs. I am old enough to know better. I only effort post when I see something interesting and I dont need to elaborate further because my posts are already simple and concise. If you cant understand them, that was the test, you are to dumb for me to address further

>>14968392
>muh ad hominem!
>also if you don't believe in magic you're delusional and a bot
lol why are cranks ALWAYS like this

>>14968421
I don't exactly disagree with your worldview, I was just adding that you don't need to appeal to solipsism-adjacent arguments to refute physicalism.

>>14968352
>You are simply assuming such line must exist
Ah, there's the rub. What I really want to say is that there is, strictly speaking, no line. I think if one takes computationalism seriously, and doesn't try to push it into the comically wrong faux-souls doctrine your rhetorical questions were apparently aimed at, one can only conclude that there are no hard, absolute, metaphysical lines between different conscious computational processes. Then, all arguments of the type "there is no sensible place to draw a line around the phenomenon, therefore the description of the phenomenon is inadequate" become moot.
>Obviously it doesn’t matter where such line is drawn, the issue is whether it can be drawn at all.
For optimum clarity I would like to stress again that I agree with you that it cannot be drawn.
>>To the extent that they don't have access to each other's internal states/memories/experiences/personalities
>They have. You are reading what I just made up in my mind right now.
Yes, but I do not have access to e.g. your thoughts that preceded the writing in the same way you do. That is exactly the extent to which we are separate, but to some small extent we are not totally (metaphysically absolutely) separate because we can communicate through a very narrow channel.
>>this is stretching the meaning of words
>Not at all. You can’t draw a line either.
Sure, admitted.

>>14968405
>Physicalism is an idea that there's some "world out there" that is primary and we aren't involved. That obviously makes no sense.
IMHO you are confused about the meaning of "physicalism" and from how I understand it your first paragraph does not necessarily stand in opposition to physicalism at all.

>>14968428
Consciousness is the most absurd thing that could ever exist. Consider how impossible it is for anything to even exist, at all. If you expect consciousness not to be a very tricky subject, this is careless. “magic” is just meaningless semantics, truth must be accepted for what it is.
Most of your reply is based on the idea that “if I understood physicalism hard enough, I would believe it”, which is misguided. In contrast, you make no effort to understand the essence of understandings themselves, at a self-referential conceptual level. Yet this may be detrimental.

>>14968457
But my point is that you can't prove that only physical reality exists and "consciousness is an illusion" You can't prove that one exists and the other doesn't. One doesn't make sense without the other so it doesn't make sense to say "there is nothing but physical stuff" where "physical stuff" is just everything we see in our minds.

>>14950976
Matter is actually related to consciousness. Material objects are objects that occupy space. In order for an object to occupy space it needs to have a spatial boundary. The mind defines the boundaries of material objects. So without a mind, material objects don't exist.

>>14965331
Not without a hard coded cost function.

>>14968473
Consciousness is simply the state of being aware of things. There is no magic required, there is no reason a bacterium shouldn't be considered conscious. The only counterargument is semantic BS.
>I don't WANT bacteria to be conscious so I will arbitrarily add the stipulation that conscious requires some immaterial soul I can't define or observe but it totally exists, trust me!

>>14968805
What are you talking about? I’ve never said anything about souls or that bacteria aren’t conscious. In fact, cells, bacteria, particles, civilizations, memes, very likely are at their own levels, as a fractal of intertwined awareness. Stop throwing unmindful assumptions at me.
If you believe in physicalism, doesn’t it mean you will never exist again after death in your worldview? Isn’t that extremely sad? Thankfully, that’s not how reality works. We are together forever!

>>14969258
Whether something is sad has no bearing on whether or not it is real. It is sad that people suffer and starve, yet they continue suffering and starving.
>Thankfully, that’s not how reality works.
Prove it.

>>14969297
The point is, your behaviors don’t match what you believe in. If you really believe this is the only experience of reality you will ever have, why are you wasting time arguing with neet funposters on a weeab forum? Shouldn’t everyone do all sorts of crazy things?
Yet, if you subconsciously accept death is also a dream, physicalism doesn’t hold as the mind can’t sustain dependance on matter.
>Prove it.
Already explained it can’t be shared. What you define as evidence is usually a mere structure of abstraction. “Internal consistency” isn’t even guaranteed to yield truth.

>>14968436
though it is solipsistic that is only periphery, o the main point. The point s phsysicalists have no argument because when they using terms to describe measurements or objects it is pointless because they cant prove any of it exists outside of their imagination. The only thing THEY can prove is that perceive it THROUGH their imagination (consciousness).

>>14969258
>>14969330
geez you are just proselytizing now

>>14969765
You're just stupid.

>>14969765
Your worldview is not based on evidence. You don't have any metaphysical understandings other than the belief "anything that isn't physicalism is a religion" parroted around.

>>14968405
This is the endgame of metaphysics. It's not about rejecting physical observations or any worldviews. We are aware that physics works, which is incredible on its own. The issue is to understand exactly why it does so. The answer can be very counter-intuitive and that's what I was pointing at. Such effective self-referential understandings of the ego dynamics can provide exponential improvement of civilization.

>The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. — Albert Einstein