/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15128666
Pretty good list. High IQ non-replicant post. Even got
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I would add the campbellian simulation theoretic interpretation of quantum/mechanics.

>>15128666
>the J-type and S-type among mathematicians

>>15128666
>consciousness causes collapse
I understand this is BS

>meta studies on psychic manipulation of random number generators

spooky my dudes

>>15129170
What? It exists? Send me the link!

>>15129142
What happens when two people observe the same phenomena?

>>15128666
I don't like your digits

Also, I don't see why the uncertainty principle can't be used to show that there is free will. How can superdeterminism be true if the underlying quantum system is only based on probabilities. Superdeterminism requires that the position and momentum of every particle is known since the beginning of time, but that would mean there is no wave function collapse because everything would have to already have been collapsed from the start. How is it possible to create a deterministic universe using matter which is initially essentially random. If that is possible then it must also be possible to either uncollapse back to a probabilistic state or that position and momentum can actually be determined without affecting quantum state

>>15129204
> How can superdeterminism be true if the underlying quantum system is only based on probabilities.
Superdetermenists are schizos who thinks eveything probabilistic is actually predetermined from the big bang, but we can't see it because of some grand cosmic conspiracy.

>>15129196
I don't know what you mean. They both see the thing as it is

For collapse to require consciousness, nothing would be in a macro state until something conscious looked at it right? So then why do we see light from stars billions of years old, that must either mean that collapse does not require consciousness or that something was conscious near that star billions of years ago otherwise how could it form into something of a macro size able to output enough light that we could see it from earth

>>15128666
>humun bren
>model's futeur
>potential generature
>uses algorithmic bias to choose between potentials
>ego left witness
what creates the algorithm of bias?
if a thought was a potential how can we have free will and bias?

free will doesn't exist because free will cannot sufficiently be defined to a satisfying end

>>15129365
Neither can the universe, dipshit
apply the anthropic principle and the primal existential paradox (most notably defined by Enoch relating to the existence of numbers) and you could argue arbitrarily that there is sufficient insanity to be convinced of something unreasonable (Exampli Grati: the existence of the ego, the existence the universe, the existence of numbers, etc. note the existential nature).
ipso facto, through divine intuition streamed directly into my ego by God free will exists

>>15128666
>>spooky action at a distance
This is not a thing

>>15129421
>happens anyways for the sake of consistency
oops

>>15129422
nope

>>15128666
Axioms are bulldick, fuck cantor.

>>15129428
Science doesn't care about transrights, sorry chud

>>15129418
defining the universe is a categorically different challenge than defining free will.
we already have a grasp on some of the physical properties of what a universe is and we have an intuitive understanding on what it may be

free will does not fall into the same category in that there doesn't exist a single plausible claim to serve as an ansatz

any description of free will will fall into one of two categories:
>It is determined
>It is truly random
both conditions, as you should understand, cancel out the concept of free will
if you have any evidence of the contrary, please present it as so

>>15129219
>what is the inverse of the reverse quantum eraser

>>15129455
tell me goyman, what IS an electron
not have you observed it and defined a model that predicts it
tell what IS it
hard mode: no circular arguments

>>15129536
now you're just being obtuse, good talking to you

>>15128666
Nooooooo you are Satan and trips proooove it. God gave us freewill idiot it's obvious and if you think otherwise you are a dermimitard .

>>15128666
i wouldn't trust this satanic post. but in truth, none of that list has anything to do with "consciousness", which is simply a way for the brain to externally project and summarize the state of different subconscious systems in the brain. see picrel for an overview of the process

>>15129539
epic fail, faggot
next you will give an empty definition
NPCs short circuiting soon

>>15129536
>what IS an electron
Energical disturbance in an electron quantum field.

>>15129772
pretty sure someone who wastes time with semantic games hasn't studied QFT, anon

>>15129772
>Energical disturbance in an electron quantum field.
KEK AT YOU
epic fail bro
mathlets proven retarded once again

>>15129798
What's wrong?

>>15128666
Satan, it's neat you assembled some stuff to schizo post about, but perhaps you should add the Undefinability Theorem to your list (since it a priori contradicts your suppositions) and then fuck off back to hell.

>>15129801
Your definition is circular.

>>15129831
How is it circular?

>>15129831
>Retarded faggot mathematically immature claims definitions should not be circular

Any definition is just a definition

Kill yourself worthless talentless trash, I will bully you in this thread while you argue with me and this faggot simultaneously

>>15129839
Take your meds.

>>15129876
Kill yourself uneducated schizophreniac projecting his misguidance

>>15129839
I know more maths than you, faggot. Enough to know that QFT is ad-hoc taped together horseshit.

>>15129925
oh great he knows the maths teach me master

>>15129934
Nah, too busy playing with knots. No time for brainlets.

>>15129925
>Enough to know that QFT is ad-hoc taped together horseshit.
Redpill me. I think QFT is quite decent theory.

>>15128666
>consciousness causes collapse
No, it's effects causing collapse.
Conscious perception of something is but one kind of effect.

>>15128666
I will add that one needs to know that
>no theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of QM.
And so this is important for defeating claims about constraints on freewill with regard to materialist event causation coming from within spacetime (it comes from non-local computing by the way, see pic). This is important because brains are in space time. Brains can't cause anything. And connection between brain and mind is simulated and only ever correlated. This is what donald hofman is on about. One of the only intelligent cognitive scientists. And so these supposed constraints on freewill with regard to the goings on in the brain and universe in general with regard to matter and it's motion are not the decider of the matter. and so freewill awareness units and agent causation are input input devices and factors as well. And consciousness not 'in' the virtual spacetime. It has no momentum, position, spin etc physical quantifiables.

>>15128666
>666
Cheers

https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0152

>>15129525
What is the reverse quantum eraser?

>>15129204
>How can superdeterminism be true if the underlying quantum system is only based on probabilities.

That QM can only provide probabilities is a weakness of the theory, it's not a feature from which to judge other theories.

>Superdeterminism requires that the position and momentum of every particle is known since the beginning of time

False. SD theories don't give us that kind of remarkable knowledge; nothing can. "Known" by who, of not by humans? Obviously the universe knows where its going, because it cannot be uncertain about itself. Only we are uncertain about it.

>but that would mean there is no wave function collapse because everything would have to already have been collapsed from the start.

Correct, but for the wrong reason. There is no consensus as to how to address the wavefunction even amongst SD theorists, but many of them agree with Einstein's idea of a 'psi-ensemble' interpretation - meaning the wavefunction reflects some kind of statistical distribution of hidden variables, and never collapses because that's all it is, a statistical distribution.

>>15128666
Nice bait, satan. Literally not one of these has anything to do with any sane notion of free will.

>>15130769
I forgot to add something.

>How can superdeterminism be true if the underlying quantum system is only based on probabilities.

SD theories are considered more fundamental than QM theories, they're postulated to underlie QM, with QM emerging from them. So QM doesn't underlie SD, as theorised.

>>15130772
How do you know?

>>15130769
>Obviously the universe knows where its going
what does that even mean? Explain how the universe 'knows where it is going'? How are you verifying that?

>>15132216
The voices told so.

>>15129184

https://ugetube.com/watch/noetics-mind-over-matter_MpidybLEBBdLmHk.html


https://ugetube.com/watch/new-experiments-show-consciousness-affects-matter-dean-radin-ph-d_4vDnuzDBb4tqRZq.html

>>15128666
These are more like scientific blackpills, satan, add uncertainty principle, indeterminacy, and infinite regression to the list and you got yourself a stew.

>>15129196
The two subjects will have different, yet flawed and incomplete perspectives of the same phenomena.

>>15129214
Its not really a grand conspiracy, its just that the whole naturally overwhelms and obscures the individual components.

>>15132216
how does the universe 'know' what to do next? what the next position of each atom will be? the information for that must already exist, aka it already 'knows'.

>no it's spontaneously created

doesn't make sense. this would be something from nothing. a contradiction.

>>15133480
thing is, we all agree on any detector readout.

>>15133522
Digital readouts where everyone already agrees on the measurement system maybe, but then you have just shifted the burden observation from the original two people onto some detectors and each sensor will still have its own unique variance and its own incomplete and limited precision of measurement.

>>15133533
the burden of observation won't shift, because we humans are still the ones observing. the detector meanwhile, is detecting. it isn't clear that a detector may be regarded as an observer like humans are.

>>15133576
The people are now observing a digital readout rather than a phenomenon, the burden of observing the actual phenomenon falls on the sensor rather than the people and the sensor still has the same flaw of fallible incompleteness as the people in the form of variance and limited precision. Also there would still be those people who couldn't read or understand the detector such that not all people would agree on its results.

>>15133587
the digital readout is a phenomenon.

>Also there would still be those people who couldn't read or understand the detector such that not all people would agree on its results.

yes, but afaik we can explain their failure to understand based on some cognitive or ocular deficit

>>15133590
>phenomenon
No a digital readout is the digitization of a sensor's measurement, it is a way to indirectly observe a phenomenon.

I doubt you could explain something that detailed to someone who can't even understand numbers due to communication impairments.

>>15133599
i don't think that makes it a non-phenomenon. it's still an event in spacetime, which is all it needs to be to qualify as a phenomenon. if not, what precludes it from being one?

obviously we can never directly observe microscopic phenomena by ourselves, we have to rely on detectors which can measure such sensitive signals. but us humans are still observing what the tool does.

the disagreement between wigner and his friend only occurs when QM is taken too seriously. there is never, nor has there ever been, any superposition observed by a human in reality. so in reality, there is never any actual disagreement of this kind.

>>15133620
Superposition can be visually observed in the double slit experiment or when simple water waves combine to form more complicated super waves and can be heard by radio interference when listening to waves coming from competing signals or simply when playing musical chords on an instrument.

>>15133620
>it's still an event in spacetime
Still limited and scope such that only the people in close space time proximity can agree on the readout, rather than "all people" as you earlier claimed, so most people would just have to trust the few who are in a position to interact with the detector at the exact time of detection.

>>15133633
those examples of superpositions are not equivalent to quantum superposition because they involve ensembles, whereas quantum superposition involves the superposition of a single particle.

quantum superposition is never observed according to quantum theory itself, as any superposed state collapses into a pure state by observation. and this is true; we have never observed a superposed *single* electron. in the double slit experiment, no single electron has ever been observed passing through both of the two slits at once.

if one wants to defend the reality of quantum superposition, one must explain how these superposed states transform into the pure states we actually observe. imo, it makes more sense to give up on the reality of quantum superposition.

>>15133729
like the disability argument, this is a tangential point i think. the issue of faithful communication is besides the point, which is that observers exposed to the same event will agree on the details of that event.

>>15133746
*observers with the same psychological priming and preparation about how to interpret the detector will agree on it
Its worth nothing again that they are not agreeing on the actual phenomenon that was originally suppose to be observed, they are only agreeing on the rules that they have been mutually trained to recognized regarding numbers and a digital display displaying a particular number.

>>15132629
Told me what? I want to know how the anon knows that none of the items have anything to do with freewill. How does some one who lacks the ability to choose freely from all of the best explanations know anything at all?

>>15133752
"psychological priming" is irrelevant, all will agree on the result displayed by the detector. how they feel about the result is not what we mean by observation.

interpretation is a separate issue from observation. they may interpret the result differently but still all will agree on what's observed.

again, you haven't explained why a detector result doesn't qualify as a phenomenon.

you have also not shown that detectors can qualify as observers like us. this is a recognised issue in QM, sometimes called the Heisenberg cut. QM fails to define what an observer is (but must, if it is to be considered a complete theory).

in case of confusion, questioning whether detectors can be considered observers, is not to question their legitimacy as measuring devices.

>>15133773
>all
Nope, not all, only initiates, its not about feeling it is about interpretation and only the ones who are taught to interpret it the same will interpret it the same.

> will agree on what's observed.
Unless they interpret it differently, then they will not agree because that is how interpretation works which is why everyone can read the same bible and come out with completely different lessons.

>doesn't qualify as a phenomenon.
It is different from the phenomenon we were originally talking about and now it is a new phenomenon that is still open to interpretation and language training rather than the direct sensation associated with actual phenomenon experience rather than interpreting the results of some detector's limited fallible experience of the phenomenon.

>you have also not shown that detectors can qualify as observers like us
They perform the function of an observer by sensing a signal and producing an output which replaces the normal act of observation where an observer detects the signal directly instead of by trusting a middleman.

>this is a recognised issue in QM
You mean where they specifically use a photon detector as the observer in the double slit experiment?

>>15128666
but there is no free will, there's nothing to tackle.

>>15133773
>"psychological priming" is irrelevant
Also, that is as false as claiming that calibrating the detector is irrelevant to getting a correct readout.

>>15133520
>what the next position of each atom will be? the information for that must already exist, aka it already 'knows'.
Yes, this is done by calculation/computation and then the value is defined and rendered to the observer. This is not done by the universe though, see picrel.
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
The universe is the output. It doesn't 'know' anything and causation is coming from outside of the virtual spacetime of the reality, hence why bell type correlations don't have to obey constraints on spacelike separated data objects see here
>>15130257
>notions of locality and distance defined within the simulation do not constrain the action space of the system performing the simulation (i.e. from the perspective of the system performing the simulation, changing the values of variables
All points are equadistant from the processor. So the distance is VIRTUAL distance. And so the universe doesn't 'know' shit. Consciousnesses know things, NOT the virtual data stream that the consciousnesses interface with, ie the physical world in this case, see pic, specifically
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
There is no middle ground.

>>15133520
In addition to this
>>15133799
I will say that the problem with SD and the reason that these dummies can't figure out things like FTL bell type correlations is that they are looking for causation coming from INSIDE the physical (virtual) world. IE, they are players immersed in a VR trying to account for causation coming from WITHIN the VR, when the causation actually comes NON LOCALLY (no location in the virtual spacetime), from processing OUTSIDE the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles), in conjunction with agent causation in the form of free will decisions from a consciousness/observer as an input. In the case of SD, this would be a deterministic simulation with everything decided at the boot up. This is not how ours works though. We have agent causation as well as an input device. And the consciousnesses are not virtual, they only INTERFACE with virtuality through the sensual data stream. Consciousness is not a physical object (hence why it is SUBJECTIVE, and not objectively observable like physical objects, see pic)

>>15133785
as i said before, you're conflating observation with interpretation.

also your definition of observer doesn't solve the heisenberg cut. you would need to address what is the exact quality which separates "the quantum system being observed, from the classical system that comprises the observer's information, knowledge and conscious awareness." (quote: wiktionary)

it is worth noting that this is only a problem for believers of wavefunction collapse, which includes copenhagen adherents, (the most popular interpretation of QM). i don't know what yours is.

>>15133795
the accuracy of the readout is actually irrelevant here. because we're here only concerned with whether people agree on what it reads

>>15133799
some kind of calculation is clearly being done by the universe. to deny that, is to deny the arising of the future from the present.

ok, so the universe is an output. output of what? a calculation, of some kind.

if i'm reading you right, it seems like you're an idealist. you think consciousness is fundamental and produces everything we know. in that case it's on you to demonstrate that this universe is somehow virtual and emerging from some underlying conscious thing. i for one, find the idea of consciousness emerging from brain matter more plausible. i think brain injury case studies and decapitation strongly support this idea (but i know idealists just explain any phenomenon as another pattern of consciousness, so it's unfalsifiable, as any simulation theory is). only if we "wake up" after death would it be knowable. but it's a bit late then, isn't it?

>>15133830
define free will.

>>15133834
No, interpretation inherently compliments observation, you can't have one without the other which is why even instruments need calibration.

It depends what you mean by conscious because a detector obviously has some level of awareness and sensation or it wouldn't be able to sense the phenomenon it was made to quantify.

>>15133835
So then you are not measuring a phenomenon, you are just reading a screen and again I pointed out how not everyone will agree, only people who have been trained to operate the detector and properly read the readout in some specific way.

>>15133864
interpretation might compliment observation, but they're still distinct.

so you believe detectors are weakly conscious? you are a panpsychist then? this is a controversial position.

>>15133520
Another problem with sabines thinking is that she is a reductionist. She believes in a bottoms up reductionist material event causation. She believes that the micro is causing the macro. This is false. The microscopic world never even has to be rendered unless the consciousnesses probe down there using instruments, at which time the rendering engine takes a random draw from a probability distribution and renders what would be PROBABLE to be there, see vid.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMImjFYZ1iY
This is to minimize computational complexity, see picrel. Specifically this part
>Therefore, to minimize computational complexity in the simulation theory, the system performing the simulation would render reality only at the moment the corresponding information becomes available for observation by a conscious observer (a player), and the resolution granularity of the rendering would be adjusted to the level of perception of the observer. More precisely, using such techniques, the complexity of simulation would not be constrained by the apparent size of the universe or an underlying pre-determined mesh/grid size 4 but by the number of players and the resolution of the information made available for observation.
Values at that resolution don't get calculated and defined unless there's a REASON for it, just like in the macro world. The computer doesn't render the entire universe down to the planck resolution at all times for no reason, that is retarded. So she's all kind's of fucked up and she is philosophically literally retarded or 'held back'. Watch her debate with kastrup. here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJmBmopxc1k

>>15133867
disagree, an incorrect reading is still a phenomenon.

i maintain that all will agree on the detector result. one does not need to operate or understand the detector to read it. this is purely an issue of sensory agreement, with the relevant biological caveats established earlier ITT. if asked to sketch what the detector displayed, everyone would draw a similar sketch, with any variation being down to artistic talent.

>>15133520
By the way, there are experiments being conducted to test this
>>15133876
hypothesis, see picrel
Sabine doesn't have shit in terms of experiments. She never will. SD can't be tested. In before
>toy model
She doesn't have shit. Watch the kastrup debate here
>>15133876

>>15133875
No I don't think consciousness is well defined and the status quo definitions of consciousness lead to situations where everything is conscious because everything exhibits some awareness of its environment.

>>15133885
i watched that debate and i think sabine came out stronger. but obviously we are each biased one way or the other.

i'm pretty sure there is no way to test any simulation theory except by exiting that simulation and finding oneself in another place outside of it. the videogame rendering analogy doesn't help us.

although i advocate for SD, like idealism it also has the same issue of being forever untestable, because testing it requires testing for the existence (or rather, nonexistence) of counterfactual worlds in which one "could have chosen/acted otherwise"

>>15133882
>this is purely an issue of sensory agreement,
Yes and you can't agree on something you don't understand, so to come to a similar agreement on the outcome people have to be primed to hold a similar agreement on the interpretation, someone might see an 8 on a digital display where the next person just thinks it is a rectangle with a vertical line in it.

>>15133911
for meaning, yes, observers have to be versed in the relevant areas. but when i say agreement i mean purely appearance.

>>15133922
If we are talking about overall appearance knowing people have varying degree of color detection, you should know that not everyone would agree on the overall appearance of the read out and with various languages and symbols in use, it still means they wouldn't agree on how to interpret the readout unless they were initiated into the protocols of the specific detector interpretation.

>>15133934
yes, but we already covered biological variance in this thread. we can explain that difference satisfactorily in biological terms - differences in rod/cone cells between people, or visual cortex deficits. what remains to be explained, is what kind of physics gives rise to this biology. what is the first brute assumption to start with that will lead to all of this.

>>15133942
>we already covered biological variance in this thread
Yet you still haven't actually accepted it into your worldview since you still seem to be claiming that everyone would observe the exact same thing just because they are looking at the same thing from their own individual perspective.

>>15133946
i have accepted it that's why i mentioned it earlier. i don't know what else to say

>>15133959
You can say you now realize you were wrong before and not all people will ever agree on the readout because all people do not process the information in the same way due to various reasons including biology and experience.

>>15133906
it should also be pointed out that idealism and SD aren't contradictory. bernardo professes himself to be a determinist. you can have an idealistic, deterministic theory. it's just that instead of matter at the foundation, you instead have thoughts and/or feelings aka 'mental processes'. i don't like this idea because it doesn't explain psychological differences between people, it takes them as fundamental things. aka and for example: "bernardo just feels angry today" would just be fundamental. aka without further explanation. i can't disprove this idea, but it doesn't sit right with me. is my dislike of it just fundamental? bernardo would say so.

bernardo doesn't like SD because it supports physical realism. but i'm pretty sure idealism also supports physical realism. it simply changes what is real from physical things to mental things. but in that case, we would just insert people's moods into physics, so they would become starting assumptions of the theory. they would be considered physically real.

one thing i found refreshing from bernardo, was his recent denial of free will. which is odd because earlier he seemed to affirm free will. i can entertain idealism on some level (aka this world is simulated), but what i can't entertain is free will. the notion is completely nonsensical. "you could have done otherwise but you didn't " is nonsensical. it's like saying that it could have rained yesterday when it didn't.

>>15133966
but that would be inapt because i acknowledged this earlier.

>>15133976
Oh, sorry, I must have missed the earlier post where you admitted you were wrong all along, but thanks for repeating it so that I didn't miss it this time.

>>15133859
The ability to choose between two options that wasn't pre-determined by a materialist event causal chain going back to the initial conditions at the booting up of the universe.

>>15134153
yeah, we don't have this ability. the brain is the organ that commands behaviour, and the brain is composed of particles obeying certain laws. this is known.

Only understand monty hall. What should I target next?

>>15133906
>i'm pretty sure there is no way to test any simulation theory except by exiting that simulation
Not true. See this paper right here
>>15133885
and pic related. The experiments are being undertaken now at two different university labs. I already said that here
>>15133885
This vid gives a brief overview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeBzrvCpdkg
more in depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUiDoHkQRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1JczKIVEU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCpusboaWk8
Tom Campbell: Experiment 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLVbljym4w
And the only thing sabine 'won' on was the fact that kastrup only read the more recent paper of hers and didn't read the old toy model one

>>15134176
we can't test the "moment of rendering" of the universe. the wavefunction is unobservable.

>>15134163
>yeah, we don't have this ability. the brain is the organ that commands behaviour, and the brain is composed of particles obeying certain laws
Not interested in your metaphysical presupposition about theory of mind.
>this is known
No, it is a presupposition about the mind called physicalism which relies on neural correlates of consciousness which is a fake news theory see pic for an example why, particularly this part.
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
It's a metaphysical position and it is unfounded speculation. So I don't care about your unfounded basic bitch/sam harris/plebbit/ speculations about the lack of free will. You haven't properly researched the issue. You didn't even know the definition of free will.

>>15134194
even bernardo has given up on free will. you should follow his example. physical or not, a will cannot be free in this universe.

you also have the perennial issue of needing to explain why damage to the brain affects perception, if you want to abandon physicalism.

>>15134163
forgot pic here
>>15134194
NCCs fail to account for the experiencial data stream of the contents of consciousness, let alone the CREATION a free will awareness unit, ie the experiencer of the experience.

>>15134197
>even bernardo has given up on free will
No, he did not. He thinks it is a red herring. He is kind of wishy washy on the subject. I wouldn't base my opinion on his anyway.
>you should follow his example
Not an argument
>physical or not, a will cannot be free in this universe
Not interested in your metaphysical pre-suppositions. Not unless you want to follow them up with an actual elaboration of how the brain creates and presents the physical data stream to the observer in a comprehensive way.
>you also have the perennial issue of needing to explain why damage to the brain affects perception, if you want to abandon physicalism
No, I don't. There is nothing logically inconsistent with my world view and neural correlates of consciousness under some circumstances. As a feature of immersion, there are these correlates between objective observables and subjective experience a certain times, see pic. You are the one who has logical in your philosophy of mind, see here
>>15134198
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
NOTE:
That is not to say that these NCCs have not been found. And so there can be no 'physicalism of the gaps' argument, ie an IOU the 'we will be able to account for consciousness SOMEDAY with physicalism, trust us'. The claim is much stronger.The whole thing has been mapped and no such circuitry exists.

>>15134215
he plainly denied the existence of free will on the recent podcast episode I watched the other day.

you will never prove free will exists because it would require proving the realness of counterfactual worlds in which alternative choices were made. this can never be done.

and how many alternative choices would need to be available before a will can be considered "free"? you quickly realise that even if it was all possible choices save 1, that would be a major constraint on that will's freedom.

>>15134227
>he plainly denied the existence of free will on the recent podcast episode I watched the other day
Ok, I believe you. I don't watch every interview of his. Irrelevant though. I don't subscribe to his model anyways. He is right about a lot of stuff and he won against sabine, except he should have read that other paper. That's just an issue of being unprepared though. It wasn't an issue of sabine being right.
>you will never prove free will exists
I don't care about 'proving' it. There is nothing logically inconsistent about the idea, that's the point.
> it would require proving the realness of counterfactual worlds in which alternative choices were made
You are appealing to physicalism again with regard to philosophy of mind. Physicalism can't account for consciousness. See here
>>15134198
>And how many alternative choices would need to be available before a will can be considered "free"?
I gave the definition here
>>15134153
So 2 I suppose. A choice between two possible values in a decision space, this way or that, move towards the hot area or the cold area, move toward the dark of the light, eat now or wait. One resolution of uncertainty. Choose between up-down, left-right, backwards or forwards.
>you quickly realise that even if it was all possible choices save 1, that would be a major constraint on that will's freedom
There are all kinds of constraints on freewill. Hunger for instance. You can't stop from getting hungry, but you can choose what to eat or to fast longer. Or a behavioral or drug addiction. As the drug addict slips farther into the addiction, the freewill becomes constrained. The decision space narrows. Even in the deepest depths though, the freewill awareness unit is still there. Addicts who have been drunks for 30, 40 50 years ect still have that sliver of freewill left in there, and they quit.

>>15134274
if you can't prove it then why are you so comfortable claiming it exists?

>You are appealing to physicalism again

no i'm not. counterfactual worlds are just alternative scenarios which the notion of free will necessarily draws upon.

>There are all kinds of constraints on freewill

so why even call it free?

>>15134286
>if you can't prove it then why are you so comfortable claiming it exists?
Well, I suppose that if you are right, I have no choice whether I believe it or not. And you have no choice either. Putting aside this absurdity though, why wouldn't I be comfortable with it? Physicalism can't account for consciousness (see pic), so I see no reason that freewill couldn't be just a primitive of brute fact needed to resolve uncertainty in an information system. Lower chaos. Lower entropy. This gives it a telos and utility in the VR. You yourself assume it exist at least performatively. In other words, If you see some thing you want, say a new red car instead of a blue car, do you likely go 'well, I know I don't really have a choice, and my decision was baked into the initial conditions at the booting up of the reality, but I am going to PRETEND I am choosing to pick the one I want'. I would ask why you BELIEVE there there is an observer independent world of matter with defined values of classical type observables, even though this can not be 'proven'?
Have you ever experienced an observer independent reality without using consciousness as the interface and medium of the experience? Could an experiment ever be devised which could prove such a world of observer independent exists? No. ALL experience from womb till tomb happens in mind. All experiments conducted are designed by minds and the experience and the results are rendered into minds. Detectors are things rendered in the medium of minds as well, and the results are rendered probabilistically, see here
>>15133885
>such a system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality server before rendering content to the player).

>>15134356
I don't necessarily agree with the Chinese room argument. I'm more agnostic when it comes to consciousness, but I'm open to the idea that it could emerge from the physical somehow, in a way we haven't yet been able to detail properly. However, I'm not unwaveringly committed to this view.

As for free will, that is something I'm committed to denying. I don't pretend that I have it. I cannot have it. I just follow my will where it takes me. And I argue that all others do the same too.

>>15134374
>I don't necessarily agree with the Chinese room argument.
That's fine by me. I haven't seen a good argument against it though.
> I'm more agnostic when it comes to consciousness
This is reasonable
>but I'm open to the idea that it could emerge from the physical somehow, in a way we haven't yet been able to detail properly
This is reasonable. I don't thing this is the right view, but it's the view I used to have as well, and things like NCCs are factors that make this view seem plausible on a surface level.
>However, I'm not unwaveringly committed to this view.
This is how a person should be. One should be open mindedly skeptical, as opposed to close mindedly skeptical.
>As for free will, that is something I'm committed to denying
I disagree there, as already stated.
>I don't pretend that I have it
I didn't say pretend. I said performatively we all operate this way. If someone asks you if you want paper or plastic at the grocery store, do you say 'I can't say, I don't have freewill'. You CHOOSE which one you want, likely. I, of course, don't know WHAT you do, so I can't say for sure. That would be a strange way to operate though.
> And I argue that all others do the same too
Fair enough. I will have to say you haven't made a good account so far in terms of explaining how matter and it's motions and or energy or excitations of fields or wave functions or wave function collapses or pick your asserted bottom level physical goings on create an experiencer to experience that physicality. Or, WHAT would be the purpose of consciousness? Everything could have been done without it. Our movements and everything else could be done without vision, for instance, or the experience of the physical world. It wouldn't be an evolutionary thing in terms of some kind of selection thing. All evolution would have happened not for any other reason than the initial conditions dictated that it would be that way.

>>15134417
i don't operate as if i have free will. wanting things is not free will. *freely* wanting things, that would be free will. do we not agree that free will is 'the ability to have chosen differently in a past situation'? that's the definition i use.

>You CHOOSE which one you want
this is untrue. we don't choose our wants, as Schopenhauer rightly pointed out.

>>15134433
Makes sense, I always thought I was trippin balls 24/7.

>>15134417
>Or, WHAT would be the purpose of consciousness? Everything could have been done without it.
It might be a naive argument, but this is my personal argument why I believe there is something "special" to consciousness, be it "souls" or whatever fundamental to reality. That we have subjective experiences in the first place, and that I have my own personal "point of view", that I'm some random guy instead of another random guy (the vertiginous question). If everything was just cold physicalism, it would be a universe of philosophical zombies.

>>15134473
that's not an explanation? you've effectively just said that we're conscious because we're conscious. an explanation needs to explain one thing in terms of something else.

>>15134455
>i don't operate as if i have free will
So when some body asks you 'paper or plastic' what is your though process? You don't consider the question and decide?
>wanting things is not free will
I don't say it was. Choosing between options is.
>do we not agree that free will is 'the ability to have chosen differently in a past situation'?
Yes. If you don't have that you can't have real choice. So your decision to not believe in freewill would not be resultant of you freely considering the different options and picking the one which seems the best. You would be, I guess, programmed to. I don't really understand the concept of 'believing you have freewill but this belief is an illusion', so it's hard for me to elaborate that point of view. Nobodies ever explained to me how you code for 'the mental qualia of believing you have free will'. I don't think this is even a thing.
> do we not agree that free will is 'the ability to have chosen differently in a past situation'?
Yes, that's part of it. That's the on the fly definition I gave here.
>>15134153
I wouldn't say that that is the TOTALITY of the definition. That would take a while to sit and think about, that is to say, a more comprehensive definition would take longer. I could never totally exhaust the concept I suppose.>>15134455
>this is untrue. we don't choose our wants
I didn't say we did. I gave the example here
>>15134274
>here are all kinds of constraints on freewill. Hunger for instance. You can't stop from getting hungry, but you can choose what to eat or to fast longer.
Of course you can't control, for instance, your wan't for food. You can choose what or when you want to eat, right up to the point of not even eating ate all and starving to death, assuming you have available food etc. I have never heard anyone make an argument for the kind of freewill you are talking about. A freewill that choose, say, how tall you are or if you can fly or something like that.

>>15134496
we do think about questions, but that is just a calculation in the brain. even though we are the thinkers, we ourselves don't know the result of any thinking calculation until we've actually done the calculation. this hints that there is something physically uncomputable within the thinking process. meaning, you can't instantly jump to the result. it doesn't mean there is anything free about it, just because it takes some time to arrive at the answer.

>>15134473
This is the anon you responded to here
>>15134473
This will be my response. I declare this because we have a multi-party debate going on, and it might be figure out
so you say
>It might be a naive argument, but this is my personal argument why I believe there is something "special" to consciousness, be it "souls" or whatever fundamental to reality.
That is not naive. That is the correct view. There IS something special about consciousness. It is SUBJECTIVE. The physical world is OBJECTIVE. Consciousness is first person. Actually, even the physical world is subjective, see the experimental verification wigner's friend experiments. The physical world in terms of values defined in spacetime is the set of all subjective spacetime data streams rendered to the set of all experiencers/observers/consciousnesses.
>That we have subjective experiences in the first place, and that I have my own personal "point of view", that I'm some random guy instead of another random guy (the vertiginous question). If everything was just cold physicalism, it would be a universe of philosophical zombies.
I agree with all of this. Looks like it's just the freewill thing. We will probably be at an impasse with regard to that.

>>15134514
I'm another guy though, that was my first post in this thread. When it comes to free will I've always been on and off through my life, but I believe there is some kind of free will despite physical and mental limitations and other things that constrain us. I've been pondering for a long time why would consciousness exist if we're all just automatons. I'm not sure what to believe but I've found contemporary idealists to be have interesting viewpoints.
I've pondered some of these things since I was about 10 years old, and I find it so frustrating when people don't understand subjects like qualia or the vertiginous question, it's something right there but they completely miss the point when addressing them.

>>15134506
>we do think about questions, but that is just a calculation in the brain
This is your presupposition. I don't share that presupposition so restating your premise as your argument is just begging the question. You need to explain how this happens. How does a piece of meat create and present our mental experience to us and how does it create the experiencer in the first place to even have an observer to ever present the experience to? Just saying 'the brain does some stuff and then PRESTO, consciousness!'. See pic. Worse than the lack of an explanation of how that happens, you have to deal with things like the binding problem(s) shown here
>>15134198
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
The circuitry that you want to say somehow causes experience, doesn't exist. Big problem. Even if it did exist, how does it present the info to the observer?
>we ourselves don't know the result of any thinking calculation until we've actually done the calculation. More unfounded conjecture. If you want to assert that, then give a particular brain state that can be shown to create a particular thought, or this is just wank.
>this hints that there is something physically uncomputable within the thinking process
The creating of the experiencer itself is uncomputable, forget about even the CONTENT of the consciousness. To compute a VR to present to an observer is something that can be at least conceived of in terms of a physics engine or something. The main point is HOW DO YOU CREATE THE EXPERIENCER OF THE EXPERIENCE.

>>15134533
>
Then it sounds like we have no major dis agreements. It looks like you have a reasonable take on the subject. My argument is with people who would make a claim that usually consists of declaring their own metaphysical presupposition that there's only two kinds of possible causation, which are two different kinds of reductive, bottoms up (microcausal to macrocausal (not quantum field theory microcausality, that is another very specific term) materialistic event causation, namely determinacy or indeterminacy, and also the pre-supposition of a physicalist theory of mind. Then, they say, if you can not fit freewill into that, then it doesn't exist. This is retarded on 50 different levels and is bad physics AND metaphysics. This would be the standard sam harris view. The reasons I is dumb and no such declaration can be made has been presented by me itt. here
>>15130257
>>15133799
>>15133830
>>15133876
>>15133885
>>15134153
>>15134176
>>15134194
>>15134198
>>15134215
>>15134274
>>15134356
>>15134417
>>15134496
>>15134514
>>15134550

>>15133857
>some kind of calculation is clearly being done
yes
>by the universe
No. See here
>>15133799
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself.
The idea that the universe ITSELF is the computer is the view that the great physics master john archibald wheeler, the guy that came up with the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, subscribed to, 'it from bit'. Number 2 here, in apostrophes instead of greentext for certain reasons
>>15133876
>Calculating universe: Supporters of the idea that some sort of calculation creates physical events include main-stream physicists like Wheeler, whose "It from Bit" statement implies that processing (bit) somehow creates physical things (it). Now processing doesn't just model the universe, it causes it (Piccinini, 2007).

As great as he was and as much of a genius as he was, he was wrong on that. Seth lloyd, professor of mechanical engineering and physics at MIT, also has a version of this. The one who came up with the right point of view is the guy who taught lloyd at MIT, the well known edward fredkin, who invented digital physics. He rightly pointed out that the computer must be OUTSIDE of the virtual space it is computing. He called this place 'other'. The computer must always be 'non-physical' ie NONLOCAL (non-location in the virtual space (pixels) and time (cycles) of the VR. So the players immersed in the reality believe that the causation comes from inside the VR, as seen in your opinion, when in fact the causation comes from with out (non-local) hence why no theory of LOCAL hidden variables can ever reproduce the predictions of QM. This is solved by non-local (outside of the virtual spacetime) processing as stated in pic rel here
>>15133876
Second paragraph. If you read that BOTH bell type correlations AND the no signalling theorem will be reconciled.