/sci/ - Science & Math

Most shit you read about "quantum" in the news is bullshit, religion pretending to be science

Turns out I was being dunning kruger after all

>>15196585
Sir Roger Penrose is a physics Nobel laureate though.

>>15196596
Sir Roger Penrose is ethnically half jewish btw.

>>15196572
It was never a competition. I always knew I was right. What NPC sheep le thought about it never concerned me

>>15196572
>New progress has been made in solving the hard problem.
A year of daily consciousness threads and /sci/ retards still don't understand what the Hard Problem is, and still think it's a literal problem that's supposed to be solved. LOL

>>15196654
>A year
Fucking newtranny. /sci/ has been discussing consciousness every day since 2009.

>>15196666
Ok, troon. You will never be a woman.

>>15196666
lol, just no. 2018 maybe. I have been posting my articles on it since about that time and most the people here are stupid so it takes them quite a long time to actually catch on to things even when you spoon feed them

>>15196681
Election tourist detected

>>15196690
why do faggots like you always make shit up about what used to happen here? I was here when it happened and can easily access the archives of morons like you seething about people making consciousnesses threads when they first started being posted regularly. also bragging about how much of your life you wasted on anime forum instead of having sex and friends is not a really an accomplishment to be proud of. it is probably all you have though so w/e

>>15196707
>why do faggots like you always make shit up about what used to happen here?
It's a reddit migrant defense mechanism. They attempt to rewrite history hoping other reddit migrants will mistake their confident lying for knowledge and keep propagating it until it becomes "official" so that they could claim they were here first.

>>15196707
I have memes and screenshots from a glorious era of 4chan before zoomer plebs like you were born.

>>15196724
Im 47 years old you fucking moron and you are the obvious newfag since you dont even know who I am. kys you fucking retard

>>15196744
Unfortunately your maturity doesn't match your biological age. Sad.

>>15196744
What kind of loser wants to have a recognizable identity on 4chan?

>>15196759
>get called out and dunked on
>immediately try and pivot to new bullshit
thanks for playing troon

>>15196762
it makes it easy to search the archives and expose lying sacks of shit like you who are always here trying to lie about and rewrite history. obviously superior to an actual loser who thinks the time he wasted here because he didnt have any friends or sex is something to brag about

>>15196774
>an alleged "47 y.o." using the "u have no sex" insult
Bruh, you're clearly a highschooler

>>15196681
Looks like you weren't here in 2012, buddy.

You can't solve the hard problem using science, see What Mary Didn't Know

rare based bodhi

Has any progress been made in solving the vertiginous question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>15196572
>Quantum bros, we are winning!
Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhAx3dWyTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgK3Xsz91E4

>>15197454
>someone mentioning qualia in 2012 = having threads about it everyday since 2009
This is pretty sad even for 4chan standards. You obviously have a high level of narcissism making you incapable of admitting when you are wrong so you will attempt all kinds of retarded fuckery to try and re-frame the argument. BTW that was also a namefag, kind of ironic isn't it?

So either consciousness is physical but we are as-of-yet unable to understand why, or it is nonphysical. If it is nonphysical, then:
>All matter is fundamentally the same "stuff"
>There is no reason why my conscience experience should be limited to my "body", other than the fact that all the cells are linked by the nervous system. This brings us back to physicalism.
>Otherwise, why do I define myself as my body? Why don't I experience as other matter? Why am I seemingly limited to the perceptions of the cells that are connected via nervous system to the brain?

What am I missing? Aren't we basically still at the "god of the gaps" phase then? Meaning that there seems to be some physical component to answer these questions, but we aren't advanced enough to know yet?

Isn't premise #5 completely speculative? Why should we take that as true? How do we know that consciousness isn't physical? After all, it seems uniquely tied to the brain, and the brain is physical.

>>15199674
>What am I missing?
The fact that "physical" is a meaningless buzzword in any context outside of physics, where it merely refers to provisional human theories rather than some fundamental nature.

>>15199693
>rather than some fundamental nature.
There is no "fundamental nature" by your schizo standards because as a retard human you can always ask "but where does THAT come from?" every time a question is answered and you've already established you won't accept "it is what it is. If it was any different things wouldn't be the same" as an answer

>>15199695
>There is no "fundamental nature" by your schizo standards
What's my "schizo standard"? It's obvious that calling something "physical" doesn't tell you anything about it except that it appears to obey physics as it's currently understood.

>>15199693

Not any of those guys, but we shouldn't do away with "physical" and instead say "perceptible." Wouldn't that be more accurate?

>>15199751
>we shouldn't do away with "physical" and instead say "perceptible." Wouldn't that be more accurate?
Makes no sense to me.

>>15199753

What does physical mean then, other than an object that consciousness is able to perceive?

>>15196612
so?
he's wrong because of his ethnicity? He's trying to scheme us into beleiveing nonsense to put the "Wyte man" down, only because he's half heeb?
Are you really this retarded?

>>15199783
>What does physical mean then
It means something is accounted for by physics as we know it. Beyond that, it doesn't mean anything; just some vague feefee that all things, including ones that physics can't explain, and ones that outright contradict known physics, are the same sort of stuff as whatever physicists currently understand, in some unspecifiable capacity.

>>15196572
Penrose Chad's we just keep winning.
Where my /fringe-theorists/ at?
Conformal cyclic cosmology is next.

>>15196572
>>>/x/34064219

>>15196572

If it's microtubules, doesn't that mean it's a win for Dennett?

>>15199853
>quantum processor microtubles
>mobius strip scalar wave mitochondria
>casimir effect synapses
the brain is a ufo supercomputer
this is documented throughout all of history

>>15196572
>the ancients were right and you can elevate your consciousness
time to start meditating

>>15199880

Links for any of this? I find it fascinating. But, if we are finding evidence, doesn't that mean that it is physicalism? How are we finding something that isn't physical?

Or by physicalism do we mean only that which we can perceive with our five senses (taste, touch, smell, hear, see).

>>15196572
Probabilities of different consciousness theories being true:

https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:

>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)
>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)
>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)
>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)
>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)
>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)
>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

David Pearce's arguments for non-materialist physicalism:

https://www.physicalism.com/

>Natural science promises a complete story of the universe. No "element of reality" should be missing from the mathematical formalism of physics, i.e. relativistic quantum field theory or its more speculative extension, M-theory. On pain of magic, every gross property of the natural world must be theoretically reducible to fundamental physics. The Standard Model in physics is experimentally well tested. Within its conceptual framework, consciousness would seem not only causally impotent but physically impossible. Hence the "explanatory gap" and the Hard Problem of consciousness.

>In recent years, a minority of researchers have proposed that the Hard Problem is an artifact of materialist metaphysics. Contra Kant, but following Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Grover Maxwell, Michael Lockwood, Galen Strawson, et al., the new idealists conjecture that the phenomenology of one's mind reveals the intrinsic nature of the physical – the elusive "fire" in the equations about which physics is silent. Mathematical physics yields an exhaustive description of the relational-structural properties of the world. This description may ultimately be encoded by the universal wavefunction of post-Everetta quantum mechanics: our best mathematical description of reality. However, our presupposition that the intrinsic character of the physical lacks phenomenal properties is an additional metaphysical assumption. The assumption is hugely plausible, but it's not a scientific discovery. Perhaps most tellingly, the only part of the "fire" in the equations to which one ever enjoys direct access, i.e. one's own consciousness, discloses phenomenal properties that are inconsistent with a materialist ontology. For reasons unexplained, the natural world contains first-person facts. The world supports at least one non-zombie. And natural science gives no reason to believe that one is special.

>>15199794
>He's trying to scheme us into beleiveing nonsense to put the "Wyte man" down, only because he's half heeb?
Yes.

>>15200177
I'm the non-zombie /sci/ is created to support. I collapse the wave functions and this is my world, you all are just along for the ride

>>15200171

Where does analytical idealism fit? What do we think of Bernardo Kastrup?

>>15196572
>another consciousness thread

Go back to your containment board, incel.

>>15200274
My containment board is /sci/. I'm here to discuss the science of quantum mechanics.