/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15209458
Oh my god, I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS

>>15209458
>another consciousness thread on sci

Go back to your containment board, incel. Christards and philosophy pseudo are not welcome on sci. Conscioussness is not science or math.

>>15209469
Philosophy is bullshit. Only Science is qualified to solve consciousness.

It's all reducible to chemistry. We can be absolutely sure about that. Why would you say it's a reduction?

Intuition or priori is especially interesting, the sensory parts of the brain have their own processing memory that our slower cognitive parts can only partially access. It can receive this information but doesn't have anything to compare it to in its own bank.

The free will part is currently terrifying me because the more I learn the lesser it seems. The 'we' is being so massively influenced by the parts outside it. We seem a self-deluding slave chained to a serotonin impulse drive.

There us no hard problem. Religious tards need to go.
People who cling to "free will" ironically act more like bots than physicalist chads. When you die nothing mystical happens, you just rot like me and everyone else

>consciousness
>science
you got me there for a second, I have to give it to ya mate

>>15209472
>science is not philosophy
Epistemologylets need not apply

>>15209545
If you don't think that qualia is mysterious you're deluded or a p-zombie.

>>15209565
"Mysterious" is not the same as "by definition irreducible to physical processes".

>>15209562
Epistemology is nonsense and has never established any relevant insights.

>>15209576
Uhmmm sweatty ur litterrally doing epistemology right now, mkay?

>>15209584
And I'm doing it better than any philosocuck!

>>15209458
Studying consciousness is not good science because consciousness doesn’t exist.

>>15209604
Based and illusionistpilled.

>>15209458
>A lot of the mechanisms behind thinking, emotions, awareness etc can be explained by biochemistry
No, they can't. There is no explanation of how any of these goings on actually deliver or transmit any of these things to an observer to be experienced in the way we experience. There is no explanation or exactly WHICH neurons are conscious and how it is that these neurons, which are separate, somehow join into one consciousness and present, for instance, a 'stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene,'. And to claim 'it just does' is just circular and is begging the question, ie just restating believed premise as the attempted argument, which isn't an explanation at all. You also need to look into problems such as the visual neural binding (see pic) problems and other binding problems as well. And all of this only (badly) tries to account for some of the CONTENT of consciousness and still does nothing to explain what the experiencer OF the content is, ie the mind.

>>15209610
This is worse than illusion. An illusion must have a perceiver to witness an illusion, ie it requires a consciousness. To say that it doesn't exist is an appeal to mindlessness. If that anon were correct, and consciousness didn't exist, none of us would even be having this experience in the first place. There would be no experience, and there certainly would be no computers, since consciousnesses developed this technology.
>Studying consciousness is not good science because consciousness doesn’t exist.
If you have no consciousness you can't do science in the first place. Empirical observation is based on the sensory data stream received by minds and the entire scientific pursuit is one of consciousnesses. All experience of the world from womb to tomb takes place in mind. There is zero evidence of observer independent matter in fact and all evidence of such a thing is to the contrary.

>>15209604
whoops this
>>15209632
was partly to you, though if you are mindless, as you claim to be, ie you are not conscious, I suppose you will not be responding.

>>15209519
I think it’s comforting to know everything will work out

>>15209632
Consciousness is so fickle you can do drugs right now and find out it’s nothing more than a finely tuned machine cope more

>>15209632
>An illusion must have a perceiver to witness an illusion, ie it requires a consciousness.
Wrong. A perceiver is just a machine which reacts with itself and with its environment. This perceiver is said to be under an illusion when it makes significant mistakes in processing its data. See? That required no reference to the nonsensical notion of consciousness

>>15209643
I don't have to cope. I am correct on this issue. Those who try to explain away consciousness are the copers. It takes a consciousness to try explain things away in the first place. The fact that a consciousness can do drugs is not a refutation of anything I said by the way. It actually has nothing to do with it.

>uh of course if you shoot me in the head I'll die I'm not dumb
>uh of course a brain tumor will change one's behavior no one's denying that
>uh of course brain is responsible for thinking dont be silly
>uh yes the laws of physics are real and matter is real, we can't bend them
>but somehow our mind exists outside physical reality LMAO
anti-physicalists and idealings are worse than religious folks, at least religion was based off genuine ignorance of the world

>>15209614
Absolutely true. It's called the working memory. Sometimes the very short term memory. It's somewhere in the cingulate cortex which connects the visual and frontal. Brain picks details to remember rather than the entire scene.

>>15209650
>A perceiver is just a machine which reacts with itself and with its environment
No, it isn't. Everything about a machine can be OBJECTIVELY verified and experienced. Consciousness is SUBJECTIVE, as stated in pic. There's no evidence that qa machine is having an internal subjective experience.
>This perceiver is said to be under an illusion when it makes significant mistakes in processing its data
No, it isn't. Everything about a machine is objective. Me and you can sit around a machine and both of us can see every part of it objectively. Me and you can NOT sit around a brain and see any subjective experience. And so there is no one to one correspondence between a brain and a mind and consciousness is subjective, unlike physical objects like machines.
>That required no reference to the nonsensical notion of consciousness
Because what you are describing has nothing to do with consciousness. We are not talking about machines we are talking about mentation, which is not made of matter and not a machine and not objectively observable like every aspect of a machine is.

>>15209669
>It's somewhere in the cingulate cortex
What do you mean 'It's somewhere in the cingulate cortex'? Be specific. What is in the cingulate cortex? Give objectively verifiable coordinates of a particular memory or some kind of quantifiable metric, or else you are just hand waving.
> Brain picks details to remember rather than the entire scene
When I open my eyes, I see an entire scene. This means the asserted neural correlates of consciousness are inconsistent with subjective experience. So your view is falsified.

>>15209632
I’m the anon you’re talking about.
>If you have no consciousness you can’t do science in the first place.
We are made of the same matter that is studied in laboratories, which means our bodies are governed by the same physical laws that ordinary matter is. To suggest that our bodies somehow transcend beyond those physical laws and give us some mystical type of awareness/sentience is religion, not science.

>>15209671
>Everything about a machine can be OBJECTIVELY verified and experienced
>Everything about a machine is objective
The same as humans, then.
>There's no evidence that qa machine is having [schizo nonsense]
Not my problem
>as stated in pic
That's not a scientific argument.
>Me and you can sit around a machine and both of us can see every part of it objectively.
Are you flirting with me?

>>15209677
>We are made of the same matter that is studied in laboratories
Subjective consciousness can't be objectively observed by definition, in a lab or anywhere else, which SHOULD be your first clue that there is not a one for one identity between consciousness and and any brain. This is why scientists try to study asserted neural CORRELATES of consciousness.
>which means our bodies are governed by the same physical laws that ordinary matter is
We are talking about minds, not he body, which is a mental object only ever observed in minds by the way.
>To suggest that our bodies somehow transcend beyond those physical laws and give us some mystical type of awareness/sentience is religion, not science.
Unless you can devise a way to objectively observe subjective consciousness, as can be done with physical objects (you can't), then this assertion of transcendence is an absolute fact. And science is the study of the behavior of the physical world, which is the study of the sensual data stream rendered in minds. It's the study of mental objects by the way. So science is the attempt at objective quantification of the behavior of mental objects consisting of the content of sensual data streams rendered in minds/consciousness. If consciousness is an illusion or dubious of whatever else, then you are basing your whole knowledge base on a dubious footing.

>>15209676
Science isnt there yet. Best we can do is areas.

When you close your eyes how long can you hold that detailed scene?

>>15209680
>The same as humans, then
No, we can't experience other consciousnesses experience. If I hit you on the head with a mallet, YOU feel it, not me.
>Not my problem
No an argument
>That's not a scientific argument.
Not an argument
>Are you flirting with me?
Seems like you should know if you can experience other people's subjective consciousness.

>>15209697
>Science isnt there yet.
Ah yes, a physicalism of the gaps argument. A promissory note of 'dude, just trust us". No thanks. This is cope. Subjective consciousness is not objectively observable by definition, unlike the physical (virtual) objects appearing IN consciousnesses. Consciousness is not one of these virtual objects such as a brain. A consciousness will never be seated in a virtual object rendered in a mind such as a brain. A mind is that which DOES the rendering. It's not going to be accounted for, ultimately, by studying objects which consciousness itself produces.

>>15209462
Man, I FUCKING LOVE CONCSIOUSNESS - it's such a PROFOUND and TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCE that makes me feel like I'm floating in the vastness of the UNIVERSE. You should come to my YOGA STUDIO, it's a peaceful oasis with floor-to-ceiling windows and natural light that ILLUMINATES the whole space. We can sit on meditation cushions and drink some herbal tea, while we discuss our SPIRITUAL JOURNEYS and bask in the beauty of the PRESENT MOMENT. And listen, we have GOTTA go to the crystal shop down the street - it's like a portal to ANOTHER DIMENSION, where we can connect with the healing energy of gemstones and feel the vibrations of the UNIVERSE. By the way, I'm so excited to start my Reiki training next week, it's going to be a life-changing EXPERIENCE that will help me spread loving CONCIOUSNESS to everyone around me. I feel so blessed to have found my path, and I can't wait to share it with the world. Let's raise a glass of kombucha to the infinite possibilities of the UNIVERSE!

>>15209714
>. We can sit on meditation cushions and drink some herbal tea, while we discuss our SPIRITUAL JOURNEYS
How do you code for this experience I wonder?

>>15209472

The hard problem of consciousness is an error in thinking as the result of choosing the matetialist metaphysics. Any scientific model grounded in materialism will face the hard problem. The problem very much is one of philosophy.

Science can help with the behavior of consciousness, since science is limited to answering questions on nature's behavior.

>>15209661
>Consciousness is not behavior
>A machine with a consciousness and an exact copy of that machine that doesn't have a consciousness will be indistinguishable from each other from the outside
All truth is based on faith. Faith that what you are perceiving is what it seems to be.

>>15209469

Low IQ

Philosophy supports science by providing clear conceptual thinking on metaphysics that scientific models are grounded in.

Science supports philosophy by falsification of metaphysics that have incorrect implications on natures behavior.

>>15209722
>The hard problem of consciousness is an error in thinking as the result of choosing the matetialist metaphysics.
Yes, exactly.

>>15209728
>Philosophy supports science by providing clear conceptual thinking on metaphysics that scientific models are grounded in.
Give one (1) example where it has done that

>>15209661
>uh of course smashing my radio with a hammer makes the music stop
>uh of course this means the music only exists in my radio
>what do you mean "invisible radio waves"? I can't see them. Take you're meds, schizo

>>15209472
>Only Science is qualified to solve consciousness
Science won't ever solve the problem because science is based largely studying the data stream called the physical world appearing IN consciousnesses. So someone's else's subjective consciousness is not analysable as content of YOUR consciousness. A bunch of people can't sit around and observe in their own respective subjective data streams rendered in THEIR consciousnesses, someone ELSE'S subjective data stream. They CAN observe these more 'objective' things which correspond relatively highly, trending towards 'objective' such as the position and momentum of and 'objective' PHYSICAL object.
>Only Science
The claim that only science is a valid means of epistemic justification is also a philosophical position. It's basically empiricism. So you are saying philosophy sucks but you are engaging in philosophy yourself.

>>15209711
If I poked the spot directly the next thing you would ask is which cluster of the 5 billion neurons under my finger is responsible. I'm fine with us narrowing it down over decades.

>>15209759
>Science won't ever solve the problem because science is based largely studying the data stream called the physical world appearing IN consciousnesses.
How does this stop Science from solving the hard problem? Right, it doesn't. You're a strawman.

>people can't sit around and observe in their own respective subjective data streams rendered in THEIR consciousnesses, someone ELSE'S subjective data stream.
They can. It's called quantum entanglement.

>The claim that only science is a valid means of epistemic justification is also a philosophical position
I never said this. Math is also legitimate and generates objective knowledge. But philosophy never does.

>So you are saying philosophy sucks but you are engaging in philosophy yourself.
Oh sweaty. It's called metaphilosophy.

>>15209469
Christ is King!

>>15209770
>If I poked the spot directly the next thing you would ask is which cluster of the 5 billion neurons under my finger is responsible
Yeah, this an appeal to an asserted neural CORRELATE of consciousness. Brains ARE objectively observable. And at times, there ARE correlations between the virtual mental objects called brains and subjective felt experience, as explained in pic related. It's a simulated causation which is a feature of immersion in a VR. You have to have an avatar to operate in a VR, and our avatar has a brain. If the virtual avatar is damaged, then the effect gets rendered. That doesn't mean the consciousness playing the world is IN the virtual brain or is caused by it. I am not arguing against correlation though. These virtual objects like virtual brains ARE objective, or at least they are relatively highly correspondent data streams of mental objects which at times are rendered to multiple observers in a minds and can be 'objectively' assessed by more than one observer, this is true. This is not the question. The question is if YOUR SUBJECTIVE experience and YOU the experiencer himself can be rendered in MY mind and data stream to be experienced and studied scientifically. Can Your consciousness be observed and felt by me? If not, then you have an explanatory gap and you have NO one for one identity of mind and brain. And you certainly have no CAUSATIONAL explanation.

>>15209458
>Consciousness science bros, where do you draw the line between the hard problem and various soft problems?
There is no line. The hard problem just begs the question by assuming it's separate from the soft problem.

>>15209458
>where do you draw the line
If you have to ask this question, you did not understand what the Hard Problem means. It's truly amusing how something so simple filters nonsentients so hard.

>>15209458
>Free will
Doesn't exist.

>ethics
This is just a concept in the brain like any other, purely material.

>intuition
Just your brain working, purely material.

>a priori knowledge
All knowledge is purely material.

>>15209805
>The hard problem just begs the question by assuming it's separate from the soft problem.
It doesn't assume anything. It simply asks to know how and why consciousness arises out of material interactions. Contemplating it for a moment reveals that every potential hypothesis would be unfalsifiable and unscientific. lol

>>15209790
>christtard posting fake quote
As expected

>>15209810
>It doesn't assume anything
It does. See >>15209805

>It simply asks to know how and why consciousness arises out of material interactions.
That's the soft problem.

>Contemplating it for a moment reveals that every potential hypothesis would be unfalsifiable and unscientific
Is any clearer illustration of your question begging possible? LMAO

>It's impossible because I contemporary it for a moment and my interruption tells me so HURRRRRR

>>15209819
are you smarter than me?

>>15209823
Found a nonsential parasite.

>>15209810
>It doesn't assume anything
It does. See >>15209805

>It simply asks to know how and why consciousness arises out of material interactions.
That's the soft problem.

>Contemplating it for a moment reveals that every potential hypothesis would be unfalsifiable and unscientific
Is any clearer illustration of your question begging possible? LMAO

>It's impossible because I contemplated it for a moment and my intuition tells me so HURRRRRR

>>15209824
Certainly. Very much so, in fact.

>>15209472
Philosophy and science are informed by each other, as they should be.

Not understanding this is a sign of intellectual immaturity.

>>15209825
Thanks for admitting the hard problem is just question begging.

>>15209830
Can you answer my question >>15209733 since that other philosophy apologist couldn't?

>>15209778
>How does this stop Science from solving the hard problem?
The brain is something which can appear in multiple people's conscious data stream, so it is 'objective' and can be objectively assessed using various metrics. Subjective experience and the subject experiencing the experience are NOT objective. My experience and me, the fundamental mental entity, the 'I', can NOT appear in your mind with you. You get a virtual rendering of a mental object called a brain in you data stream. If there are two of you observing the brain, you then have a set of TWO relatively corresponding data streams of the same brain. During NONE of this do you observe the SUBJECTIVE consciousness of the one who's avatar the brain belongs to. The consciousness is not IN the virtual objectively observable virtual brain. The virtual brain does not CREATE the consciousness. And that is why science won't solve it. More on that here
>>15209801
>They can. It's called quantum entanglement.
No. this has nothing to do with the matter
>I never said this. Math is also legitimate and generates objective knowledge. But philosophy never does.
Then this is your philosophic position on epistemic justification. This is part of your epistemology and epistemology is part of philosophy.
>Oh sweaty. It's called metaphilosophy.
No, that's not what metaphilosophy is, and metaphilosophy is still a part of philosophy anyways.

>>15209829

>>15209836
Yeah, all of science lmao.

>>15209778
here
>>15209842
when I say
>If there are two of you observing the brain, you then have a set of TWO relatively corresponding data streams of the same brain
I mean if there are two individuals, separate. Not two of you as an individual, just to clarify.

>>15209845
So you have no idea what you're talking about and are just repeating something someone once told you

>>15209848
Nice insult, but what's your actual point?

>>15209849
My point is that you have no examples whatsoever which is why you resorted to evading my question

>>15209854
Like I said, all of science. Do you want to read my post again? >>15209845

>>15209857
Let me correct myself, then. My point is that you have no examples whatsoever which is why you resorted to answering my question with a completely wrong answer

>>15209870
Explain why you think it's wrong.

>>15209790
Real Heisenberg quote.
>In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.

>>15209809
>concepts are material things

>>15209876
You would be expected to explain why you think it's right. For example, can you explain how philosophy was used to clarify the concept of laminar flow? The reason I think you're wrong is because I know that most reasonable people would agree that the field of philosophy has made zero contributions to the study of laminar flow, so your claim that it has been used in literally all of science has to be false.

>>15209458
neuroscientist here. consciousness isnt real. its the aether of psychology.

>>15209890
Then, "science as a whole". Not maybe the part where you're wiping your ass after taking a crap in the restroom in between lab tests. This is semantics.

>>15209900
>its the aether of psychology.
the aether is real tho, that's how quantum field theory works. Else we'd been unable to 'make,' isolate and track a higgs boson.

>>15209778
>Math is also legitimate and generates objective knowledge. But philosophy never does.
Your personal philosophy on the value of academic discipline has somehow proven to you that only math and science (and whatever else you're interested in you want to add to that list) generate objective truth. If that's genuinely your position then you it should be self evident that this philosophy of yours has led you to the objective truth that math and science are the only academic disciplines capable of giving you the objective truth ergo a philosophy has led you to the objective truth and you haven't even received your bachelor's yet and think you know what philosophy even means.

>>15209938
Nice projection, fucktard. I graduated a long time ago with grades someone like you can only dream of. I also know more philosophy than you ever will, and based on my knowledge of philosophy I can say with certainty that it's all bullshit.

>>15209842
>No. this has nothing to do with the matter.
But it has a lot to do with the mind though :)

>>15209801
>an asserted neural CORRELATE of consciousness
That's not working memory but just as fun. So far there doesn't seem to be an NCC, which is going to bother you, but it could work that way. We've scanned the shit out of the brain at this point, some parts are definitely more involved than others while often not crucial.
Something that fucks with me is that the hemispheres can be separated without severe loss of function. They will process data completely separately, come to different conclusions, and make up bullshit to fill in the blanks when the other one knows and does something it didn't expect. I feel that points to the neural framework being robust, it seamlessly integrates whatever it has, fills in whatever blanks it has and produces the best results it can. And as to the NCC, doesn't exist. It's all of it.
>if YOUR SUBJECTIVE experience and YOU the experiencer himself can be rendered in MY mind and data stream to be experienced and studied scientifically.
Theoretically sure why not. But it's a data stream as large as the internet of entire nations and you don't have an NCC point to plug it in, just all of it. It's the opposite of the brain split if you wire it correctly enough.

>>15209519
>It's all reducible to chemistry. We can be absolutely sure about that

Uh huh.
And how is it exactly that we can be absolutely sure of that?

>consciousness is a chemical reaction
>don't know how it works though
>maybe computers can work just as well as a brain, not now but maybe soon
>our warehouse-sized supercomputer chat model can repeat things up from stack-exchange and wikipedia! (with access to the internet )
>it's almost as smart as this little ant

>>15209733
Pointing out this issues in the materialism framework most scientists assume in their models, which leads them to the hard problem.

>>15210022
Brain IS chemistry. You are entirely chemistry. It explains why you're a brainlet for example.

>>15209661
>but somehow our mind exists outside physical reality LMAO
But the only reason this sounds crazy is because you've defined "physical reality" to be literally everything that exists. You have won by definition. Congratulations.

Of course non-physicalists don't actually believe this, so you're arguing with a strawman. Their conception of non-physicality isn't that something spooky exists outside of it in some spooky mystical sense, but that what we call reality is composed of both physical and non-physical aspects or properties.

>>15210039
>the hard problem
Scientists don't take this seriously. It's a made up problem by and for philosophers

>>15210048
I'll ask again. How do you know?

>>15210022
We took Chris apart and there was nothing else in him. It was all chemistry.

>>15210055
Scientists are the only ones taking it seriously. Schrödinger, Bohm, Wigner, von Neumann, Penrose - the greatest minds of physics recognized its importance. It's a problem of Science and only Science.

>>15210080
Those names are all very far from the greatest minds of physics. You have just cherrypicked the handful of physicists whose names you've seen namedropped by schizo blogs and religious conmen like deepak chopra.
>Scientists are the only ones taking it seriously.
Lol. Delusional

>>15210102
Lol bruh, you got filtered by quantum mechanics. Literally the easiest field of physics and you got filtered by it.

>>15209469
>Go back to your containment board, incel.

Stop projecting your insecurities, anon.

Not only are you here in this thread, but you actually took the time to reply. Pathetic.

>>15210148
I like it when schizos start spouting incoherent nonsense out of the blue

>>15210073
>there was nothing else in him
there was air in him, did you get that out? there were memories. where are they now? in a beaker somewhere?

>>15210190
They're in the beaker where you keep the meds you're supposed to take

>>15209519
>The free will part is currently terrifying me because the more I learn the lesser it seems

If you throw a rubber ball down a hill does it have free will?

Free will requires precognition.

Consciousness it literally an afterthought for us to cope with the fact that we have no actual control over the individual cells in our bodies.

>>15209519
>It's all reducible to chemistry.

Agree, mostly. Chemistry is all reducible to physics. Physics is all reducible to information processing.

So, did we decide to do a thing, or, did our body decide that it needs X element to continue to continue to process information then start producing Y chemical to trigger the Z process in your brain (consciousness).

>>15210190
They're probably still in the blender.

>>15209919
That's not the electromagnetic "aether", dummy.

>>15209661
I am very skeptical of idealism but you are an actual dumb ass if you get think all idealism = dualism.

George Berkeley idealism would say that the universe is 1 mind that is God's and that everything that exists is held together by Him and His observation. The smaller minds of people just exist of God's mind and thus the reason why we have control over our own ideas and dreams but not on the larger external reality that is contingent on God. So in a sense the question of materialism vs idealism is dissolved.

>>15209458
Mind is emergent, read Mario Bunge

>>15209458
What's the mechanism that causes me to exist as myself, and not as someone else?

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

>>15210617
How can mind be "emergent".
There is always this hidden implication in emergent physicalism that implies that you were just waiting it "nothingness" to be spawned at a particular time and then somehow to a promised "oblivion" for "eternity".

If my non-existence wasnt finite. Then its probably not emergent.

>>15210634
Because you were created by a Being dumb fuck stop asking this stupid circular question.

>>15209458
Qualia don't exist. You don't really have any sensations, you just feel like you do.

>>15210651
That doesnt even make sense

>>15210634
All those other people are also you. There's only one universal consciousness

>>15210741
Thats a religion and unsubstantiated.

>>15210783
Is anything substantiated in the field of consciousness? Call my suggestion a hypothesis if you prefer.

>>15210837
Sure but we can use little clues of what we know are most likely true to craft a narrative that is *MOST LIKELY* true.

And one universal conscious is very counterintuitive and often clashes what we perceive and know even to day to day life.

The world for 99% people feels more like something out of their control than anything else. Which seems more like disjointed chaos with apparently laws governing it than anything else.

>>15210741
>All those other people are also you. There's only one universal consciousness
This is in direct contradiction with observable reality.

>>15209604
OK Dennett

>>15209614
What do you think of this argument for why the binding problem is meaningless?

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/11/17/past-philosophizing-on-the-meaningless-binding-problem/

>Even if our model of reality showed that purple circle P and red triangle R depend on a third variable binding B, since we do not have any way to measure B, the query P(R|do(P)) cannot be answered. In that case, it is a waste of time to collect data. Instead, we would need to go back and refine the model, either by adding new scientific knowledge that might allow us to estimate B or by making simplifying assumptions (at the risk of being wrong) – for example, that the effect of B on P is non-existent. In other words that binding doesn’t exist.