/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15235974

Can't test it, can't prove it. Therefore not science, go back to /lit/ or /his/.

Oh fuck off
>Modern idealists and other non-materialists are pathetic. It's like modern christian theologians trying to redefine god into something convenient and meaningless after their faith got destroyed by modern science. Basically X of the gaps shit (X - God, free will, idealism, whatever)
Enough shilling of those ecelebs like Kastrup. Might as well embrace the teachings of Deepak Chopra

>>15235995
>Deepak Chopra
As if he's wrong. Consciousness creates reality.

>>15235974
If your goal is to make thinking simpler and not actually figure out the way things actually work, then why not jump ship into theism? No hard problems whatsoever. Every question is already answered. All problems are solved. Now it's time to stop thinking and start doing what you can to get everyone into heaven or total consciousness or whatever.

>>15235989

There is no experiment to prove a metaphysics like Idealism. The same is true of Materialism.

The value of discussing metaphysics for science is that metaphysics provides the foundation of scientific models. Metaphysics is the philosophical ground of scientific models.

When the philosophical ground of a scientific model is nonsense, you will run into problems like the Hard Problem of Consciousness. There is value for scientists to understand the metaphysics of their models in this sense.

>>15236007
The entire field of modern science is built upon materialism and there's no proof of the non-material. Anything seemingly non-material was just based off the ignorance of the world

>>15236014
>there's no proof of the non-material.
Cute. Try DMT.

>>15236014

Material entities are defined to be quantitative. Everything there is to know about a material entity can be listed in a series of quantities: mass, spin, charge, ..


Consciousness is not quantitative. It is the world qualities. It is right there in front of you to examine, and it is nothing like matter.

>>15236017
Youer drug induced psycosis is not a non-material world

>>15236014
This is false. The birth of modern science was founded on dualism. Mind was bracketed off from the external world. The two were mixed in philosophy before Descartes.

Only much later did "the model of the external world we have created should be able to explain mind," become a thing. Science was in its infancy when Galileo, Descartes, and Newton were writing and still very much suffused with philosophy. "Materialism," couldn't be the foundation of science because the view called "materialism" didn't exist. Only once science had been sufficiently successful at explaining and predicting phenomena, and a model for how the external world behaved, could mind then be laid within that model.

Life as a whole was bracketed off until the success of Darwin's theory. You had all sorts of theories about vital forces.

---

That's the history. From an espitemological view, science is just empiricism. It's a method of developing knowledge, not prescriptions about it. Materialism is an ontology. Anything explained by materialism can also be explained by idealism. "The observations of science are just observations about how mental substance acts."

I don't think idealism vs physicalism is an especially fruitful debate. Reductionism versus holism is the more interesting debate. You can have holistic physicalism and reductionalist idealism.

Questions for physicalists and idealist:

1. Why are phenomena in the world so well predicted by mathematics?

2. Does our sense of reason come from evolution? That is, like the other senses, is it shaped by natural selection? If this is the case, how can we trust in reason, couldn't we be mislead by it? We don't sense the air around us because it doesn't add survival value. Giant Jewel Beetles almost went extinct because males kept trying to make with discarded beer bottles instead of females because their sensory systems told them the two were the same thing. Can reason be effected that way?

3. Isn't trust in reason posterior to trust in mathematics and science? Likewise, is how could to world even be understandable if one thing did not follow (at least probabilistically) from what came before?

4. If the world is rational, and we have the reason to understand that inherit rationality, doesn't that make rationality more universal than the internal/external world division?

5. Why can't the internal world of first person experience and the objective world that different experiencing beings agree upon be a part of a larger whole? Why insist on one subsuming the other?

6. If our goal is ultimate knowledge of the world, shouldn't we care about both and accurate model of the external world and an understanding of how concepts evolve and are understood subjectively and intersubjectivily?

"Red" is certainly something that exists. We all experience it. "Red" has an objective set of properties (wavelengths of light, activation of photoreceptors in the eye) and subjective ones. Both exist in the world. Subjective experience of red causes cars to stop at lights. Both seem relevant.

>>15236034
Yeah, yeah. Try it and let me know.

>>15235974
>Consciousness becomes fundamental to reality, so there is noblonger the hard problem.
There was never problem without childish mysticism holdovers.

>>15236017
>Try a drug that alter your brain chemistry to have psychosis

Lmao, junkies are such funny people, just about everything to justify their use of drugs.

>>15235974
>There is no Hard Problem in Idealism
wrong. the problem just flips.
>What are your objections to Idealism?
it ignores the blatant dependence that the mind has on the brain. hand-waving it away as "just another appearance in consciousness" is lazy and unconvincing. it also implicitly promises some kind of afterlife experience, which i find obnoxious.

Materialists to this day have never come up with a coherent answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.

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

>>15236331
idealism doesn't answer it either.

>>15236331
Stop spamming this question, no one is answering it because it's useless and not profound unless you're like 5

Why not jump ship? What are your objections to Idealism?
Consciousness becomes fundamental to reality, so there is noblonger the hard problem.
> what is the brain and body?
The image of a conscious processes from another conscious perspective. They are essentially icons of your mental activity. Of course then the image of a mental process will correlate with the felt mental activity. Hence neural correlates in most cases with what we experience.
> What is the universe around us?
It is the image of the universal consciousness. An icon representing the mental process of the universal consciousness.
> what is the relation between universal consciousness and our mental process?
Our consciousness is a closed off segment of the universal consciousness. Like a whirlpool of mental activity in an ocean of the universal consciousness.
> Isn't there a hard problem?
No. Consciousness is fundamental. It does not emerge.
> What is physics then?
Useful ideas/fictions that allow us to predict the behavior of nature as represented in our consciousness. Imagine a pilot flying by instrument dashboard. Imagine if he was able to predict how certain instruments on his dashboard behave in a way that allows him to continue flight. The dashboard and its laws are may be useful for flight, but they say nothing about the world outside his airplane.
---
German idealism is fungus.

>>15236087
Idealist.
1.Math and all sciences have as their subject-matter the phenomenal world so it would only be adequate that it is corresponding with our conclusions
2. For us ,as more reason packed animals, it seems like the beetles are being mislead but for them it is clearly reasonable so you can say that it is surely natural selection Humans are easily mislead and trapped daily so it is part of evolution to see past the mirages of the feeling. Reason is everywhere and bound to everything, it is just a matter of time and evolution to have an opportunity to evolve.
3. It is a question like the egg/chicken one. The very ability to separate concepts from the phenomenal is enough proof for reason. Also this question in pointless if everything is reason packed.
4.It does indeed.
5.I think it is just a matter of language and understanding of language. To pass down experience we have to translate it somehow. Some people just forget that we all are interpreting. Also some cant just leave the concept of self to the cavemen that used it as a medium of differencing between their body and others bodies.
6.If the universe is infinite so is knowledge so it is only natural to be impossible to have a uniquely viable world-model. I would say subjective experience is already a compelling factor in reasoning the universe because only sciences that seem reasonable for our subjective experience comes into light. Sometimes pseudosciences break this but it is rather a problem of perspectives, communication and once again putting to o much selfish feelings into a world-model.

>>15236434
Cause it's useless. Even your own consciousness is impossibly hard to study.

Oh I just FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS

Nor is there in materialism, just a number of crypto-idealists smuggling in their wishes via a misinterpretation of their own conscious action guised as some bit of profundity.

>>15236014
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. No, I'm not a non-materialist, but if you're going to invoke science you need to understand the epistemic principles it is based off of.

Science is only one system of knowledge, and while it is the most potent one that we have by far, we are reaching some phenomenon that science does not seem to be equipped to handle. Big exhibit is the hard problem.

>>15236089
Since you're so into psychedelics, you should read Pollan's book This is Your Mind on Plants. There's one small section where he discusses the "noetic problem" with drug experience, but unfortunately he doesn't expound on it.

One effect of these drugs is that they are capable of inducing a sense epiphany and revelation. In other words, whether or not what has been seen is true, these drugs certainly have a strong tendency to convince the experiencer that what they have seen is true.

Memory cannot be trusted for objective evidence, neither can perception. And yet, you trust your memory and perception of a massive overload of sensory input induced by a drug to reveal to you eternal truth?

Perhaps you just experienced a hallucination that was extremely convincing, and that there is nothing more to it. And no, I'm not anti-psychs, but you need to seriously consider the idea that you may just be victim to a noetic hallucination that has implanted in you the idea that what you saw has some higher meaning or bearing on truth.

>>15235974
>There is no Hard Problem in Idealism
that is true
>Why not jump ship? What are your objections to Idealism?
it doesn't adequately explain the persistence and shared experience of various objects (you have to resort to ad hoc explanations to do so), and it's not as good an explanation for neural correlates of consciousness (yes, you can claim that brain damage reflects something that happens in the purely cognitive process, but this doesn't seem as reasonable)
>Consciousness is fundamental. It does not emerge.
also, this is a false dichotomy
you can have e.g. dualist models where both consciousness and matter exist without consciousness being more fundamental than matter, but without the former "emerging" from the latter
ultimately you're just speculating, but it seems like an inferior explanation

>>15236089
I've done DMT and other psychedelics more than you ever will, and I agree with them
now what?
>>15236984
correct, very well put

>>15236984
Plant based psychoactive compounds reveal that consciousness is light flowing within matter acting as a waveguide to mediate photonic holography of the internal self. These internal holograms morphologically represent the structure of the mind, and reveal the function of the mind to act as a mediation between a virtual holographic hyperspace of electron wave patterns vibrating within the structural formation of the chemical body, and the active process of the underlying chemical bonding substrate morphing itself into the shape of these electronic computations into hard storage in the form of molecular constructs which are the substrate of the computational data. Most humans live in that dark so to speak, but these psychoactive compounds release solar energy that the plants have absorbed and transformed into psychoactive compounds, and that light shines through the entire mind and body as it is too low frequency to escape the skull due to its property of total internal refraction of EM energy below a certain frequency. The brainwave is the combination of all electron vibrations causing fluctuations within the magnetic field of all atomic matter added together, which as you know when you add together many small frequencies, you build a more complex wave of lower frequency. The brainwave seems low frequency, but in reality it holds all the combined resonance of each of these high frequency atomic and molecular vibratory modes, and the net result is a field of magnetic energy whose shape represents the entire informational content of the mind flowing through space.
Normally this field is invisible to the ego, but the psychoactive compounds alter the fundamental frequency of the synaptic interactions and create bond reactions which emit wavelengths which are visible to the conscious being. Visibility in this case indicates a morphological alteration to the bonds between atoms and molecules in the brain, which is why these compounds promote neuroplasticity.

>>15235974
> what is the brain?
the brain is a parasite

>>15237248
uh oh, looks like someone found the new age bullshit generator
reionize electrons, quickly

>>15236507
Math is a trap and you will never get out from the matrix

>>15237181
>yes, you can claim that brain damage reflects something that happens in the purely cognitive process, but this doesn't seem as reasonable)

Why? If you interfere with a mental process, the icon representing that mental process should change to reflect the new experience. What is unreasonable about that?

>>15237272
it's totally unreasonable compared to the alternative, especially considering the wide range of different ways such interferences can occur, yet all lead to the same end result if the same parts of the brain is damaged, not at all what you'd expect under idealism

>>15237254
Language is a descriptive process, but doesn't concretely represent the actual phenomena involved. I use language is this way to convey my best idea as to what consciousness might be, and to potentially elicit some kind of constructive response. You don't seem to have the intelligence to understand what I'm really saying, so you weren't able to respond with any direct criticism other than an ad hominem.
What do you think of the idea that consciousness is light that is bouncing within molecules and atoms, but without the intensity to pass beyond the orbital shells of atoms except under certain circumstances? If light is absorbed by an electron, the electron bounces up to a higher shell, then falls down and releases the photon. But what if there was a light that effected the electronic vibration and moved it in coherent resonance with other atoms and molecules? Something like a magnetic field, hmm. Cellular brain activity sure seems to make those for some reason.
Is it really so strange to think that this magnetic field is some kind of holographic representation of cellular activity, and perhaps even a virtual computer? What I mean by virtual computer, is that the electrons represent an actual computational process in the atomic and molecular fields, but this magnetic field is a totally nonphysical representation of all these physical atomic vibrations. I believe this virtual field of magnetic information is in fact itself a fully capable quantum computer hosted on a biological substrate. This field oscillates and is both directed by the motion of atoms, and itself transforms and modifies the motions of those very same atoms. The polarization of the field is the sum total of all the molecular bonds vibrating in all their orientations. Normally the field is resonating within a partially fixed structure, mediated by the interactions of data between the senses and cellular metabolic processes.

>>15237257
>never get out from the matrix
eventually you will move to the tensor ackshully

>>15237290
yes, I can press the "reionize electrons" button of the new age bullshit generator too
fun app

>>15237293
I'd say the psychadelic basically breaks bonds between existing molecules and forms new bonds, and this bond energy is what produces the phosphorescent internal glow that psychadelic users normally experience.
Most internal consciousness is dark, due to the fact that the brain isn't expending energy to change its molecular geometric morphology. Under certain circumstances, such as dreaming, or drugs, the brain is undergoing a process of altering the molecular structure inside its cells, which causes the emission of photons, which are subjectively witnessed as internal experience of consciousness.
Consciousness is not separate from any normal physical processes, I don't think any materialist could dispute this. I think what makes people unique, is that our brain and body create a shell of information which is shielded from the outside world, which is only communicated to other conscious beings by senses and actions. If one were the consciousness out outside their own body, they could see all the consciousness of existence, but because the external substrate does not have properties that allow it to quickly adapt its own structure to represent the evolution of its own thought, like rocks, it doesn't appear to have any sort of life. Other life forms on the other hand, have the chemical properties which are responsive to their own internal magnetic field, which enables the capacity to move and evolve in conjunction with their environment.
Plants mostly just absorb solar energy and store it, but animals can consume this solar energy by eating stuff, and we have more agency in our ability to purpose it to create novel molecular and cellular geometric arrangements in our brains and bodies, and are able to communicate this process to other people.
But as I say, language is a poor medium to transmit the processes of life from one being to another, so its unlikely that there will ever be a fully satisfactory verbal description of consciousness.

>>15237305
keep pressing "ionize electrons", anon
enjoy the fun of the new age bullshit generator

>>15237290
casting pearls before swine ......

>>15237361
more like casting sacks of garbage before people intelligent enough to recognize it for the bullshit it is

>>15237248
>>15237290
>>15237305
meds, now

>>15237182
>I've done DMT and other psychedelics more than you ever will, and I agree with them
>now what?
Ask me how I know you never broke through.

>>15236984
Perhaps you should do 3 hits of DMT and let me know once the shock of divine revelation fades away, how much of an arrogant, self-important know-it-all you are.

>>15237577
I did, multiple times
like I said, I've done DMT and other psychedelics more than you ever will
still agree with them completely, it's just your neural networks firing in ways they're not meant at all temporarily, making you hallucinate vividly
that in and of itself is obviously extremely interesting, especially neuroscientifically, but your religious mumbo-jumbo about it makes it clear that you don't understand it at all

>>15237582
>I did, multiple times
No you didn't, otherwise you would understand what I'm saying. You're acting like an arrogant asshole, which is a dead giveaway that you don't know shit and you're compensating by pretending how you've got it all figured out. Nobody in the world exists who's had a breakthrough type experience and wasn't humbled down to the size of a pebble by it. Your ego is just exploding, fuming, telling me how much you know. This is how I know you don't know.

>like I said, I've done DMT and other psychedelics more than you ever will
Irrelevant, this is not a contest. Once is enough, provided you have a breakthrough type of experience which clearly you never encountered.

>still agree with them completely, it's just your neural networks firing in ways they're not meant at all temporarily, making you hallucinate vividly
Arrogance and self-importance talking.

>that in and of itself is obviously extremely interesting, especially neuroscientifically, but your religious mumbo-jumbo about it makes it clear that you don't understand it at all
Yeah, yeah. More self-important fuming. Let me know when you have a true mystical experience. Suddenly you won't be in the mood to pretend to know everything about reality.

>>15237605
yes, I did
your attempt at trying to deny that so you can prop up your own misinterpretation of your own hallucinations is nothing short of hilarious
it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, you're not the first one to misinterpret the vivid hallucinations and, like the other anon correctly pointed out, the "sense of epiphany and revelation" that typically accompanies those hallucinations and changes in neurochemistry, but your inability to understand that is your own problem, not mine
>You're acting like an arrogant asshole, which is a dead giveaway that you don't know shit and you're compensating by pretending how you've got it all figured out.
imagine projecting this hard and not being aware of it in the slightest
I could literally project an image on the face of the moon with that projective power
typical of psychedelic abusers who don't understand what actually causes the experience and what it means
many such cases, sad
>Nobody in the world exists who's had a breakthrough type experience and wasn't humbled down to the size of a pebble by it.
myriad such people exist, namely everyone who understand what actually causes such experiences and what it means for the relationship between the brain and consciousness
anyone who reveres the experience like you do have zero clue at all what you're talking about
very common
>Irrelevant, this is not a contest.
definitely relevant, I'm simply far more experience than you are, and what I'm saying has much more weight to it than your religious gobbledygook
>Let me know when you have a true mystical experience.
there's no such thing, that's the exact misinterpretation that weak-minded people like you interpret breakthrough experiences as
all it betrays is a total lack of understanding about neuroscience and the relationship between the brain and consciousness

>>15237605
>y-you didn't do it right
cope. your bullshit mystical navel-gazing is your own issue, not something the drug brings out.

>>15237621
We can go back and forth with this all day but it's a waste of time. I've met people like you before.

There's only 3 possibilities for the way you're acting, none of which appeal to me.

a) Even though you did many psychedelics, you never had a breakthrough experience. This to me is the most plausible explanation.
b) Your ego has built an impenetrable fortress of self-defense mechanisms, because this was preferable to opening up to the void of the unknown. This is the second most likely.
c) You're an NPC. Unlikely as it assumes NPCs exist.

Or perhaps you're simply too stupid to get that the reality we know of, is a tiny, borderline insignificant little speck of dust compared to what reality is actually capable of.

So, keep believing your bullshit I guess. Deja vu.

>>15237625
Yeah and I suppose the universe is here purely by random chance, and when you die your consciousness just shuts off forever as if in deep sleep.

You nominalist types are so cute.

>>15237632
>the universe is here purely by random chance
nope.
>when you die your consciousness just shuts off forever as if in deep sleep.
the most likely scenario, yes. since all evidence suggests consciousness requires a live brain.

>>15237625
I've seen so many cases of people like them, it's rather sad
>>15237630
trust me, I'm the one who has met countless people like you before
the correct explanation is one you're not listing:
>d) the breakthrough experience is just a highly altered state of neurochemistry accompanied by vivid hallucinations and the aforementioned "sense of epiphany and revelation", and you are desperately clinging to some mystical and religious mumbo-jumbo instead of looking at it rationally
ironically you're the one who has constructed this impenetrable ego around this clinging to what you think is a "mystical experience"
it's really nothing new, it's how all religious people think as well, "well this is strange, let's not try to explain it rationally, let's just say it's some higher power or something that we can't understand and just submit ourselves to it and make it our object of worship"
that really does sum up people like you, you literally worship psychedelic drugs as if they were some sort of deity instead of simply looking rationally at the neuroscience and neurochemistry of it all
nothing new here, I guess
water is wet, grass is green, sky still blue

>>15235974
>What are your objections to Idealism?
It's just cringe metaphysics with zero scientific or explanatory value. It also has zero spiritual value, because this kind of intellectualization is always a symptom of narcissism and narcissistic spirituality is a farce.

>>15237632
lmao, so that's what this is all about, you this afraid of death
well, no wonder you're engaging in all this religious and mystical mumbo-jumbo
fact is that you will die
your brain will cease it's biological functions, and that's it for your consciousness, permanent oblivion ensues
yes, it can be uncomfortable to come to terms with at first, but nothing is more sad than someone clinging to wild delusions to cope with it

>>15237641
i've seen so many cases of people like you, it's sadder still.

>>15237630
different anon here. What exactly do you think happens at as a result of what you say is a breakthrough experience? I am curious as your attachment to the dmt experience seems to entirely based off perceived cultural expectations. The Yanomami regularly insufflate yopo seed powder(contains dmt) and I wouldn't by any means call them an enlightened group of people (and I say that with as much generosity as possible with a background in anthropology)

>>15237647
not true at all, the vast majority of people using large doses of psychedelics are like you, not like me
another fail on your part
>>15237648
oh man, I wouldn't go there if I were you
you're going to have a hard time to pry any real truth about it from all their psychological defense mechanisms
but clearly, as a few posts above indicates, their fear of death has something to do with it

>>15237641
I don't worship psychedelic drugs, you do. You're the one bragging how you've had a million of them. I've had a handful. But obviously I extracted more from mine than you ever did from yours.

You clearly don't know who you are. You believe you're a meat bag, walking around in an indifferent universe, awaiting your final doom where you expect to be swallowed up by the oblivion never to be seen again.

You don't know shit my naive little anon. But feel free to keep strutting about.

>>15237648
What happens is you leave your body behind and you experience your true nature. Anything said past this is bullshit because the experience cannot be encapsulated by our language.

>>15237652
>i'm rare and special, only we few see the truth

>>15237653
>I don't worship psychedelic drugs, you do.
you very clearly do, elevating hallucinations and altered brain chemistry to something "mystical"
literally exactly how religious thinking and worship works
very obvious
>You're the one bragging how you've had a million of them.
yes, to me it's just an experience, that's it
zero worship at all
it's certainly an interesting experience, and tells us a lot about the relationship between the brain and consciousness, but there's nothing "mystical" about it whatsoever
>But obviously I extracted more from mine than you ever did from yours.
all you've extracted are some severe delusions with zero basis in reality, apparently
>You clearly don't know who you are.
other way around, you clearly have zero idea who or what you are, as is the case with all people engaging in wishful religious thought patterns
>You believe you're a meat bag, walking around in an indifferent universe, awaiting your final doom where you expect to be swallowed up by the oblivion never to be seen again.
that's one way to look at it, but that's again a very stupid projection by someone who wants to make the truth of the matter seem like something "bad", so that they can keep clinging to their delusions
but yes, the universe is totally indifferent to your existence, that is a fact, and can be readily seen in e.g. animals getting ripped to shreds while still alive by the billions on a regular basis, as well as untold amounts of suffering and torture brought about by humans themselves as well
you simply desperately want there to be something more, like all religious buffoons, engaging in any wild delusions you can get your hands on in that pursuit, and of course something as powerful as a psychedelic experience is the ultimate tool of deluding yourself in that regard
you should try to enjoy your time as much as you can until you die, because that's it, your consciousness will not somehow survive that in whatever religious delusional manner you think

>>15237659
hey, that sums up pretty much exactly what you've been saying all this time, doesn't it?
it's fun how projection works, especially projections that are this strong and hilariously obvious to everyone except the one who is projecting
>>15237657
>What happens is you leave your body behind and you experience your true nature.
imagine trying so desperately to delude yourself into thinking something like this
some people just can't cope with death, I guess

>>15237668
You say all this without ever once considering your physicalist anchor is in itself a delusion. You cling onto rationality like a baby clings onto a breast.

>the universe is totally indifferent to your existence
Cute. Maybe you'll get it in the next few cycles of samsara. ;-)

>>15237673
trust me, I've considered all of this orders of magnitude more than you ever will
I'm just remaining rational and not deluding myself like you are
it's pretty hilarious and telling when you try to attack reason itself, that's pretty much when you know that someone is no longer thinking clearly, but engaging in wild religious delusions
>Cute. Maybe you'll get it in the next few cycles of samsara.
cute religious gobbledygook, but the references to Buddhist gobbledygook is a bit trite, why not make references to some other mythological gobbledygook instead when there's so much to choose from?

>>15237677
We trust you oh great ego, you are all-knowing and wise. Tell us exactly how it is for you are truly king of all there is and by far the most important.

>>15237642
this. idealism is mental masturbation

>>15237681
more hilarious projections from the humongous religious delusional ego in the room
again, you could easily project an image onto the face of the moon with that much projective power

>>15237673
>the universe loves and cares about me!
who is the one clinging to their ego, again?

>>15237683
When you rationally explain the hard problem of qualia let me know. It's one of the clues that your precious rationality can't reach very far.

The other clue is the next time you feel fear, try to think it away with rational means. See how well that works.

I won't bother you anymore as this convo is a waste of time for both of us.

>>15237691
Being obnoxious and acting like a child is unimpressive to me. At least the other anon engages in thoughtful discourse, you're just here to sling shit around. Maybe try /b/ for that.

>>15237694
Your mistake is believing that it's a real problem in the first place. It's no harder of a problem than heat emanating from a lightbulb

>>15237701
>i have no qualia

>>15237691
right?
it's pretty hilarious how they don't see it
and when you point out the literally incomprehensible amount of suffering that exists you get radio silence, or some gobbledygook about bad karma from previous lives
>so, if the universe isn't indifferent, why did that little girl get brutally raped, tortured, and murdered?
>"uh...look bro, she obviously had bad karma from her past life, she deserved it bro, trust me bro"
it's really quite despicable when you think about it
>>15237694
oh, look, the religious gobbledygook of the gaps, where have I seen that before?
yes, the hard problem of consciousness is indeed beyond our understanding as of now, that's true
that is however not a license to fill the void with your religious delusions
fact is that we have a very good understanding of neuroscience and psychology, and of the relationship between the brain and consciousness
also, thinking away fear is extremely easy, people do that all the time, because humans are left with a lot of irrational fears from a time when our brains needed to react with fear to certain stimuli
it's quite hilarious that you don't know or understand this
of course, you never want to do that with rational fear, because that exists for a reason still, which is precisely to get you to react before thinking when e.g. your life is truly in danger
>I won't bother you anymore as this convo is a waste of time for both of us.
you're not bothering me at all, I'm not even breaking a sweat, I'm very used to dealing with religious buffoons on a daily basis, I deal with swarms of them all the time
this isn't a waste of time for me at all, so speak for yourself
however, hopefully some reason inevitably seeps into your mind by osmosis, making it worthwhile for you even if you can't get yourself to acknowledge that yet due to your humongous religious delusional ego fortress

>>15237705
>I am a special immortal incorporeal soul

>>15237709
You can keep lashing out at imaginary boogeymen, but most people are already settled on the idea that you are not fully human and can't be part of any prosperous human society.

>>15237694
>a waste of time
what else do you have lined up realistically, though? you going to church buddy? that sort of bullshit is probably your idea of time well spent i reckon

>>15237721
he's busy chanting the name of his holy molecules and praying to them for eternal life

>>15237708
>it's really quite despicable when you think about it
yep, it's utterly reprehensible. i would pity them, but the way they gloss over suffering in that way makes that very difficult.

>>15235974
So VJM is right then https://www.bitchute.com/video/QydB9cEZqurw/

>>15237708
>that is however not a license to fill the void with your religious delusions
It's also not a license for you to dismiss any metaphysical position. You're full of hubris and acting like you know it all.

>>15237721
I don't go to Church, nor am I religious. I would describe myself as a pantheist or an idealist. I believe the ultimate constituent of reality is consciousness.

>>15237746
So you're religious and superstitious then, nothing changes that even if you insert Deepak Chopra esque shit about quantum physics

>>15237652
>oh man, I wouldn't go there if I were you
I can't help it. This topic is interesting on so many levels to me, the least of which isn't that fact that I am high as balls currently as I just restarted my LSD 50ug/twice daily cycle up.

>>15237746
consciousness outside the brain is equally as evidenced as 'god'. there are no signs to support either

>>15237764
The kingdom of God comes without signs to be perceived.

>>15237766
meaning: belief in it is unreasonable.

>>15237770
Reality is unreasonable. You're just clinging onto reason because without it, your world falls apart.

>>15237746
>You're full of hubris and acting like you know it all.

>>15237772
>Reality is unreasonable.
clearly not true at all, only a religious buffoon would say something that stupid to cling to their religious delusions

>>15237772
reality is observable, that's kind of the crucial difference maker

>>15237774
It's easy to find that flaw in me, can you find it in you?

>>15237776
Oh? Then why does it exist? If logic was the end-all be-all, why isn't there just empty nothing, extending forever? Why all this effort and all this interplay of energy? To what end, so we could argue here on 4chong until our faces turn green?

>>15237781
Let me know when you observe dark matter, you know, the vast majority of reality that is unobservable. Also let me know when you can observe my emotion directly.

>>15237790
i'm observing your frustration right now

>>15237790
>It's easy to find that flaw in me, can you find it in you?
endless deflection and projection
your humongous religious delusional ego fortress sure is imprenetrable
>>15237790
we don't know why reality exists yet, but it's clearly possible to reason about reality, as with any structure
hence reality is reasonable
oops
I guess that's not what your religious delusional mind wants to hear
it's also funny how you keep trying the gobbledygook of the gaps argument, appealing to certain questions we don't fully understand yet and trying to fill those spaces with religious delusions
cute
>until our faces turn green
like I said earlier, I'm not even breaking a sweat
in fact, religious fanatics tend to humor me more than anything, as long as they're of the nonviolent kind who is happy to just be delusional
no, the only risk I face would be getting bored, but certainly no emotional agitation whatsoever

>>15237790
>dark matter
aww, how cute, now the religious fanatic goes for physics
big mistake, buddy
fact is that "dark matter" is an invention to try to explain the rotation curves of galaxies
it's terrible hypothesis, as such rotation curves can be explained in much better ways
it's just a symptom of trying to preserve the standard model
ironically, this clinging to scientific models that are outdated and clearly wrong isn't far from the delusional religious clinging you're engaging in

>>15237796
>endless deflection and projection
Same as yourself. But again you're so externalized you don't even notice you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of.

>we don't know why reality exists yet
Yet, implying we will someday? How do you see that happening, exactly? We'll just reason ourselves into being god? Good luck with that, lol.

>it's also funny how you keep trying the gobbledygook of the gaps argument
It's funny to me how you try to reduce a metaphysical position into something you can make fun of, proceed to make fun of it, and then expect me to retort seriously.

>appealing to certain questions we don't fully understand yet
There's that word again. I really do wonder how you expect this to play out. You think 10000 years from now we'll reason ourselves into a position where we understand how the universe came to be? How pompous.

>>15237804
>Same as yourself.
wrong, and it's hilarious that you don't realize that you're still deflecting
>"oh look, you're projecting"
>"NO U"
truly amusing
>Yet, implying we will someday?
of course, unless humanity goes extinct as a species before that time
>How do you see that happening, exactly?
if we knew that we'd already know it
that's the thing with unanswered questions, you don't know the answer until you find it
>We'll just reason ourselves into being god?
hilarious religious mindset at work
only a religious fanatic would think the ability to explain why reality exist means you would have to be some sort of deity
another chuckle for me
>how you try to reduce a metaphysical position into something you can make fun of
it's not something I "try", your "metaphysical position", which is delusional religious nonsense, is tailor-made for being made fun of due to how far removed from reality it is
>then expect me to retort seriously
lmao, do you really imagine that's what I do?
of course I don't expect a delusional religious buffoon to say anything of value
this is primarily entertainment for me at this point
>You think 10000 years from now we'll reason ourselves into a position where we understand how the universe came to be?
possibly long before that
fact is that reality is clearly reasonable, it's obviously structured in various ways, so finding the reason why it exists is only a matter of time
only a religious cuckoo-head tries to take the gobbledygook of the gaps route and fill any unanswered question with their delusional nonsense

>>15237804
>you have to be god to understand why reality exists
proof?

>>15237812
exactly
these religious fanatics aren't even aware of just how fallacious their thought processes have become by engaging in their craziness

>these religious fanatics aren't even aware of just how fallacious their thought processes have become by engaging in their craziness

>>15237818
aww, cute, trying to evade getting a reply by omitting my post
also amusing projection of your own seething and frothing, there

>>15237811
So you believe in rationality of the gaps and fail to see the irony of accusinng me of the god of gaps fallacy. Now that's some prime comedy right there.

>aww, cute, trying to evade getting a reply
Materialism sure is a clinical mental illness.

>>15237822
lmao, imagine projecting this hard
a term like "rationality of the gaps" when confronted with their own religious nonsense to fill gaps
see, the thing is, the gaps are precisely called gaps for a reason
that reason is that they're gaps in our understanding, whereas the rest is things we have already figured out
we clearly observe that reality is reasonable, and we clearly have managed to explain the vast majority of what we perceive through reason, and so it's completely natural and reasonable to conclude that we'll be able to explain those gaps eventually do, particularly when you consider how many such gaps that used to be there that we've already filled in with reasonable understandings and explanations
so no, there's no irony there, the only irony is you trying to project the gobbledygook of the gaps back because you don't like being confronted with the fact that you're engaging in religious delusions
>Now that's some prime comedy right there.
these jokes really write themselves
as if you couldn't project harder, now you're trying to deflect from the fact that I've been making fun of you and use you for entertainment
you must really be seething pretty hard right now
>>15237827
and again
hilarious
keep trying

>>15235974
>universal consciousness
How do universal consciousness idealists reconcile images of other similar, apparently conscious, beings with their guaranteed conscious perspective?

The way I see it is:
> the Transient perspective: I am conscious and the universe extends as far as my perceptions. I remember the other beings that I see and I may revisit them from their perspective later, or they may not be revisited and are essentially incidental philosophical zombies
or
> the Isolated perspective: I am one facet of the universal consciousness, and there are other facets corresponding to the other beings' perspectives. I can't directly experience their perspectives despite there being a continuous consciousness shared between us. This may also apply to any number of apparently non-conscious perspectives like bugs, animals, rocks, planets, the entire observable universe, etc

>>15237838
>apparently non-conscious perspectives like bugs, animals
as far as our best understanding of the relationship between neural structures and consciousness goes, all arthropods are conscious, as are all vertebrates and all cephalopods

>and again
>hilarious
>keep trying
This animal is just losing its mind with rage.

>>15237844
lmao
three posts of projecting your own seething and frothing
still hilarious
keep trying

>lmao
>three posts of projecting your own seething and frothing
>still hilarious
>keep trying
Notice how the animal just can't help itself. It NEEDS to respond.

>>15237847
four posts of projecting fuming rage
>NEEDS to respond
hey, that sounds like a certain someone who is clearly seething pretty hard right now...
thanks for the laugh
kepe trying

>>15237830
Yeah, yeah. Maybe if you believe in rationality hard enough you'll figure out the meaning of life.

>>15237853
that's not how reason works
it's not something you believe in, it's something you use to figure other things out
you figure out metaphysical truths about reality by reasoning about them, not about worshiping the method itself
only a religious fanatic who loves to worship their own delusions thinks that way

>four posts of projecting fuming rage
>>NEEDS to respond
>hey, that sounds like a certain someone who is clearly seething pretty hard right now...
>thanks for the laugh
>kepe trying

>>15237853
well hey, it's a better shot than praying and dancing to skydaddy

>>15237858
five posts of uncontrollable anger
more laughs for me
keep trying

>that's not how reason works
>it's not something you believe in, it's something you use to figure other things out
>you figure out metaphysical truths about reality by reasoning about them, not about worshiping the method itself
>only a religious fanatic who loves to worship their own delusions thinks that way

>>15237859
exactly
>a) use the method that has successfully been used to explain almost everything, and which clearly applies to reality
>b) cling to delusion with zero basis in reality and hope that it will magically provide you with answers
when you see it for what it is, it's really mind-boggling just how mentally ill religious fanatics are
>>15237861
correct on every single statement
oh, right, that's what I already said

>>>15237859
>exactly
>>a) use the method that has successfully been used to explain almost everything, and which clearly applies to reality
>>b) cling to delusion with zero basis in reality and hope that it will magically provide you with answers
>when you see it for what it is, it's really mind-boggling just how mentally ill religious fanatics are
>>>15237861 (You)
>correct on every single statement
>oh, right, that's what I already said

>>15237870
more seething
keep trying

>more seething
>keep trying

>>15237877
froth harder

>froth harder

>>15237882
keep raging

>keep raging
It just keeps replying like clockwork. I am now hiding this thread but it will reply again. These things are legit nonhuman. lol

>>15237894
>keeps replying like clockwork
hey, that sounds familiar
keep fuming

Sure seems like there is intelligent argument going on here.

>>15237905
if you scroll far enough up, there was some
then it devolved into pretty much everyone laughing at a delusional religious fanatic and their hallucination worship, and in the end at that fuming rager you see the image posts of above
quite amusing

>>15237915
You are at least as retarded as he is judging by your replies.

>>15237919
lmao, I can't believe it
the delusional religious simpleton returns with glasses and a fake moustache
>"oh hello there, fellow scientists! hey, please don't laugh at the village idiot..."

>>15237924
I am neither the soijak poster nor >>15237905. Unironically take your meds.

>>15237843
Since this is an idealist thread, and assuming idealists are correct (probably no way of knowing), all perceptions don't have to follow any rules or patterns inherently. So, perceiving what appears to be something similar to what I am, that might be conscious, doesn't mean that thing is conscious or not. And similarly, something dissimilar to me doesn't mean that thing is conscious or not

Assuming physicalism and materialism especially are true, then consciousness is a product of particular physical processes within neural structures as you said. But the perceived world, from an idealist perspective, explicitly doesn't follow materialist rules

>>15237927
>"hello there, I am certainly and most definitely not the religious retard, but please stop laughing at them!"
literally weakest samefagging I've seen in my entire life
absolutely hilarious

>>15237930
Meds.

>>15237929
you said "apparently non-conscious perspectives"
that isn't the case for the animals I mentioned, because they are "apparently conscious perspectives"

>>15237935
imagine getting called out this hard
that disguise didn't pan out very well, did it?
keep seething

>>15237938
Imagine being actually insane.

>>15237942
literally frothing at the mouth like a rabidly religious dog

>>15237947
I'm not religious. Why are you so mad?

>>15237948
not fooling anyone
>"oh hey, no no, I definitely do not possess the qualities of that other person over there, that's certainly not me at all!"
hilarious
going for a razzie I see

>>15237950
My only post ITT (besides the ones remarking on how you keep chimping out and shitting up the thread) was a criticism of idealism. Are you sure you're ok?

>>15237950
yes, certainly, you are clearly a new and very different person, we get it
definitely not the same person at all, as you very convincingly make it clear by vocally disidentifying with their characteristic traits
flawless performance
>chimping out
that's cute
keep seething and projecting it onto others

>>15237956
Pretty sure that's the same chimp who insists everyone else is a secret idealist, so you should prepare for that lol

>>15237960
impressive samefagging
very nice

>>15237960
Do you keep a catalogue of /sci/ mental patients?

>>15237962
Enjoy being insane.

>>15237968
keep frothing at the mouth

I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS

>33 posters
>145 posts
materialism is a mental illness

>>15237975
I agree, fellow CONSCIOUSNESS LOVER

>>15237978
keep frothing at the mouth

ITT consciousness arguing with itself

>>15237985
Why would it do that?
It seems such a waste of time for consciousness to have these meaningless arguments, especially when they devolve into monkeys flinging feces at one another.

>>15237985
Nice quote. I wonder what it says about "people" who look at the world and see a huge collection of meaningless little nothings following a set of predictable and mechanistic laws. :^)

>>15237992
>:^)
lmao, I recognize this seething retard

>>15237988
Because everything is consciousness

Imagine shitting out dozens of posts obssively telling other people how mad they are.

>>15238000
>"I'm totally going to hide this thread now!"
oh, look who's "back" (aka been here all along)
hilarious
endless rage

>>15238017
See >>15238000

>>15238021
still raging
it never ends, does it?
keep trying

>>15236014
>the entire field of modern science is built upon materialism

Yeah but then once you look close enough, materialism falls apart. There are no "grains" of reality, no fundamental particles. Everything is just perturbation of a quantum medium. What we take as material is just a brief consensus of probabilities.

Like Newtonian physics, materialiam got us just far enough to realize that it isn't a complete model.

>>15237998
Well, but why does it do it?

>>15236014
>The entire field of modern science is built upon materialism
Science proper doesn't care about your dronelike metaphysical faith in any way.

>>15238069
Materialism isn't atomism, though. The underlying quantum field is what science regards as ultimately being material. It's not probabilistic, that's a common misconception, as Nima explains here:
https://youtu.be/GpnLMaWylp4

>>15238076
Materialism isn't anything. Your metaphysical dogma died 100 years ago.

>>15238083
Materialism is alive and well. The quantum field is material.

>>15238086
You are mentally ill.

>>15238089
It's quite literally a fundamental material substance that is waving. Not that hard to understand.

>>15238076
My bad, I'm looking at a different. definition of materialism.

If you're considering consciousness as wholly rising from the material properties of a brain, where do you think experiences that occur when there is no measurable brain activity come from? Things like experiences while under anesthesia or near death experiences?

Also, if consciousness arises from material properties in the brain, I would point out that the brain's method of intracommunication is largely electric, which includes an extended field.

Is the electric action what causes consciousness is a brain? If so, does that imply a computer or a piece of metal or semiconductor that isn't in thermal equilibrium is also conscious?

And if electrical activity in the brain is not the root of materialistic consciousness, then what mechanism do you propose creates it?

>>15238094
>If you're considering consciousness as wholly rising from the material properties of a brain, where do you think experiences that occur when there is no measurable brain activity come from? Things like experiences while under anesthesia or near death experiences?
When you're under anesthesia your brain is still active. Anesthetics aren't perfect, sometimes they don't do their job correctly, that can happen for a number of reason, and the person retains some level of consciousness, even if only dreaming. The same is true for near-death experiences, there's still brain activity in those cases.
>Is the electric action what causes consciousness is a brain? If so, does that imply a computer or a piece of metal or semiconductor that isn't in thermal equilibrium is also conscious?
We don't know exactly what causes consciousness, but we're getting closer and closer to finding it out. It certainly has to do with specific patterns of electrical activity in particular neural structures. As for whether or not a computer could be conscious or not, that depends on details we still haven't figured out. If it's simply a matter of a specific structure of classical computing, then a classical computer could indeed be made conscious. If there are quantum effects involved, like suggested by e.g. Penrose and Hameroff, then perhaps a quantum computer would be necessary to achieve it.

>>15238076
Kek, consciousnesstards should make sure to watch the last 10 seconds

>>15236017
Go back to Plebbbit you fucking retard

>>15236161
Tesla wasn't a scientist

>>15238116
He really destroys a lot of common talking points made by people who don't understand quantum physics that well and try to use it to advocate for their pet theories, that's for sure.

>>15238069
>Everything is just perturbation of a quantum medium
quantum mechanics is going to be replaced.

>>15238119
>GO BACK TO PLEBBBIT YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>15238102
>The same is true for near-death experiences, there's still brain activity in those cases.

There is not research to support the presence of brain activity in all cases of NDE. In fact, Greyson performed some research where he hooked cardiac arrest patients up to an EEG and foudn that patients with zero measureable electrical activity claimed to have conscious experience.

I'm not going to go so far as to say you're wrong, but I will say that your statement has some holes according to published research. I tried to find a link to the article that wasn't behind a paywall and this was the best I could find. It may be behind a paywall as well and I might just be getting around it with my Uni's VPN.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.00736/full

Whether you can read it or not, thanks for trying to have a civil discussion about it. That's often missing in these threads.

>>15238122
And DMT destroys your precious quantum physics like it was nothing.

>>15238146

There is also the fact that in the psychedelic state, brain activity only goes does while subjects have unfathomably rich conscious experiences.

If the brain generates consciousness, how can strictly a reduction in activity lead to more complex experience? Clearly, the theory that the brain generates consciousness does not make sense with this result.

wow I just had the most liquid shit imaginable. It just dropped right out of my ass

>>15238161
That is all the proof right there that confirms idealism. But it's no use arguing against physicalists with reductionist mindset. Just give them DMT and let them cry themselves in the corner once they realize how fucking dumb they are.

>>15238093
What makes a substance "material" as opposed to "non-material"? Ooga booga. Chant for me, religitard.

>>15238172
>>15238161
Lol ive seen threads about this "proof" spammed before. Go back to /x/ kastruptards

>>15238183
Come back here when you have an actual way to disprove our argument. Pro tip: you don't.

>>15238189
I don't have to. Preposterous, unscientific bullshit deserves no serious engagement, only mockery. It worked on creationism which is no longer taken seriously by the people in charge.

>>15238171
then I licked it all up yum

>>15238193
It is mockery in the same way mocking someone who believe in round earth 3000 years ago was mockery. It's just your ignorance, amplified by your hubris. As such, all your so-called mockery is irrelevant and childish.

>>15235974
OP, are you the same kook that used to spam threads like this, angrily ranting at the "subhumans" and "rats" that disagreed with your rejection of materialism and determinism? Or are you a different kook?

>>15238208
I'm pretty civil, so no.

Also, why am I a kook for suggesting that the only thing we can ever know directly is the foundation of reality?

Isn't the one who suggests unknowable entities more of a schizo or kook?

You have it backwards. I'm sticking to the only fact of existence.

>>15238336
you don't know what the foundation of reality is.

>>15238441
Neither do you

>>15237653
>>15237668
>>15237641
>>15237630
>>15237621
>>15236089
>>15236017
>>15237182
>>15237582
It's funny watching you pretentious fags arguing on the subject. One retard thinks DMT opens you up to the higher realms of being and lets you access some higher truth, and that it's what the mystical experience is about, moreover, he believes that if a hardcore materialist breakthroughs on DMT he would automatically abandon his dumb beliefs and agree with all his schizo nonsense. It's ironic how he argues against a materialism relying on a chemical substance.
Another retard, the materialist one, takes on an easy target, because he can show dominance asserting his completely unjustified and incoherent beliefs only when arguing whose only argument is DUDE DMT, TRY IT BRO. To you, materialist retard, I advise to think in what way math is material. In your beliefs math and logic are simply chemical reactions in your brain, and (hence) that they are social construct like gender studies and transgenderism. If you don't agree with that, then you assume that math is immaterial since you at least assume there are such things as universal statements and objective truths. Just the very fact that you assume there's such thing as meaning and that it can be communicated through words assumes incorporeal realms, otherwise all your meaning is arbitrary and you refute yourself, since in that case the retard you're arguing with is no less right than you are, by your own reasoning.

>>15238673
To the DUDE DMT retard, I advise to minimize the use of all drugs and start meditating and reading scriptures. Drugs impede meditation progress quite a lot, because at least to reach states of similar intensity, you have to put in a lot of work, meditation actually gets you much further, but if you keep fucking your brain up with drugs, all the spiritual practices would be too boring for you. Actually I'd advise you to read the Bible and commentaries by the church fathers, especially Maximus the Confessor, his writings will lay good on someone who's a lot of psychedelic experience. I tried many of them a lot too. But if you're not interested in Christianity and also want results, then start practicing Vijnyana Bhairava Tantra, also check Tantraloka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF503RdDMZA

>>15238673
>DMT opens you up to the higher realms
That's exactly what it does, anon. The fact that a physical substance is the catalyst to a metaphysical experience is not at all surprising, you're just so used to your retarded reductionist ontology that you find that odd. Your entire body is one giant chemical factory, is it really surprising that there would be a switch for consciousness to break free temporarily?

>>15238681
I agree with all of this, but don't tell me DMT doesn't invoke potent spiritual experience. The point is to convince yourself that it is possible, then follow through with meditative practice and self-discipline. Those who get hooked onto psychedelics miss the point entirely.

>>15238685
There is a spiritual aspect to DMT in the sense that it alters your perception and you start picking out patterns of reality that you normally not supposed to pick out, even the relation of you to those patterns, and the patterns constituting you. It's very intense, yeah, but you don't really process any of that. What have you taken out of DMT that has effected your life for the better other than the impossibly mesmerizing wow effect? Actual spirituality is very applicable, and you'd be able to break it down for yourself or for othersas much as they can digest.
>is it really surprising that there would be a switch for consciousness to break free temporarily
Does it set you free really? If so, you would at least be able to end your DMT trip at will, and if you wouldn't become all-knowing, you would at least access whatever Platonic knowledge you want, since it is potentially accessible to all humans.
>The point is to convince yourself that it is possible
If that worked for you, great, for most people it doesn't, sure it convinces a lot of people of something greater, but it doesn't necessarily bring one closer to the Logos, and sometimes it comes at a price of inflated ego which many psychonauts ironically have. Also even if one actually genuinely gets into a spiritual practice after DMT, it's only good from the point of view which considers whatever mystical experience as a good thing as long as it doesn't fit the materialistic outlook.

>>15238752
>Does it set you free really? If so, you would at least be able to end your DMT trip at will, and if you wouldn't become all-knowing, you would at least access whatever Platonic knowledge you want, since it is potentially accessible to all humans.
You can't bring anything back. It gets you into a state of mind that is free of ego, and in that state you indeed become all-knowing. As soon as the ego resurfaces, it all fades away and all the timeless secrets you learned, with it. This is how it works.

>sure it convinces a lot of people of something greater
This is the majority of its function.

>sometimes it comes at a price of inflated ego which many psychonauts ironically have
Yes, this is very common. It's due to poor integration and a bad conceptual framework when going into it. If these substances were more widely available, they would be understood and frameworks for their use would start to emerge. As it is now, you have to be exceptionally intelligent in order to be able to use them well.

>>15237305
Your brain builds a picture of the outside world for you based on your senses. What you experience is not reality, only a representation. Psychedelic drugs fuck with this process. They also fuck with your reasoning processes. They aren't magic or a connection to some other dimension. It's all in the head and body.

>>15238776
>They aren't magic or a connection to some other dimension
They are, you just want magic to not be real so badly you will go to any length to claim it.

>It's all in the head and body
The head and body are in the mind.

>>15237578
Why does it require a chemical substance for the divine to reveal itself to you? Why does it wear off and the "divine" is no longer revealing itself to you? The divine sure works in mysterious ways, as if they are not divine at all.

>>15238788
I don't have the answers to those questions, all I know is if you take 3 hits off a DMT vape, it will most likely convince you that the world is not simply just a bunch of sterile physics doing its thing. It is much more complex, much more nuanced, much more mysterious than what traditional science has been teaching us. This is not to say that traditional science is useless, but it will have to inevitably venture into the abyss of the consciousness in order to be able to answer the fundamental question of what exactly is going on in this universe. Psychedelics like DMT will serve as the catalyst for this exploration.

>>15238763
>You can't bring anything back
So you're limited. The difference with the actual spirituality is that you can apply the experience, and that is the point. When you have an astonishing experience which you can't coherently integrate in your life, yet you're still convinced it's a genuine experience, it is classified as prelest.
>If these substances were more widely available, they would be understood and frameworks for their use would start to emerge
I thought so too, until one of my friends got a psychosis from mere 200 or so mcg of LSD and had to take a year off one of the prestigious math faculty and spend some time in a mental hospital. And he doesn't seem like someone who would get carried away by things like that, he has quite a good awareness. Different people react to psychedelics differently, you can't achieve a consistent effect for everybody.

>>15238806
I agree, but sometimes people cannot be convinced any other way.

Sorry about your friend, it happens. These substances are not to be toyed around with.

>>15238800
>it will most likely convince you that the world is not simply just a bunch of sterile physics doing its thing. It is much more complex, much more nuanced, much more mysterious than what traditional science has been teaching us
You can arrive to the same conclusion with logic and epistemology. It doesn't necessarily lead to spirituality, but to be convinced that you assume immaterial things when doing science is possible for any honest person.

>>15238806
>take a year off one of the prestigious math faculty and spend some time in a mental hospital.
dif anon here. Do you think there is any correlation between high level mathematics and mental health? Do mathematicians have a higher rate of schizophrenia or other disorders? How many go tin foil hat? hear voices? chase aliens?

>>15238825
>You can arrive to the same conclusion with logic and epistemology
I used to agree with this position, but after having experienced psychedelics I don't anymore. There is simply no way you're going to think yourself into that mind space. Perhaps with decades of meditation, but I'm not entirely convinced of it since you don't hear advanced meditators talking about encounters with ancient gods, but you hear psychonauts say that all the time.

>>15235974
Read Lucretius, then read Lenin.

>>15238827
>Do you think there is any correlation between high level mathematics and mental health?
Maybe a slight one as it's not uncommon to meet somewhat autistic or schizoid-like people in math. But I would say that more often mathematicians are very eloquent, have good social skills and are able to engage with the public, which is not surprising, since the social skills are quite important in academia. The mental health estimation would also depend on how we measure it, I know many mathematicians who are completely functional, but I'm sure that if they shared some of their views and thoughts with psychiatrist, they could be diagnosed with something.
>Do mathematicians have a higher rate of schizophrenia or other disorders?
I've known smart students who had it, like the types who would be able to enroll Ivy League PhD programs, I haven't interacted with any professors with diagnosed schizophrenia, but maybe I'm just unaware.
I would add however, that if mathematicians get into a religion, they go really deep into it. That's basically how I was initially cleansed of any materialistic basednce-worshipping views that I had when I was 16-19. Because I realized those people weren't just crazy.
Also I know at least one mathematician who attributes his results to his intense meditation practices. He spent a lot of time in India and speaks Hindi and Bengali fluently, he's also written a little bit on what he's experienced there or in other places. He's among top algebraic topologists and group theorists alive now. Misha Gromov spoke on the importance of his result, he's also worked with Eliyahu Rips and Vladimir Voyevodsky, whom he became a close friend with. Oh and by the way, Voyevodsky spoke and interacted with various entities, also he was researching synchronicities, but until his 30s he was more or less a materialist, you can read about it in his interview:
https://baaltii1.livejournal.com/198675.html
https://baaltii1.livejournal.com/200269.html
cont

>>15238924
And the guy I'm talking about is he https://arxiv.org/search/math?searchtype=author&query=Mikhailov%2C+R
But he left mathematics a couple years ago and now makes movies and theatre plays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_818e4Sbn7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlh6knaaVYY
>>15238830
>There is simply no way you're going to think yourself into that mind space
I didn't imply that, I only meant that the materialistic worldview can be refuted quite easily only relying on logic and epistemology, without even touching on metaphysics that much. But the fact that you think meditation is inferior to that DMT state is what I warned against. Also I advise you to read reports of people who have both near death and DMT experience and how they compare them.
>but I'm not entirely convinced of it since you don't hear advanced meditators talking about encounters with ancient gods, but you hear psychonauts say that all the time
And what do they take out of it? Has it served them any good? If only the intensity matters, you don't even have to resort to drugs, there are plenty of people who face unexplainable stuff regularly and just go on living, and they don't all live in remote places, they happen to be women more often, they're rarely even convincing, but sometimes if you spend time with someone who has such oddities, they're genuine.

>>15238927
>But the fact that you think meditation is inferior to that DMT state is what I warned against.
It's not inferior at all, if anything it is superior because it is sustained and deeply internalized. What I'm saying is these substances will reveal states of mind that not even advanced meditators can usually reach.

I agree with the latter half of your post entirely. The benefit from these substances seems to be exclusively either rewiring an unhealthy mind, or showing one that there are things beyond our comprehension.

>>15238924
In this part Voevodsky describes his supernatural experiences hearing voices, playing ball with some hallucinatory girl, etc:
- B 2006-2007 гoдaх co мнoй пpoизoшлo мнoжecтвo кaк внeшних, тaк и внyтpeнних coбытий, пocлe кoтopых мoя тoчкa зpeния нa вoпpocы "cвepхecтecтвeннoгo" cyщecтвeннo измeнилacь. To, чтo co мнoй пpoиcхoдилo в эти гoды, нaвepнoe, мoжнo ближe вceгo cpaвнить c тeм чтo пpoиcхoдилo c Кapлoм Юнгoм в 1913-14 гoдaх. Юнг нaзвaл этo "confrontation with the unconscious". Я нe знaю, кaк этo нaзвaть, нo мoгy в двyх cлoвaх oпиcaть. Ocтaвaяcь бoлee или мeнee нopмaльным, нe cчитaя тoгo, чтo я пытaлcя oбcyждaть пpoиcхoдящee co мнoй c людьми, c кoтopыми oбcyждaть этoгo нaвepнo нe cлeдoвaлo, я зa нecкoлькo мecяцeв пpиoбpeл oчeнь нeмaлый oпыт видeний, гoлocoв, пepиoдoв, кoгдa oтдeльныe чacти мoeгo тeлa мнe нe пoдчинялиcь и мнoжecтвa нeвepoятных cлyчaйнocтeй. Haибoлee интeнcивным был пepиoд в cepeдинe aпpeля 2007 кoгдa я пpoвeл 9 днeй (7 из них в мopмoнcкoй cтoлицe Salt Lake City), ни paзy зa вce эти дни нe зacнyв.
cont

>>15238945
Пoчти c caмoгo нaчaлa я oбнapyжил, чтo мнoгиe из этих явлeний (гoлoca, видeния, paзличныe ceнcopныe гaллюцинaции), я мoгy кoнтpoлиpoвaть. Пoэтoмy я нe был иcпyгaн и нe чyвcтвoвaл ceбя бoльным, a вocпpинимaл вce пpoиcхoдящee кaк чтo-тo oчeнь интepecнoe, aктивнo пытaлcя взaимoдeйcтвoвaть c тeми "cyщecтвaми" в ayдитopнoм, визyaльнoм a пoтoм и тaктильнoм пpocтpaнcтвaх, кoтopыe пoявлялиcь (caми или пo зoвy) вoкpyг мeня. Hyжнo, нaвepнoe, cкaзaть, чтoбы избeжaть вoзмoжных cпeкyляций нa этy тeмy, чтo никaких нapкoтикoв я в этoт пepиoд нe yпoтpeблял, cтapaлcя мнoгo ecть и cпaть, и пил paзбaвлeннoe бeлoe винo.

Eщe oдин кoммeнтapий - кoгдa я гoвopю cyщecтвa, тo ecтecтвeннo я имeю в видy тo, чтo в coвpeмeннoй тepминoлoгии нaзывaeтcя cлoжными гaллюцинaциями.

>>15238948
Cлoвo "cyщecтвa" пoдчepкивaeт, чтo эти гaллюцинaции caмocтoятeльнo "вeли ceбя", oблaдaли пaмятью, нeзaвиcимoй oт мoeй пaмяти, и peaгиpoвaли нa пoпытки oбщeния. Кpoмe тoгo, oни чacтo вocпpинимaлиcь coглacoвaннo в paзличных ceнcopных мoдaльнocтях. Haпpимep, я нecкoлькo paз игpaл в (гaллюциниpoвaнный) мячик c (гaллюциниpoвaннoй) дeвyшкoй и мячик этoт я и видeл, и oщyщaл тaктильнo лaдoнью, кoгдa eгo бpocaл.

Hecмoтpя нa тo, чтo вce этo былo oчeнь интepecнo, этo былo и oчeнь тяжeлo. Пpoиcхoдилo этo в тeчeниe нecкoльких пepиoдoв, из кoтopых caмый длинный пpoдoлжaлcя c ceнтябpя 2007 дo фeвpaля 2008 бeз пepepывoв и были дни, кoгдa я нe мoг читaть, и дни, кoгдa кoopдинaция движeний былa нapyшeнa дo тaкoй cтeпeни, чтo былo cлoжнo хoдить.

>>15238951
Я cyмeл выйти из этoгo cocтoяния зa cчeт тoгo, чтo зacтaвил ceбя нaчaть oпять зaнимaтьcя мaтeмaтикoй. К cepeдинe вecны 2008 я мoг yжe бoлee или мeнee нopмaльнo фyнкциoниpoвaть и дaжe cъeздил в Salt Lake City пocмoтpeть нa тe мecтa, гдe я бpoдил, нe знaя, гдe нaхoжycь, вecнoй 2007-oгo.

Hyжнo cкaзaть, чтo нecмoтpя нa мнoжecтвo paзгoвopoв c нeмaтepиaльными "cyщecтвaми" в тeчeниe этoгo пepиoдa, я coвepшeннo нe пoнял, чтo coбcтвeннo пpoизoшлo. Mнe былo "пpeдлoжeнo" мнoжecтвo oбъяcнeний, включaя гипнoтизepoв, инoплaнeтян, дeмoнoв и ceкpeтных cooбщecтв людeй c мaгичecкими cпocoбнocтями. Hи oднo из oбъяcнeний нe oбъяcнялo вceгo, чтo я нaблюдaл. B кoнeчнoм итoгe, тaк кaк кaкaя-тo тepминoлoгия былa нyжнa в paзгoвopaх, я cтaл нaзывaть вceх этих cyщecтв дyхaми, хoтя тeпepь я дyмaю, чтo этa тepминoлoгия нe вepнa. Taк жe звyчaли в этoм кoнтeкcтe тepмины "вceмиpнaя cиcтeмa" (видимo кoнтpoля нaд людьми) и, ocoбeннo в нaчaлe, "игpa, хoзяйкoй кoтopoй являeтcя cтpaх".

YOU CANNOT SHOW A BLIND MAN LIGHT. Hylics cannot be awakened, their state as an NPC is fixed. They are just drones, filler. Just try to stay away from them and ignore them until you need them for something, then just use force, it is all they understand

>>15238955
Зaбaвнo

>>15236017
>Dude,I can prove shit like love and beauty
>How? Just hit your head with a hammer bro

>>15238992
Typical thing to say of someone who's never experienced psychedelics. They are not drugs in the classical sense, they do not harm your body. They take you on a forced astral voyage and show you what your mind is capable of.

>>15239002
LSD is so toxic that 0.3g was enough to kill an elephant in under an hour

>>15238924
Thank you. Voyevodsky seems like an interesting guy. I am the asking earlier about expectations and tripping a bit earlier. You mention mathematicians who get into religion hard core, there does seem to be a connection. I would often notice within the young earth creationist camps and biblical literalists a weird number of legit engineers that seem to pop up(dentists too - so no idea what that means)
When it comes to psychedelics, my own experiences have been very helpful and I walk away from it holding opposing views each time. I am still a materialist(but not a reductionist) but I can tell you if I didn't say "fuck it" and give to taking the faeries warnings and nudges as serious I wouldn't be alive today.

Mental illness, the thread. Since when did /x/ become so bold as to spam their trash shamelessly on /sci/?

>>15238146
>There is not research to support the presence of brain activity in all cases of NDE. In fact, Greyson performed some research where he hooked cardiac arrest patients up to an EEG and foudn that patients with zero measureable electrical activity claimed to have conscious experience.
Time as experienced when you're dreaming and in similar states isn't that straightforward. Lack of EEG typically only lasts for a very short time before people are resuscitated (otherwise you end up with brain death), so in those cases the experiences occur while brain activity is still present. There's zero evidence of any such experiences occurring when there's zero brain activity (which is what you'd expect, obviously). The article you just provided confirms that NDEs are just brain activity, and only mentions EEG patterns briefly.
>>15238147
There's nothing about any psychoactive compound that contradicts quantum physics. Our brains are essentially always generating a model of reality that is being experienced (as Anil Seth puts it, a state of "controlled hallucination") based on a wide variety of neurotransmitter interactions in a complex web of neuroelectrochemical activity. The balance that is being maintained in a regular waking-state brain is one where this model reflects reality to a sufficient extent for us to navigate the world without harming ourselves, enabling us to acquire nutrition and deal with potential threats, so that we may survive and reproduce. When you provide exogenous compounds that disturb this functioning, such as e.g. DMT and other similar substances, this ends up triggering neural pathways in an irregular manner that produces conscious experiences that do not correspond as well to reality at all (essentially very vivid dreams). I've tried many such substances myself, including intravenously injecting high doses of DMT, and while incredibly fascinating it's very clear that such experiences are indeed "just" that: very vivid dreams, hallucination.

>>15238161
This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The brain generating consciousness doesn't mean that more activity necessarily means more consciousness. We already know more or less that it's specific patterns of neural activity in particularly locations that causes consciousness, so the structure and order of the activity seems to be what's important, not the amount of activity in absolute terms. What is observed is fully consistent with everything we know about physics and neuroscience.
>>15238175
A non-material substance would be something like what idealism claims to be the truth, i.e. that reality is essentially just made up of "dream-stuff" instead of a material field that follows physical laws. However, that's clearly not what the scientific evidence indicates. It's safe to conclude that reality is material, and that idealism is false.
>>15238673
There's certainly nothing "retarded" about materialism at all. Based on all the scientific evidence we have, it's quite clear that materialism is true.

>>15238673
>>15239621
To answer you even more in-depth:
>I advise to think in what way math is material.
All conscious experience is material. Like the brain that generates it, it's all ultimately the material quantum field waving. What we call "mathematics" is simply a set of conscious experiences (that are used to describe and model the workings of the quantum field, among other things).
>Just the very fact that you assume there's such thing as meaning and that it can be communicated through words assumes incorporeal realms, otherwise all your meaning is arbitrary and you refute yourself, since in that case the retard you're arguing with is no less right than you are, by your own reasoning.
This seems to be a failure on your part to understand semantics, i.e. the study of meaning. Meaning is essentially an expression of relation between different things. All such expression is just as material as any other form of consciousness. Also, all such expression must also ultimately refer back to the underlying material quantum field. Think of e.g. a heart. In terms of semantics, this can be taken semiotically as a symbol of some abstract notion of "love", thus expressing such a relationship. However, when you investigate what "love" is, you find that it's simply a description of various vaguely defined conscious experiences that accompany specific forms of biochemical activity in the body, including in the heart. When you further investigate the heart, or any other part of the body, or any other part of the world, you ultimately find that it's simply the same quantum field fluctuating that everything is made of, and that there's nothing special about it. In other words, there's nothing special or immaterial about meaning at all, since all meaning ultimately refers back to this material field.

>>15239621

> The brain generating consciousness doesn't mean that more activity necessarily means more consciousness.


That's not what I mean. More complexity in subjective experience does imply more brain activity to explain it within Materialism.

If there is a massive increase in the complexity of subjective experience, there has to be an increase in brain activity somewhere to explain it. Afterall, the brain is supposedly generating consciousness.

But we ONLY see reductions in brain activity. This is subjective experience correlated in a way one would not expect if the material brain generates consciousness.

>>15239882
I explained all of that in the post you replied to. There's simply nothing about materialism which says you need more brain activity to have more complexity in conscious experience. What is needed is sufficient complexity of activity and structure, not more activity. What is observed is exactly what you'd expect. The reductions in brain activity rather serve to increase complexity (increased cross-talk between regions), which leads to more complex conscious experience, exactly as expected.

>>15238843
>Read Lenin

>>15238937
>It's not inferior at all, if anything it is superior because it is sustained and deeply internalized
Nah. I took my first acid when I was 15 and have taken every hallucinogenic there is more times than I can count over the last 30 years. When you are young, sure it helps but I can go into samadhi now and build entire worlds with my eyes that look as real as any DMT trip or avatar movie or however you want to describe it. You can learn to do it without drugs and I will tell you how.

Close your eyes and tomb trance on your back ie fold your arms over your chest. I like to listen to some good EDM music and any biurnal 432 htz beats is fine or tibetan singing bowls, w/e you prefer. Then you need to close your eyes but not really tight just have the lids closed but look at the back of them. What I mean by this imagine your eyes arent closed because when you think of closing your eyes you are conditions to think it is just blackness.nothingness, but that isnt true. Look through your eyelids like they are still open and like you are trying to focus on an image that is an optical illusion, like those 3D pictures that only materialize from noise patterns when you cross your eyes from the 90's. If you do this you will a reality more real than anything you will see with your eyes open. It might take some time to get the hang of it but like years or anything like some would believe you have to train for it or something. Again, just like an optical illusion or one of those pics once you did it the first time you will get muscle memory on how to do it faster and easier in the future. You can even turn your consciousness inward and fly into your own body through your mouth.

>>15238937
You are moving the conscuousness away from your first person perspective coming out of the front of your face to being outside of your body to where you can turn to view your own body, it even inside your body as I said. Give it a try. Ilke this music personally and I also enjoy Egyptian meditation music. The music for me depends on the kind of visions I want experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SleaST-I5Eo

>>15240078
with my eyes *shut

>>15239002
>they do not harm your body
heard of HPPD? or psychosis?

>>15235974
> No. Consciousness is fundamental. It does not emerge.
So rocks are conscious? If not, why not, and what just something do to be conscious? Welcome back to square one.

>>15240078
>When you are young, sure it helps but I can go into samadhi now and build entire worlds with my eyes shut

to firther expand on this you know the image where it asks to pick which apple you are capable of vilsualizng with your eyes closed? Well they dont have one for what I see. I see an IMAX 3D one and am able to interact with it with enegry flowing through it, like how you can see the waves on hallucinogenics etc.

>>15240091
I'm not an idealist at all, but to explain OP's view: under idealist assumptions your question doesn't ultimately make sense, because you're still assuming that something is conscious, i.e. that you have "something" on the one hand that has some quality of "consciousness"; this is ultimately what's actually reasonable, and why I'm a materialist (and not a panpsychist at all, I don't believe rocks are conscious, I only believe we can be more or less certain that arthropods, vertebrates, and cephalopods are conscious), but under the idealist perspective that doesn't make sense, because under idealism you don't have "something" on the one hand that "has" or "is" conscious, it's rather consciousness itself that is fundamental, so it's rather consciousness which has rocks, if that helps clear up what that view entails.

>>15240107
you don't think your cells or dna are conscious? How do you think they perform their jobs? Magic?

>>15240110
non-conscious molecular mechanisms.

We have no evidence of the influence and interactions occurring in higher or lower dimensions as a result of our consciousness existing as it does here.

I wouldn't rule out that death is some form of gate for consciousness. Perhaps the great filter is the first death, and is the reason we don't see anyone else out there.

>>15240111
you cant prove it is not conscious and there is no reason to assume it is. How do you think things perform complex functions without consciousness? Something conscious has to be controlling it to make it work to suggest otherwise is flat out absurd. You only do it because you are forced to ideiolgically you cant have actually thought about it or else you would realize how absurd it is

>>15240115
you can't prove it is conscious, and there is no reason to assume it is.

>How do you think things perform complex functions without consciousness?
by some complicated mechanism.

>Something conscious has to be controlling it to make it work to suggest otherwise is flat out absurd.
false.

>>15235974
>There is no Hard Problem in Idealism

>Idea-in-Itself
>Idea-for-Us

>>15240121
I dont have to it is self evident. It is alive and does a job ffs. The burden of proof is on you. It performs complex functions, you need to provide an alternative theoiy not me. In this reality complex functions are performed by conscious entities, you are suggesting this one isnt, provide your proof for this absurd claim

Eliminative materialism
>consciousness is an illusion

Eliminative idealism
>everything else is an illusion

Justification for both of them
>because it just is, okay?

Fuck off with your Dennettian denialism.

>>15240132
>I dont have to it is self evident
false.
>It is alive and does a job ffs
life and consciousness are two distinct phenomena. or at least, i posit that they are, and there is no proof that they are identical.
>The burden of proof is on you
it's at least equally on you.
>In this reality complex functions are performed by conscious entities
unproven assumption. just because humans are conscious and can do somewhat complex things, doesn't mean you can immediately declare a universal principle like that.

>>15240110
>you don't think your cells or dna are conscious?
No, single molecules or cells are most definitely not conscious at all. Based on everything we know about consciousness, a certain type of neural structure is necessary for it to occur, and this structure is only conclusively found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods. Thus the most reasonable position is to assume that these organisms are conscious, and nothing else.
>How do you think they perform their jobs?
Consciousness doesn't play any role in performing any job at all, it's just a higher-order representation of what's occurring in the brain. Cells and DNA are "just" biological machines (I say "just" because they are marvelously complex machine, truly awesome), and we know more or less exactly how the work.

>>15240142
Bud apparently you aren't processing this. We as humans are conscious, we know animals are conscious. These are given. These are the only things we have to base any of our assumptions on. These things perform complex tasks with their conscoiuness. There is no reason to think this doesnt scale up and down. You are claiming it doesn't. You are saying something exists that has never been proven to exist, never been proven to occur. The burden of proof is on YOU. You are saying things in this reality can perform complex tasks without conscouness. PROVE it, I dont have to prove anything

>>15240152
>We as humans are conscious, we know animals are conscious.
Most animals, but there are some examples that like are not, such as sponges and bivalves.
>These things perform complex tasks with their conscoiuness.
That is incorrect. Consciousness is just a higher-order representation of brain activity, it doesn't perform any actions at all. Also, plants also perform highly complex tasks without being conscious at all.

>>15240152
>we know animals are conscious
bivalves? insects? no one knows where the line is.
>There is no reason to think this doesnt scale up and down
there is no reason to think it does.
>You are saying something exists that has never been proven to exist, never been proven to occur
same as you. cells have never been proven to be conscious.
>The burden of proof is on YOU.
and it is equally on YOU.
>PROVE it, I dont have to prove anything
yes you do. you have to prove that these substructures are conscious, i.e. have an inner experience of their own.

>>15240156
>but there are some examples that like are not, such as sponges and bivalves.
PROVE IT

>>15239656
>What we call "mathematics" is simply a set of conscious experiences (that are used to describe and model the workings of the quantum field, among other things).
What gives those conscious experiences such an objectivity that is not found in fiction literature? Moreover, your assumption that that there's some model underlying the workings of the quantum field is also idealistic, unless you mean that this model is just a human concept, in which case it loses its absolute objectivity.
Another question would be where do you find mathematics in the material? And in what way is matter needed to sustain mathematics? Sure, matter is involved in the manifestation of mathematics and in our study of it, but the mathematics itself is not reducible to matter if we assume it holds the objective truth. It's not just a metaphysical statement, because mathematics is not only not empirical, but there are infinities involved as well as true unprovable statements, which by the very nature of the empirical inquiry cannot be tackled by it.
>Meaning is essentially an expression of relation between different things
This again is an idealistic assumption.
I would outline again, that if you truly are a materialist, then you shouldn't believe that logic and math represent absolute truth, they're merely social constructs which are reducible to biochemical or perhaps quantum level activity in our brain. In that way there's no contradiction, but there is a dishonesty, since in reality no scientist ever assumes that mathematical and logical statements are subject to change.
cont

>>15239656
>>15240162
>However, when you investigate what "love" is, you find that it's simply a description of various vaguely defined conscious experiences that accompany specific forms of biochemical activity in the body, including in the heart
That's why I used mathematics and logic as examples of idealistic assumptions in the empirical method. Because love seems very subjective and we don't have such a concise formal language for it as we have for mathematics. However, I would add, that even in your materialistic worldview, if mathematics and logic is objective in whatever sense (in materialism it'd be incoherent as I've described), then the same can apply to the concepts of love, good and evil. I can't of course prove their objectivity, I simply note that they can be as objective as math, whatever that means.
Anyway at this point it might be more of a semantic argument. If you assume that consciousness is material, then sure you can refer to whatever notion of Platonic forms or anything as material, but that's not what normally meant by material. At least I assumed that material is what can be tackled by an empirical inquiry. Conscious experiences to a certain extent can be tackled by empiricism of course, that's why there's psychiatry. But relying on mere scientific method, you will never ever explain why things like subjectivity and qualia arise. Sure you can study how qualia and subjectivity react to certain things, but for what reasons would they arise in the first place is by definition unexplainable by the scientific method, not because it's wrong or weak, but because it's not meant for such things in the first place.
cont

>>15240164
>>15239621
>There's certainly nothing "retarded" about materialism at all. Based on all the scientific evidence we have, it's quite clear that materialism is true.
That is rather an absurd statement. Science assumes materialism, and works in materialistic framework. It can't prove materialism to be true or false, because it's already assumed.
The point is that those assumptions on the paradigm level are not material. At least if by material we mean what is subject to the scientific method. And those assumptions are strictly speaking akin to religious assumptions, the only justification for them is that they are adequate, but that's not a scientific justification.

>>15240158
You can't prove that anything other than yourself is conscious. That's known as the problem of other minds in metaphysics. You simply have to go by assumptions based on what you know from studying psychology and neuroscience. Based on this, all the evidence points towards the fact that specific neural structures are necessary for consciousness to be present, and such neural structures are only found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods, not in sponges or bivalves, nor in plants, and not in single molecules either, nor cells or bacteria.
>>15240162
>What gives those conscious experiences such an objectivity that is not found in fiction literature?
Mathematics appear to describe the mechanics of the quantum field quite well. This means that this field is likely operating in those ways, and that we're simply describing it. So what gives those particular descriptions objectivity is simply that they appear to be the only descriptions matching up with the workings of reality.
>Another question would be where do you find mathematics in the material? And in what way is matter needed to sustain mathematics?
Everything is material. Mathematics is part of consciousness, it's a way of expressing relationships, and consciousness is a higher-order representation of brain activity, so ultimately mathematics is, like everything else, simply another expression of the quantum field.
>I would outline again, that if you truly are a materialist, then you shouldn't believe that logic and math represent absolute truth, they're merely social constructs which are reducible to biochemical or perhaps quantum level activity in our brain.
That is incorrect. Mathematics appear to describe the workings of the quantum field, there's nothing idealistic about that at all, and it's certainly no social construct (it's the exact opposite, it's based on the workings of objective reality).

>>15239117
>I would often notice within the young earth creationist camps and biblical literalists a weird number of legit engineers that seem to pop up
There are a few camps within the creationism. The young earth one is a serious thing only in the US I think, young Earth can't even be a church doctrine as it's not stated in the Bible, and the reading of Genesis can have various interpretations, for example the Hebrew word raqia, which is translated as firmament, actually means something which is expanded, so one could translate it as space if one wants it so. But more or less all the creationists wouldn't believe that people descended from more primitive apes, yeah. Seraphim Rose has the most coherent overview of the subject in his book Creation, and Early Man.

>>15240164
>But relying on mere scientific method, you will never ever explain why things like subjectivity and qualia arise.
I don't believe that at all. I believe it's only a matter of time until we find good and reasonable explanations for that, and that we're already doing very good work in that capacity.

if idealism is true, then explain why i can't instantly gain millions of dollars. i can easily imagine it in my consciousness, but it's not possible. explain.

>>15240175
sorry not reading this, you are too autistic to bother with. You obviously dont know how the burden of proof works. You are claiming to have an alternate model on how to complete complex tasks and have zero back it up. You just pulled it out of your ass.

>>15240078
>>15240092
Interesting experience, anon. If your job requires working with abstractions, I guess it might help a lot? The mathematician, whom I referred to here >>15238924 , the friend of Voyevodsky, achieved the ability to play around with highly sophisticated mathematical objects in his mind a bit akin to your method I guess.

>>15240181
>You are claiming to have an alternate model on how to complete complex tasks and have zero back it up.
Molecules perform such tasks through well-understood series of chemical reactions that are entirely mechanical in nature. That's not an alternate model at all. Also, as mentioned, even in the animals that are conscious, consciousness doesn't perform any tasks, it's just a representation of what's going on; confusing the two is like thinking a screen is responsible for computation. There's nothing new about this at all, this is all rather well understood.

>>15240187
>Molecules perform such tasks through well-understood series of chemical reactions that are entirely mechanical in nature
prove they arent conscious or being controlled a by a conscious entity

>>15240192
I already addressed why asking for such proof is to misunderstand what is possible to prove and what reasonable assumptions must be made here: >>15240175
>You can't prove that anything other than yourself is conscious. That's known as the problem of other minds in metaphysics. You simply have to go by assumptions based on what you know from studying psychology and neuroscience. Based on this, all the evidence points towards the fact that specific neural structures are necessary for consciousness to be present, and such neural structures are only found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods, not in sponges or bivalves, nor in plants, and not in single molecules either, nor cells or bacteria.

>>15240187
>this is all rather well understood.
Obviously it isn't if you can't prove it

>>15240195
Once again, see: >>15240193
You simply can't conclusively prove anything other than your own consciousness. That is the problem of other minds. There's no way to get around that except by making reasonable assumptions about what is and is not conscious.

None of you punks are conscious or else you'd know how hard Sum41 and POD can slam on the track.

>>15240179
We won't, not because the scientific method is weak, but because it's by definition out of boundary in which the scientific method works.
The question does not lie in explaining mechanisms or giving an account of things, the question lies on the paradigmatic level, which no one but me has tried to address itt. The idealist here argues against materialism while still relying on the same method as materialists do which is giving account of things, that's why he fails to justify his views. By his reasoning if some monk demonstrated levitation ,it would prove materialism incorrect, but for me it wouldn't necessarily do so. Because if that monk lets himself be studied, surely there could be found some scientific explanation as for why he levitates. Materialism is a metaphysical and epistemological system, and should be argued against within those terms. The problem with schizos is that they think if science doesn't explain something, it violates materialism.

>>15240179
Also I forgot to add that Witten disagrees with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

>>15240186
I was tomb trancing last nigth before bed and bascially saw an image exactly like this, the way it movies anyway but it was a star wars storm trooper underwater the wildest blue you can imagine. I also went under the water myself and massive submarine went past me and as I said I can see it it in 3D, objects coming directly with correct perspective etc. You can feel things also, like wind blowing, or snow if you are somewhere int he mountains etc.

There are Buddhist monks who can sit on top of mountains mediating for long periods of time who can regulate their body temp with their mind. The scene from Dr Strange where they dropped him off on Everest came from this real world practice. It is very dangerous for a beginner though so dont try to control your body functions

>>15240200
We most definitely will. There's no reason why we wouldn't. It's certainly not out of boundary at all, since consciousness most likely is just a complex field modality of the quantum field. The idea that there's something mystical about consciousness is entirely unfounded.
>>15240203
There are plenty of people who subscribe to this type of mysterianism, but it's not reasonable based on what we know so far. It's simply a mechanism what we have yet to fully elucidate.

>>15240196
can't prove it, not reading

>>15240213
>can't prove it
Already addressed this:
>You can't prove that anything other than yourself is conscious. That's known as the problem of other minds in metaphysics. You simply have to go by assumptions based on what you know from studying psychology and neuroscience. Based on this, all the evidence points towards the fact that specific neural structures are necessary for consciousness to be present, and such neural structures are only found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods, not in sponges or bivalves, nor in plants, and not in single molecules either, nor cells or bacteria.

>>15240215
can't prove it, not reading

>>15240216
>can't prove it
Already addressed this:
>You can't prove that anything other than yourself is conscious. That's known as the problem of other minds in metaphysics. You simply have to go by assumptions based on what you know from studying psychology and neuroscience. Based on this, all the evidence points towards the fact that specific neural structures are necessary for consciousness to be present, and such neural structures are only found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods, not in sponges or bivalves, nor in plants, and not in single molecules either, nor cells or bacteria.

>>15240218
can't prove it, not reading

>>15240221
>can't prove it
Already addressed this:
>You can't prove that anything other than yourself is conscious. That's known as the problem of other minds in metaphysics. You simply have to go by assumptions based on what you know from studying psychology and neuroscience. Based on this, all the evidence points towards the fact that specific neural structures are necessary for consciousness to be present, and such neural structures are only found in vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods, not in sponges or bivalves, nor in plants, and not in single molecules either, nor cells or bacteria.

>>15240211
I think the problem of the observer will be the wall for any true understanding of consciousness,at least from a scientific perspective. Fundamentally how does a thing observe itself?
Information is all relative, relational. When you can no longer draw a dividing line between observer/subject, which you would be unable to do in the case for observer/observer, the result is that there is no information to extract.

>>15240186
I did it just now took me like 2 minutes to get the visions. The hard part is that you start trying to squint and move you iris to focus in the direction of something and you lose it because you are trying to look at it with your eyes intead of your mind/conscounsess. Even I still do it sometimes but it is easy to get right back in it but you have a really sick visiion and you crew it up losing concentration it can tick you off for a min, but you have to let it flow not try to force something, just let whatever comes come from you from the source

>>15240230
That's just more mysterianism. There's no reason why this would present any wall to understanding at all. Given how consciousness is associated with neural structures that have specific feedback mechanism, what we think of as "observation" is just a higher-order form of feedback, so consciousness and self-awareness is simply one part of the field that is information-theoretically connected to the other parts of the field that it "observes" in certain ways. A scientific description of consciousness would very likely be fully able to account for exactly which parts of the field possess exactly these qualities and attributes, and thus be able to point to exactly where and how consciousness arises (and I predict that it will indeed be in electrical structures with the aforementioned types of feedback mechanisms, such as the specific neural structures I've mentioned).

>>15240239
This is going to come down to whether or not consciousness is manifested locally in the brain or not. The problem you are going to run up against is your own limitations as said observer.
Any information you can obtain through study has to be parsed through into your consciousness. The very process of obtaining information results in a joining of sub-systems, or, in the case every system is already interconnected, then you are playing around inside the system.
If consciousness is instead the parser itself which contains no inherent information, then there is a unassailable bridge there that we could not cross.

>>15240211
>he idea that there's something mystical about consciousness is entirely unfounded.
It's totally founded, because materialism can explain conscious processes, but can't explain why there's qualia and subjectivity in the first place. The only way out of it is to say that qualia and subjectivity aren't a real thing, that's what many materialists on this board adhere to, in such a belief there's no a contradiction.
Also in your view consciousness is everywhere by the triviality arguments, since you can find particle systems isomorphic to whatever conscious system anywhere in your walls, in your cup of coffee. In that sense you're kind of a panpsychist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/#TriArg

>>15240203
That's a very old video. Witten has changed his opinion on this and thinks neuroscience and computer science will solve consciousness
>Like most physicists, I think that life and consciousness are “emergent phenomena”, in other words, they are part of the possible behavior one can get when many particles are interacting via simple physical laws. Maybe in the next century, advances in neuroscience and computer science will somewhat remove the mystery that surrounds consciousness.

>>15240262
>Special Ed Midwitten doesn't realize that "emergent phenomena" don't exist

>>15240253
>The problem you are going to run up against is your own limitations as said observer.
There's no reason to believe you're going to run up against any problem at all, it's just a matter of investigating it thoroughly.
>Any information you can obtain through study has to be parsed through into your consciousness.
This is incorrect. Again, consciousness is simply a higher-order representation of brain activity. Consciousness itself isn't "parsing" anything, it's just representing it, like a screen. The actual "parsing" is going on in the brain.
>>15240258
It's not founded at all. Given all the progress we've made in understanding the relationship between the brain and consciousness, and between the underlying physics to both, there's really zero good reason to believe there's anything mystical about consciousness at all. Pointing out that we haven't yet understood it does not make a good reason for thinking it's somehow mystical and that we won't be able to find it.
>The only way out of it is to say that qualia and subjectivity aren't a real thing, that's what many materialists on this board adhere to, in such a belief there's no a contradiction.
Not true at all, as explained at length above. You don't need a way out, you simply point out that we're making great progress in understanding the relationships between physics, the brain, and consciousness, and then conclude that we'll most likely be able to fully explain consciousness with time.
>Also in your view consciousness is everywhere by the triviality arguments, since you can find particle systems isomorphic to whatever conscious system anywhere in your walls, in your cup of coffee.
This is egregiously false, not even remotely true. From everything we know, consciousness requires very specifically structured electrical structures with very particular feedbacks, and this is not found in any of the systems you mentioned at all, only in the brains of vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods. No panpsychism.

>>>15240253
>>The problem you are going to run up against is your own limitations as said observer.
>There's no reason to believe you're going to run up against any problem at all, it's just a matter of investigating it thoroughly.
>>Any information you can obtain through study has to be parsed through into your consciousness.
>This is incorrect. Again, consciousness is simply a higher-order representation of brain activity. Consciousness itself isn't "parsing" anything, it's just representing it, like a screen. The actual "parsing" is going on in the brain.
>>>15240258
>It's not founded at all. Given all the progress we've made in understanding the relationship between the brain and consciousness, and between the underlying physics to both, there's really zero good reason to believe there's anything mystical about consciousness at all. Pointing out that we haven't yet understood it does not make a good reason for thinking it's somehow mystical and that we won't be able to find it.
>>The only way out of it is to say that qualia and subjectivity aren't a real thing, that's what many materialists on this board adhere to, in such a belief there's no a contradiction.
>Not true at all, as explained at length above. You don't need a way out, you simply point out that we're making great progress in understanding the relationships between physics, the brain, and consciousness, and then conclude that we'll most likely be able to fully explain consciousness with time.
>>Also in your view consciousness is everywhere by the triviality arguments, since you can find particle systems isomorphic to whatever conscious system anywhere in your walls, in your cup of coffee.
>This is egregiously false, not even remotely true.

i think some people itt are confusing panpsychism and idealism. they're separate ideas

>>15240263
I'll take the word of one of the smartest people on the planet over some memelord anonymous shitposter

>>15240270
>appeal to authority
Nice

>muh smartest person on the planet
Name one significant accomplishment by this pseud.

>>15240263
>Ed Midwitten
kek

>>15240271
Fields medalist, string theorist, has won millions of dollars as prizes, highly respected in the field even by people who oppose string theory

>>15240275
Cool story. Now name one singificant accomplishment by this pseud. What profound discoveries, inventions and theorems has the smartest man on the planet contributed to humanity?

>>15240279
Look it up yourself, it's not very hard
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten

>>15240281
>Look it up
Cool story. Now name one singificant accomplishment by this pseud. What profound discoveries, inventions and theorems has the smartest man on the planet contributed to humanity? This is the second time you're failing.

>>15240284
Literally just see the "known for" list in the wiki page

M-theory
Seiberg–Witten theory
Seiberg–Witten map
Seiberg–Witten invariants
Wess–Zumino–Witten model
Weinberg–Witten theorem
Gromov–Witten invariant
Hořava–Witten domain wall
Vafa–Witten theorem
Witten index
BCFW recursion
Topological quantum field theory (Witten-type TQFTs)
Topological string theory
CSW rules
Witten conjecture
Witten zeta function
Hanany–Witten transition
Twistor string theory
Chern–Simons theory
Positive energy theorem
Witten–Veneziano mechanism

>>15240281
>Witten's work was based on the mathematically ill-defined notion of a Feynman path integral and therefore not mathematically rigorous

>Another result for which Witten was awarded the Fields Medal was his proof in 1981 of the positive energy theorem in general relativity
>the original proof of this result due to Richard Schoen and Shing-Tung Yau

>Witten's work gave a physical proof of a classical result,

LOL.

>>15240265
>Consciousness itself isn't "parsing" anything, it's just representing it, like a screen. The actual "parsing" is going on in the brain.

So you conclude the above. How is it concluded? Where in the conclusion resolved? It's not in your subconscious otherwise you'd have no idea you'd deduced any information at all.
It has to, by proxy of what we call 'information', make it's way into conscious awareness. Everything that you know, all the information you are aware of has to, by definition, reside within conscious awareness.
So when you say consciousness acts like a 'screen', you are speaking from the screen.
You can't say 'consciousness is a screen, but there are a myriad of other processes that happen outside of the screen which result in phenomena appearing on the screen'- when you are only ever aware of what is occurring on your self-proclaimed screen. Any information you point to is contained within that screen, so how in any good faith, can you say something exists outside of the screen when you are not only logically, but experientially incapable of experiencing anything outside of said screen.

>>15240265
>This is egregiously false, not even remotely true.
It is completely true if you believe consciousness is a computational processes. Otherwise if you believe that there are physical processes not tangible for mathematical models, then you're a mysterionist yourself.

>>15240290
Explain the signifiance of any of these (i.e. demonstrate why you didn't want to talk about it).

>>15240293
Nice selective quoting but he could make it rigorous if he really wanted to. He instead let the mathematicians do it so that they could learn some quantum field theory. Even mathematicians accepted this which is why he won the field medal after all

>>15240299
>Shifting goalposts
I accept your concession

>>15240306
>he could make it rigorous if he really wanted to
Am I being trolled?

>>15240308
No, you're just too stupid to be discussing this

>>15240294
>How is it concluded?
Based on everything we currently know about the relationship between the brain and consciousness.
>Where in the conclusion resolved?
In my brain, a part of it that is represented within my consciousness.
>So when you say consciousness acts like a 'screen', you are speaking from the screen.
No, the brain is the one doing the computation. My consciousness is simply a representation of what is happening. Consciousness (the screen) doesn't "do" anything other than represent it, just like a screen doesn't do anything other than represent the goings-on of the computer.
>Any information you point to is contained within that screen, so how in any good faith, can you say something exists outside of the screen when you are not only logically, but experientially incapable of experiencing anything outside of said screen.
Asking this question is setting yourself back thousands of years metaphysically speaking. I've already pointed out that you can't prove conclusively (for now, at least) that anything other than yourself is conscious. This is what Descartes found. This is known as "the problem of other minds", and is nothing new. However, this is about what seems reasonable based on what I'm actually experiencing, and everything about that experience indicates that what I'm experiencing is based on the workings of an underlying quantum field that we are becoming better and better at describing the behavior of mathematically. This process is what we call physics. No one is saying that solipsism isn't possible, it's not possible to disprove, just that it's entirely unreasonable based on the experiential facts of reality.
>>15240297
No, it's not true at all, not in any way, shape, or form. None of the systems you point to have the types of neural structures we have established to be necessary for consciousness at all. It requires very particular neural structures with very particular feedbacks, and these are not found in walls or cups of coffee.

>>15240311
>he could've made his work valid if he wanted to but he was just too smart to feel like it
Dumb personality cult kiddie.

>>15240313
So why did they award him a fields medal if it was not valid, you braindead retard?

>>15240314
>So why did they award him a fields medal
Because he's a kike,

>>15240320
>>>/pol/ is that way, nazi

>denies consciousness
>makes babby's appeals to authority
>meme personality worshipper
>exposes himself as a /pol/whiner
Where are all these cretins flooding in from?

>>15240312
Thanks. I don't want to make out I don't see a utility in progressing enquiry. But as long as we are aware that what we are doing is in essence digging down into self-generated complexity.
At the end of it all, we have the experience of being local observers, and it can be a terrible experience or a nice experience and anything that moves us further away from unnecessary suffering seems to me a good use of resources.

>>15235974
Nobody cares about the fake problem of consciousness and about your unfalsifiable theories.

Drop the obscurantist philosophy tomes and read a math textbook.

>>15240336
>300+ replies
>"nobody cares"

>Nobody cares
>pic related: zoological portrait of nobody-carers who reply to this thread in droves

>>15240330
>Thanks. I don't want to make out I don't see a utility in progressing enquiry. But as long as we are aware that what we are doing is in essence digging down into self-generated complexity.
You're welcome. And yes, naturally the complexity observed is ultimately self-generated, since the underlying quantum field is a single unified substance, so all the complexity of it must ultimately be derived from nothing other than itself. In fact, even if the quantum field would somehow prove not to be fundamental, you'd still only be kicking the can down the road to an even more comprehensive and still unified substance.
>At the end of it all, we have the experience of being local observers, and it can be a terrible experience or a nice experience and anything that moves us further away from unnecessary suffering seems to me a good use of resources.
Naturally, as any sentient organism seeks happiness by avoiding pain and fear, more conscious organisms realize that eliminating suffering in other organisms tends to minimize its own suffering and maximize its own happiness in the long run as well, provided it does not have to sacrifice its own happiness to do so. This is likely why the most complex and resilient ecosystems tend towards mutualistic symbiosis and minimal predation. As we progress and gain both a better understanding of our biology and how it relates to consciousness, as well as acquire more and more technological mastery, it's inevitable that we will at some point achieve superhappiness for all sentient organisms in the biosphere, and over long enough timespans likely in the entire universe.

>>15240342
>the complexity observed is ultimately self-generated, since the underlying quantum field is a single unified substance, so all the complexity of it must ultimately be derived from nothing other than itself.
this word salad doesn't make sense.

>>15240312
> It requires very particular neural structures with very particular feedbacks, and these are not found in walls or cups of coffee.
You miss the point. If you believe consciousness is a computational process, then it in principle can be simulated. By triviality arguments you can find isomorphic structures which simulate consciousness all around you.

>>15240351
Processes and computation are entirely subjective and imaginary. Time for you to take your meds.

>>15240349
Every single part of that sentence makes perfect sense. Feel free to ask for clarification about any part you don't understand.
>>15240351
>You miss the point.
Not at all.
>If you believe consciousness is a computational process, then it in principle can be simulated.
Yes, I already mentioned above that you can most likely achieve consciousness with computers (or possibly in quantum computers if there really are quantum-specific phenomena occurring in the brain that are involved in consciousness).
>By triviality arguments you can find isomorphic structures which simulate consciousness all around you.
Wrong, this is what I'm pointing out is erroneous. Those specific configurations of neural structures are far from trivial, and don't arise just anywhere at all. In fact, as far as we know, such neural structures only arise in the brains of vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods.

>>15240357
>it's all unified
>but also it's all from the self even though the self requires a separation between an agent and its environment

>>15240359
>>it's all unified
Obviously, there's necessarily a single substance underlying everything.
>>but also it's all from the self even though the self requires a separation between an agent and its environment
What are you talking about? I think you're mistaking me for an idealist. I'm pointing out that materialism is true. All consciousness arises from self-interactions of the underlying quantum field. These patterns of self-interaction tend to be localized in such a manner that you get separate nexus of consciousness, which is indeed what we observe. However, in the future it's certainly very much a possibility that we will quite literally plug into each other through the same types of networks that our brains are operating with and thus unify our consciousnesses into a literal collective consciousness.

>>15240357
>Those specific configurations of neural structures are far from trivial, and don't arise just anywhere at all
The walls around you and a cup of coffee aren't trivial either.

>>15240368
>The walls around you and a cup of coffee aren't trivial either.
In terms of the very specifically ordered neural structures apparently necessary for consciousness to be present, yes, they are indeed quite trivial. For all intents and purposes as trivial as slabs of granite or a glass of water. No highly ordered electrical circuitry with specific feedbacks ordered in particular ways, including in a layered fashion. No consciousness there at all, based on our best understanding.

>>15240374
>In terms of the very specifically ordered neural structures apparently necessary for consciousness to be present
If you simulate consciousness on a computer, it'd also be ordered very differently from the very specifically structured neural structures, there would only be isomorphic similarity, assuming consciousness is computational.

>>15240378
>If you simulate consciousness on a computer, it'd also be ordered very differently from the very specifically structured neural structures, there would only be isomorphic similarity, assuming consciousness is computational.
No, then you're completely missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm very specifically saying that you need to structure the electrical processes in such a manner that they achieve the same structures as those neural processes that we know of. Even if this is possible with classical computing, it might not even be possible on regular computer, you might have to build a computer with very specifically ordered circuits in order to do it. Also, even in that case you are right that you'd achieve consciousness by this circuitry being isomorphic to the neural circuitry in brains we believe (or know, in case of your own) to be conscious, just like such brains themselves are isomorphic to one another at least in certain ways, but the erroneous leap you're making is to then assume that these are isomorphic to any structures found in e.g. walls or cups of coffee, which is not true.

>>15240383
A recurring worry is that CTM is trivial, because we can describe almost any physical system as executing computations. Searle (1990) claims that a wall implements any computer program, since we can discern some pattern of molecular movements in the wall that is isomorphic to the formal structure of the program. Putnam (1988: 121–125) defends a less extreme but still very strong triviality thesis along the same lines.

Thread is over the bump limit.

Summary of the discussion: OP got BTFO.

>>15240561
Materialists too.

>>15240560
That is not a worry at all. You should have read the next paragraph too, where the SEP neatly sums up exactly what I've been saying to specifically address this repeatedly:
>Computationalists usually rebut triviality arguments by insisting that the arguments overlook constraints upon computational implementation, constraints that bar trivializing implementations. The constraints may be counterfactual, causal, semantic, or otherwise, depending on one’s favored theory of computation. For example, David Chalmers (1995, 1996a) and B. Jack Copeland (1996) hold that Putnam’s triviality argument ignores counterfactual conditionals that a physical system must satisfy in order to implement a computational model.
This is indeed exactly the case: such computational models are absolutely not trivial to implement. In fact, the only place in the entire universe we've found such systems so far is in the brains of vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods.

>>15240582
From my perspective this thread has been yet another triumphant victory for materialism, further attestation of materialism indeed being correct, just as all the scientific evidence seems to indicate. As far as I'm aware no valid argument against materialism has been posited throughout this entire thread.

>>15240591
>This is indeed exactly the case
No, it is in the field speculation, just like the view it opposes and whether mind is computational at all, there have been further discussions on the topic and there's no general consensus on it.
https://marksprevak.com/pdf/paper/Sprevak---Triviality%20arguments%20about%20implementation.pdf
>such computational models are absolutely not trivial to implement
They're not trivial to implement, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. Anyway, you're making a very strong and unfounded assumption that consciousness is computational and that it's possible only in those specific conditions. Your view relies too much on blind faith. Also no materialist ITT addressed the fact that scientific method and materialism holds immaterial assumptions on the paradigmatic level.

>>15240599
>further attestation of materialism indeed being correct, just as all the scientific evidence seems to indicate
Again you're saying the same nonsense which I have addressed. Materialism is assumed in scientific inquiry, it can't prove it to be correct or incorrect. It can show only that materialism is effective.

>>15237937
Ah, yeah. I see what you mean. I think I meant to say not-human-like conscious perspectives, or added the bugs, animals, etc after the other obviously non-conscious examples. That was a slip up on my part

>>15240611
No, it's not speculative at all, we know fairly well now what stringent requirements are necessary, far better than we did when Putnam first put forth those arguments. The computational theory of mind is getting vindicated more and more by the second. Only people who lack objectivity and don't want it to be true still try to claim that there's no consensus. There's nothing about any of this that's based on faith, it's all based on reason and evidence, the exact opposite of faith.
>>15240612
None of that is nonsense at all, it's entirely true: this thread is a great testament to just how untenable anything other than materialism is. Still talking about proof when I've made it clear that sufficient proof already exists means you still don't understand the difference between what constitutes proof and what is speculation. As said earlier, you can e.g. never disprove solipsism conclusively, but it's still entirely unreasonable.