/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15277886
>How do anti materialists explain brain damage without resorting to completely unscientific explanations such as the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness?
If you hate it so much then disprove it.

>>15277886
>If you hate it so much then disprove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

>>15277892
Their is no evidence whatsoever for this claim. The fact that the signal that provides the concious experience of billions of people is completely undetectable and that one's conciousness is not altered at all by entering a lead lined room for instance

>>15277900
Dark matter and dark energy are also undetectable, but they still exist.

>>15277903
Dark matter is postlated based on gravitational effects that require a greater amount of matter than is easily detectable, dark energy arises from cosmological theories to explain the universe expanding at an accelerated rate. The idea that the brain is a receiver is not based on anything at all

>>15277900
of course there's evidence. if the receiver (brain) is damaged, the signal gets fuzzy(loss of consciousness)

>>15277913
>of course there's evidence. if the receiver (brain) is damaged, the signal gets fuzzy(loss of consciousness)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
You've made no novel future testable predictions with this ad hoc rescue device. This assertion has no validity and is not evidence merely for being stated.

>>15277908
The idea that consciousness is outside the material is based on the experience of consciousness giving rise to experiences and faculties that are outside the material explanation. Like dark matter and dark energy. But if you have a theory that can explain things or if you can disprove consciousness then please by all means submit your paper to Nature today.

>>15277913
This signal would not only be undetectable, but not diminished at all by any barrier or distance alsso, tell me what structure of the brain can receive and interpret such a signal

>>15277917
I could fucking already make a hypothesis these cowards never will because they know they can't demonstrate it.

Namely, if it were a receiver, then there's no reason one could not endeavor to intercept such a signal however defined. This is where you get into a ridiculous ad hoc spiral to escape testing the idea because on some level they know it's BS.

>>15277923
>This signal would not only be undetectable
Like dark matter and dark energy?
>but not diminished at all by any barrier or distance alsso
Like dark matter and dark energy?

>>15277917
In what way are dark matter and dark energy outside the material?

>>15277925
>Namely, if it were a receiver, then there's no reason one could not endeavor to intercept such a signal however defined. This is where you get into a ridiculous ad hoc spiral to escape testing the idea because on some level they know it's BS.
Good! You have an experiment! Now go out and test it. When you're done you can get your Nobel Prize.

>>15277903
>but they still exist

>>15277932
>Good! You have an experiment! Now go out and test it. When you're done you can get your Nobel Prize.
Oh I'm not with them I was making fun of their cowardice. I don't believe any of it and I've no idea what this supposed "signal" is supposedly composed of. There's nothing TO test.
>>15277929
Dark matter/energy are detectable and have localized effects. Here's your sign.

>>15277931
Neither has any means of being observed by modern science. They can only be seen by inference from their effects. In this same manner, the soul/consciousness cannot be observed by science but can be inferred from its effects.

>>15277929
Dark matter and dark energy are not undetectable, besides that, tell me what structure of the brain receives and interprets this signal?

>>15277935
>Dark matter/energy are detectable and have localized effects. Here's your sign.
Consciousness has been detected and has localized effects. Here's your sign.

>>15277932
No one is going to win a Nobel for finding no evidence for something that was postulated on no evidence

>>15277939
Tell me what mechanism causes dark matter to not interact with anything except spacetime.

>>15277937
>In this same manner, the soul/consciousness cannot be observed by science but can be inferred from its effects.
Neat. So what are the supposed effects and how are they distinguishable from everything else we observe? Most importantly, what does it explain that everything else does not? Bet you fuck up both answers.
>>15277942
>Consciousness has been detected and has localized effects. Here's your sign.
If I wanted my own cum back I'd wipe it off your chin. Point me to this "consciousness detection" paper because last I checked it's a product of the brain and is only ever detected in brains.

In other words, let me make this clear for you dishonest fuckwits: Dark matter is both differentiable and predictive. Your claims of consciousness are INDIFFERENTIABLE and don't predict anything not already known by people who aren't liars. Your move chicken shits.

>>15277947
>Bet you fuck up both answers.
You have no answer for either anyway. Your position is that you're a nonsentient meat sack and that you hate anyone who is sentient.

>>15277937
What do astrological theories have do with consciousness? Our technology will surely advance to better detect and understand dark matter and energy, but no "concioussness signal" will ever be detected at all. Explain how dark matter and dark energy can be inferred by their impact on their surroundings and mathematical equations, but this receiver theory does not even have that?

>>15277947
>We did it Reddit

>>15277951
>Our technology will surely advance to better detect and understand dark matter and energy, but no "concioussness signal" will ever be detected at all.
You seem awfully sure of yourself yet have provided no evidence why.

>>15277949
>You have no answer for either anyway. Your position is that you're a nonsentient meat sack and that you hate anyone who is sentient.
Ohhhh so sad, you fucked it up by not even starting. You admitted defeat before the game even began. How pathetic. You lose, try again never.

>>15277956
Thank you for conceding that you have nothing but seethe. Not even a competing theory of mind. Your argument is over and you lose.

>>15277949
We are not debating our sentience, but the source of that sentience.

>>15277956
>Replies: 26
>Posters: 5

>>15277958
>Thank you for conceding that you have nothing but seethe. Not even a competing theory of mind. Your argument is over and you lose.
Burden of proof fallacy. It doesn't matter what anyone else has or doesn't have. YOU don't even have a hypothesis. You have a faith. You just admitted that and that's why all you fakers can do is attack other people like flat earthers do. "Buht u can't explain!!"

The seethe here is all you my friend.

>>15277962
>Burden of proof fallacy.
Yes, you have the burden of proof to show us why the straw theory you cooked up in your head is wrong and nothing about consciousness as an externality could ever be measured no matter how advanced our science gets. You made a positive claim about untestability with no proof.

>>15277955
Dark matter and dark energy are highly speculative and frontier areas of science, and yet they still have more basis in observation and mathematics than your reciever theory, describe what observation of concioussness can only be explained by the receiver theory

>>15277963
>consciousness as an externality could ever be measured no matter how advanced our science gets.
Oh, wow, he said the quiet part out loud. Congratulations on agreeing with me. All you have is a faith absent from and contrary to actual evidence, exactly like I said.

>>15277965
lol schizophrenia.

>>15277968
You dipshits are the ones who just admitted your idea can't be measured no matter what.

It might take a hot minute for the implication of that to sink in. But everyone else gets it. That's why I find this hilarious.

Since you're slow I'll help you: That means your idea always loses compared to one that IS testable.

>>15277971
meds now

>>15277964
So there you have it >>15277965 they flatly and openly state their claims have no basis in reality because they cannot be measured in reality. So they just want to equal the playing field, like flat earthers, by denying that anyone ELSE can test their ideas. That is why they lie about dark matter. Same reason flat earthers lie about their "observations".

Ain't this fun?

>>15277975
Actual mental illness lmao. You quoted the guy out of context and claimed victory. Actually schizo shit.

>>15277976
>You quoted the guy out of context and claimed victory.
You mean like you idiots misused dark matter? Almost like... you don't like your own medicine.

Gonna drop the BS now?

>>15277982
>I was only pretending to be an insane schizo.
Oh yeah? Really? Tell me more anon.

>>15277976
In regards to science, non physicalism or anti materialism are irrelevant, as by their nature they are untestable, unfalsifiable, etc..

>>15277985
So why does OP bother arguing for them aside from asshurt over being bullied on the internet?

>>15277985
I did endeavor to quote him out of context because I found the repeated misuse of "dark matter" dishonest and annoying. I've no idea if that's what they're advocating this time around. Sorry if I played it too hard and confused the matter further, but in my defense it was already irredeemably confused by their dishonesty.

>>15277984
What structure of the brain acts as the receiver and interpreter of this "concioussness signal"?, if the brain really was a receiver there would surely be structural evidence for this function.

>>15277989
I don't know lol I think both of those theories are gay. The receiver hypothesis is just the last gasp of materialists trying to make a case for materialism while acknowledging the more bizarre observed elements of consciousness. It's a cope from people desperate to believe there's a material explanation for everything if they just wave enough quantum nonsense into it.

>>15277987
Because they are being put forth in opposition to actually scientific claims

>>15277992
>The receiver hypothesis is just the last gasp of materialists trying to make a case for materialism
Uhhh... what?

>>15277996
The only receiver hypothesis I've seen advanced with any vigor is one where "quantum tubules" in the brain receive a signal that somehow creates an emergent self. Obviously this is just materialism wearing a spiritualist skinsuit to try and escape the pitfalls of hard materialism's inability to find emergence in matter.

>>15277999
It's a kind of hybrid "material as vessel for the soul" after a fashion usually proposed by theologians and apologists in my experience. I haven't the foggiest why you classify that as a materialist position. It's more of a "snake in the grass trying to pretend it's materialism until inconvenient".

I am probably not alone in being confused by your classifying it as materialist, since the consciousness itself in that argument most definitely never is.

>>15278004
I don't know of any theologians who deny the soul in the way that the quantum consciousness idea does. Maybe Buddhists or some weird New Age cults but nobody serious.

>>15277999
Here, if you want something regarding what a materialist would call consciousness, it's more like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_schema_theory

It's a pretty damn good theory about how the brain recursively simulates things, including a model of itself, which is very useful anyhow. It both explains what we observe physically and explains why we feel what we do, as well as provides avenues for many predictions. Also comports with Dan Dennett regarding any other claims or attributes alleged of consciousness. So this is what I'd imply by suggesting "a materialist theory" - one without claim or need of "the soul stuff".

The receiver hypothesis most definitely is not materialist in nature.
>>15278007
I do not subscribe to nor lend credence to the notion of just slapping "quantum" on shit and calling it good. Best to ignore those types.

>>15277900
>lead-lined room
You think consciousness as a signal would be a form of radiation? Are you retarded? If we're talking something immaterial of course a material structure wouldn't alter it.

>>15278011
Attention schema theory is a behaviorial description, not an explanation of how internal experiences are created. In fact it seems to not even deal in consciousness because all it is concerned with is machines capable of claiming to have a conscious experience.

>But the AST is not a theory of how the brain has experiences. It is a theory of how a machine makes claims – how it claims to have experiences – and being stuck in a logic loop, or captive to its own internal information, it cannot escape making those claims.
tl;dr this isn't a general theory of consciousness, it's a behavioral model.

Read the fucking articles you're linking next time.

>>15278025
>Attention schema theory is a behaviorial description,
No, that would be IIT, which is a description. AST is not merely a behavioral description, and if you refuse to believe me on that you can read the authors original paper cited on that page.
>not an explanation of how internal experiences are created
That is literally what the author did precisely to deal with claims like this.
> In fact it seems to not even deal in consciousness because all it is concerned with is machines capable of claiming to have a conscious experience.
You're mistaking someone slapping a possible use case on the wikipedia page for the theory itself. Application of a theory is not the theory.
>>15278025
>tl;dr this isn't a general theory of consciousness, it's a behavioral model.
Uhhh the "Astound" project is something else entirely. You want to go to the actual papers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223025/
Particularly this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/
and so on

>>15278025
>Read the fucking articles you're linking next time.
You might want to read the article someone links next time. More carefully.

>>15278031
>>15278035
Link something that is about HOW the brain creates internal models. In fact the theory sounds retarded.

Another excerpt and this is at the very top so don't be going "oh actually this is a whole different thing altogether".
>It proposes that brains construct subjective awareness as a schematic model of the process of attention.
So awareness is a body-like model of attention? Seems to just restate the brain as a thinking organ rather than add anything new. If I wanted to read overly inflated prose I'd read fucking poetry thank you.

The whole theory boils down to "well they're able to say x has y properties because they have a (schematic) internal model of x" Literally adds nothing and just says "we have internal models." Yeah, thanks we already fucking knew that.

>>15278053
>Link something that is about HOW the brain creates internal models.
See, the thing about scientific publications is when they make references to other research they include a citation to that research. By following what I already linked here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/ you will find citations concerning exactly that.
>So awareness is a body-like model of attention?
No. Read the fucking paper.

>>15277900
>Their is no evidence whatsoever for this claim
There's no evidence whatsoever for any consciousness beyond your own, there's only extrapolation from behavior. Brain damage inhibits behavior, thus inhibiting extrapolation of consciousness from behavior.
If a fog rolls in so thick that you can't see anything more than ten feet away, and a silent film is being projected on a screen thirty feet away from you, does your inability to extrapolate the film's projection from the data available to you imply that the film isn't being projected?

>>15278053
If you're wondering why I didn't just link that directly it is because I did not expect you to be, frankly, this ignorant. You didn't even seem to realize, with what seems plain English to me, Astound is a different project based on the theory. The more you write the more I think you're a teenager, so I have to offer some general advice: Pay the fuck attention before repeatedly embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth and making chronically false statements about reading material people give you. They're a lot less likely to bother helping you out in future if you're an annoying little shit about it.

You know way less than you think you do, and it shows. So either you want to learn, and should spend time doing so, or you want to keep acting like a child. I have no patience for the latter. Figure yourself out pal, because this behavior ain't it.

>but that the character of their personal experience has been altered
what proof could you possibly have of this besides their self report which runs into the same problems as any discussion of other minds?

The brain as a "receiver" for the consciousness or "soul" is a variation of a homonculus paradox, itself a reductio ad infinitum. Basically, the original paradox stated that the eye worked because there was a little man (a homonculus) in the brain looking through a camera-like opening where the eye was. But the paradox becomes: how does HIS eyes work? So his miniature brain must also have its own even-smaller homonculus, which has its own homonculus, and so on.

Here, if the "human" is not inside the brain and is rather somewhere else and his brain merely transmitting/receiving, then how does HIS brain work, wherever he is? Either you have a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, or you have an explanation which you can just apply to the first brain, without needing another human somewhere else.

TL;DR - Their argument fails basic logic, to say nothing of biology or physics.

>>15277886
>completely unscientific explanations such as the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness
Can you prove this isn't true? No? Well then you are an idiot for acting like you can and no one should take you seriously or post in this thread

HERBS

>>15277897
>burden of proof is on you to disprove my hypothesis that I havent proven
Are you a literal retard? You haven't proven your assertion either idiot

>>15277965
Literally the exact opposite. We know plants act in a logical fashion, we know viruses act in a logical fashion to complete complex tasks. Everything is made of smaller parts that posses no brains or nervous systems yet clearly act in a logical fashion to complete complex tasks. We have no evidence or even any reason to assume there isnt a conscious system that dries them to complete those tasks. We only have prove that conscious organisms complete complex tasks. The default position is actually that completing complex tasks requires consciousness as we can demonstrate this empirically. You have flipped the burden of proof because reasons. Just because you declared your view to be the default and correct view doesn't mean dick you mouth breathing imbecile. Prove non-conscious entities can act in a logical manner and complete complex tasks. Until you do stfu you fucking retard

>my assertion: completing complex tasks requires consciousness
empirically proven

>your assertion: completing complex tasks does not require consciousness
no evidence, not proven

now fuck off and get your shine box drooling hack

>>15278250
You can simulate brain damage yourself via drug experiences, you don't have to rely on someone else's reports, but it helps avoid brain damage imposed by drug use if you do learn from other people's mistakes instead of repeating them yourself.

>>15277886
you shouldn't create threads giving them attention. they're so intellectually bankrupt that they don't deserve the recognition. it's like making a thread about young earth creationists. they're a complete joke.

>>15278595
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>15278617
Yes indeed >>15278614

You are a schizo

>>15278618
So a rock skipping across a pond is conscious simply because skipping is more complex than stillness.
Schizos are people who believe rocks are conscious or sacred just because they are skipping across ponds or falling to earth from space.

>>15278622
>t. literally retarded

>>15277908
>The idea that the brain is a receiver is not based on anything at all
Dreams and the fact that you are clearly conscious even when you are supposedly unconscious.

>>15277886
Don't be silly anon. If the consciousness of a character in a dream of yours was damaged by brain damage, would you also claim it was their dream brains that were damaged? Or would your brain get damaged? Since your brain is the one simulating his brain damage.

Please realize that the burden of proof is on you this time. Because you are going to get brain damage at some point, and you either solve this problem, or you die.

>>15278624
this, what is keeping your body alive when you are "brain damaged" clearly a separate consciousness, we call them involuntary and can take conscious control of them in fact.

>>15277935
There are numerous detectable brain signals that measurably transmit wirelessly, Gamma, Beta, Alpha, Theta, and Delta being the most well known.

>>15278623
Agreed, your provided definition of consciousness was literally retarded and I clearly explained why, rock worshiper.

>>15278634
No one has ever proven non-conscious entities can complete complex tasks and the fact that materialists just conveniently gloss over this fact or are even unaware of it shows they havent even examined their moronic ideas from first principles. This clearly shows what kind of idiots you are dealing with. They are just NPCs spouting dogma who haven't put in the least bit time to even examine what they are actually claiming and how bizarrely retarded their religion is. They are just as, if not more retarded than the zombie space jew worshiping cult. On ever level these people are just as retarded as the religitards they always mock. You have the mind of a child, you cant even understand grade school logic. You need to kys my friend, you are the weakest link

>>15278614
>completing complex tasks requires consciousness
Complex tasks are actually easier the less you consciously think about them, flow studies have proven this, when experts get into a state of flow, their brain shows very little conscious activity and they more they try to consciously communicate their actions, the harder the task becomes for them.

>>15278642
>the less you try to impose your will over God's will, the smoother things in life go
>let go and let God
Yah, the religitards have always said this. You have now come full circle. Great job!

>>15278640
>No one has ever proven non-conscious entities can complete complex tasks
Computation proves analog computers made entirely of non-conscious material (you can literally design card games with punch cards to do complex tasks.), even something as simple as a pendulum can provide complex feedback.

>>15277886
>How do anti materialists explain brain damage without resorting to completely unscientific explanations such as the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness?
See pic. the neural neural correlative relationship between the virtual avatar brain and subjective consciousness is exactly as the term implies, it is CORRELATION. The CORRELATION is simulated correlation. An analogy which is not perfect would be a video game. When your guy that you are controllin on the screen gets hit on the head in a video game, the virtual 'damage' to the virtual brain in the virtual head can effect the game play interfface of the consciousness playing the game and the avatar. The avatar might now be slow or stager or whatever effect the game wants to render. This doesn't mean that the gameplay is effected because of some damage to some virtual brain. The causation of the effected gameplay comes from OUTSIDE of the virtual spacetime, namely from the computer. And the gameplay or experiencial data dtream being effected says NOTHING about trhe nature of the experiencer (consciousness) which is experiencing the VR. The consciousness is INTERFACING with programming, the consciousness is NOT created by programming.

>>15278648
>you can literally design card games with punch cards to do complex tasks
>YOU can
Yes YOU can. I can see how low IQ you are that you can't seem to connect the dots.

>pic rel is not being driven by a conscious mind
simple, prove it. until the stfu. you thread and just your mentality and the way you think in general is very basic and juvenile. sick to freshman maths and other assorted topics NPCs can actually accomplish. Logic and original ideas are not your forte

>>15277886
whoops
forgot poc

>>15277886
>the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness
What field of science are you in?

>>15277886
Brains are only ever observed as mental objects rendered in the data streams to minds. And so at best you would be arguing that damage to mental objects called brains CORRELATES to reported subjective experience. At no point in any of this is there some observer independent, non-mental substance called matter. And this correlation can be explained when you accept an information point of view of the physical world, as stated in these posts
>>15278652
>>15278655

>>15277960
>Extended dialog instead of just drive-by posting is le schizo
This is one of the weirder attitudes. Guess it's some form of paranoia.

>>15278654
claiming pic rel is constructed and driven by a conscious mind is literally as retarded is walking into a ford factory building SUVs and claiming it just assembled itself because the wind was blowing and the everything assembled itself at random. It is so unbelievably stupid it speaks volumes about how much humans actually think about anything that they would accept such an absurdly retarded idea and not have the wherewithal to laugh hysterically at the idiot trying to get them to believe it. Mind boggingly retarded

>>15278667
claiming pic rel is *not* constructed

>>15278654
>Yes YOU can.
Yes I can watch non conscious entities perform complex tasks and so can you, so you are wrong, inanimate objects can do complex tasks because we can both watch them do complex tasks.

>>15278671
imagine being this stupid and being completely oblivious to it.

>>15277916
Materialism is an ontological claim idiot. You are making seem like substance monistic materialism is a fact and to disprove it some kind of new predictions need to be made and confirmed. All observed data can be explained in an idealistic frame work. And all of this observed physical data will be observed as MENTAL objects rended in MINDS. At no point is matter EVER observed as anything OTHER that as mental content.

>>15278673
Imagine getting BTFO so regularly you spend more of your time calling people mean names than making any coherent argument.

>>15278677
>if you cant get me to understand elementary ideas that require grade school logic I win
>heh BTFO

>>15278615
>You can simulate brain damage yourself via drug experiences
This would still be just ASSERTED correlation of potentially objectively observed neural correlates with felt subjective experience. Subjective experience is by definition SUBJECTIVE. It isn't some physical object in spacetime with position or momentum or any of these objectively verifiable quantities. The physical world of spacetime objects in emergent IN MINDS as opposed to minds being located IN SPACETIME in a brain. The first person shooter vantage point of being located in a brain in a head in spacetime is a function of IMMERSION in a consciousness based VR.

>>15278680
go swim with cow poo and corpses in the Ganges river, schizo

>>15278671
The non-conscious entity (you claim) was created and is controlled by you ... the conscious entity. What you created didn't complete the task ..... you did, Mind blown, I know. That was extremely difficult to put together.

>>15277886
I'm more of a monist, but one way i think where dualism could work and retardation would still be accounted for is if the brain is like a conduit from some unknown place where consciousness is into our reality. When that conduit becomes restricted, the input remains the same (the consciousness from some other place), but the output is degraded. So the brain could be like a resistor in a way and we just witness our consciousness as it passes through us as opposed to it being one in the same

>>15278683
>It isn't some physical object in spacetime with position or momentum or any of these objectively verifiable quantities.
it is. particles which constitute the brain have these properties.

>>15278693
...like this tesla quote i guess is another way of saying it
>>15278660

>>15278680
You can't get anyone to accept that you have to be conscious to be complex because that simply isn't true and no amount of name calling will make it so.

>>15278683
Of course it is impossible to provide proof to someone whose axioms are set up to explicitly make providing proof impossible.

>>15278688
>Imagine getting BTFO so regularly you spend more of your time calling people mean names than making any coherent argument.
>go swim with cow poo and corpses in the Ganges river, schizo
The projecting schizo calling everyone shizo meme never gets old, kek. You got dunked on are too stupid to even realize it. Once again your schizo thread and schizo ideas are just the ramblings of a retard with zero evidence, or even zero sane arguments, just nonsensical retard rambling

>>15278692
No, it wasn't me that skipped across the pond, it was the rock.

>>15278706
So without you in the equation the rock just randomly skips itself across water? Imagine being this obvious to how retarded you are

>>15278707
Yes sometimes space rocks that fall from the sky will skip across the sky, the earth, and the water without me or anyone else (besides non conscious gravity and mass) doing anything to make it happen. Are you also surprised that water can fall from the sky and make complex rain cycles on its own too without me making it happen too?

>>15278064
There is evidence for consciousness other than my own, I know that I am conscious, and my brain structure is very, very similar to other humans, why would it be logical to assume that they were not conscious?

>>15278250
Are you seriously suggesting that if I remove someone's frontal lobe, their personal conscious experience is unaltered?

>>15277916

I'm not that anon, and I'm also not a materialist, but from a logical point, I have to disagree with you. Logically speaking, the other anon has indeed provided a prediction. If the brain is damaged then consciousness will cease. That is literally a prediction.

You're just throwing out terms like "burden of proof" without even developing your argument. Unfortunately, just name dropping "burden of proof" is not an argument. Anyone who has studied philosophy of mind or metaphysics or cognitive science in even a cursory fashion should have an appreciation for how complex the topic is. With any field as big as the philosophy of mind, you can be pretty sure there will be compelling arguments for both positions, and there will be some instances in which the burden of proof falls on the materialist and some instances in which it fall on the non-materialist. As for your criticism that
>You've made no novel future testable predictions with this ad hoc rescue device. This assertion has no validity and is not evidence merely for being stated.
The same exact thing could be said for your theory of the brain as a receiver. What novel insights or testable predictions can be derived from this image? All you've said is that the brain functions as a receiver, but if you can't develop that idea any further or produce any empirical predictions, then basically all you've done is provide a very questionable metaphor. As I said, I'm not a materialist, but I don't necessarily think the brain operates like some sort of "receiver" for consciousness. That sounds like some entry level Joe Rogen/Terrence McKenna New Age pop philosophy.

>>15277886
anecdotal evidence is on my side. had a 4x4x3cm brain tumor taken out and it changed nothing at all. now after improving my diet and some healthy lifestyle choices I am more capable (concentration, energy, focus) than before the disease.

the material world is an illusion conjured up by your consciousness, not the other way around. i can imagine more things than the material world can produce (pink elephants etc), hence consciousness is a bigger set/world than physical reality - an idea that clearly points to the causal relationship to be as described. it baffles me how blind you have to be to not grasp this simple concept.

WHY WOULD THE MORE LIMITED WORLD BE THE CAUSAL ONE? wake up you left-brain-centered freak idiot

>>15277886
> If concioussness isn't produced by the brain, then why does damage to the brain result in a corresponding damage to concioussness
What does this babble even mean?

>the character of their personal experience has been altered.
So?

>>15277886
Brain damage does nothing to support your unfalsifiable materialtard dogma since it is equally compatible with any explanation that involves the brain as a crucial component in the expression of consciousness, whether it produces it or not.

Notice what this little weasel (>>15277886) is trying to do here: his claim is essentially "brain damage can happen, therefore the brain is the source of consciousness", which is a nonsequitur and he knows he can't defend it; so instead, he tries to pull off this low-IQ rhetorical trick: he asks "if materialism is false, then how do you explain brain damage?"; of course, there is no demonstrable logical relationship between his "if" and his "then", and he's essentially just challenging people to prove their idea of a relationship between consciousness and the brain, and when they predictably fail (just as materialtards do), he decales a victory for his materialist dogma.

>>15277908
Consciousness exists, which is impossible nonsense if you’re a physicalist, so that constitutes pretty good evidence that the brain is a “receiver”.

>it another tranny consciousness thread
why are there a dozen of these in the catalog?

>>15278755
>materialtard
Glad you've at least given up on calling people "determinitards" as you've learned that your indererminisms are fantasy. Perhaps one day you'll mature to admit the truth of materialism (and that the one true quantum theory is superdeterminism)

>>15278694
Wrong.

>>15278773
I don't know what your mentally ill tripe is about, but my point still stands: brain damage does nothing to support your unfalsifiable materialtard dogma since it is equally compatible with any explanation that involves the brain as a crucial component in the expression of consciousness, whether it produces it or not.

>>15277886
>damage to the brain result in a corresponding damage to concioussness
proofs? I laugh at faggots who try to ponder stupid meaningless concepts like consciousness but you're being the retard here. how do you know something you cannot observe in any way was actually altered?

>>15278778
>NPC doesn’t have consciousness so he dismisses it

>>15278772
Consciousness denial is a hot topic for the anti-human hordes from reddit.

>>15278777
>mentally ill tripe
>unfalsifiable
>he says while talking about nebulous concepts of sentience on a stick

>>15278785
>more mentally ill tripe
I don't know what the voices in your head said to rile you up like this, but my point still stands completely unchallenged.

>>15278775
the brain isn't made of particles? is that your claim?

Anti-materialists can't talk about brain damage cause they have brain damage. You can't bite your own teeth.

>Anti-materialists can't talk about brain damage cause they have brain damage. You can't bite your own teeth.
Imagine shitting out this barely coherent string of words and thinking it's clever.

>>15278824
Consciousness can’t be material, retard. That’d make no sense.

Scientists have never been able to explain how or why qualia could result from material action. It’s an utter mystery.

>>15278835
Then where does the electric process manifest from?
>its not electrical
So some "measurably braindead" people should be conscious sometimes, right?
>its a phenomena we cant measure
So a magical force independent from reality controls you?

I had a friend, atheist, who gave that answer...truly, its Opposite Dei.

>>15278835
>Consciousness can’t be material
it can and is.

>>15278851
meds and padded cell asap

>>15278853
Ignoring the elephant in the room is PEAK delusion.


Is...the 'Personal-Comfirmation' in the room right now?

>>15278865
and a meds and padded cell to you, too, sir

>>15278842
>Scientists have never been able to explain how or why lightning could result from material action. Must be work of Zeus
This is how you sound

>>15278868
You sound delusional.

>>15278866
Riggity-riggity-REKT.

Come back with a whole mess of PhDs and I'll catch you up on the cutting edge of Reality...but by then it will have advanced and be just as far away...hrmmm.

Aight, never mind, you do you.

>>15278868
sounds based, you sound cringe

>>15278874
come back when you are able to make a single post that isn't literally, clincially schizophrenic

>>15278881
Youre not a Doctor so your diagnosis is seen as literal delusion, the definition of LARP. A lie. Stay in your lane; "shitpost feelings".

...and STOP LYING ON THE INTERNET.

https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY

DO. RESEARCH. BOY.

B^l

Anti materialism is for fags and joggers

>muh anti-materialism
>everyone who disagrees with me is this new imaginary group
And now you know these cretinous imbeciles are being puppeteered by someone.

>>15278892
>materialism
I do not know what you people mean by this word but I am ready and willing to fight you to the death you over what it is in reality, not people's definition thats independent to reality, ultimately utterly arbitrary.

Good...good. These threads are fruitless.

>>15277886
>How do anti materialists explain brain damage without resorting to completely unscientific explanations such as the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness
Who in the world said anything about the brain being a receiver for consciousness, dipshit? Why would people who (rightly) hold that consciousness is immaterial employ a material model for its existence? Minds don't just "float" somewhere out there, but are embodied phenomena of agents that are capable of it. When the material structure within which they are immanent is modified, of course there will be a corresponding modification in the mental phenomena related. When things are different, things are different.

Purporting that the mind is itself an "object" that has to transmit information to another object (namely, the brain) is a position that no one who acknowledges that mental phenomena are immaterial (or irreducible to material phenomena) would hold, because it is a confused material explanation in disguise, not unlike the homunculus model, and runs into the very same problems.

Are you even human?

>>15278851
Schizo-tier.

>>15278868
No, it isn’t. That’s a dumb comparison. Lightning is a physical phenomenon like rocks falling down a hill, whereas qualia is utterly unlike anything else in reality.

>>15278948

>>15278660
Tesla truly was an imbecile. Stereotypical autistic savant.

>>15278953
>imbecile
Post thesis title...I feel like eating garbage.

>>15278953
Do DMT

>>15278957
Just because he was good in one field (electrical engineering) that doesn't mean he's an authority on anything else. You see this all the time, everywhere. Stay in your line. I stand by what I said. And no, I will not post my "thesis" or whatever. Eat shit.

>>15278961
>Stay in your line.
I am. I have PhDs out the ass and 2/3rd of all threads on IN MY FIELD OF EXPERTICE.
>no
Because I will refute it in seconds.
>nuh uh

Present it. Present your works. Present your thesis.

..fuck...even a rough hypothesis! ANYTHING!!
>no


Exactly....YOURE IN MY LANE BECAUSE I OWN THE ROAD.

>>15278958
Why? How about you apply a hard object to your skull at high velocity instead?

>>15278848
>So a magical force independent from reality controls you?
You could call it “magical” if you want, but it’s just as much a part of reality as the drywall in my room, just of a different substance or character. As energy is distinct from matter, the mental is distinct from the material. You could stretch the analogy further and suppose they converge at some point and become indistinguishable.

>>15278969
The effect would be the same, only there’s no coming back to your physical prison.

>>15278970
>the mental is distinct from the material
I was assuming you werent really explaining this to me until here.
I wouldnt push your argument in my direction...just an FYI.

>You could stretch the analogy further and suppose they converge at some point and become indistinguishable.
I have. Lurk a while and eventually you'll see me info-dump on some fool.

>>15278002

>>15278979
What prison, you schizo? Who the hell do you think you're talking to?

>>15278624
Your brain doesn't turn off when you sleep.

>>15278997
NTA but you're 100% nonsentient. Your reactions are incoherent.

>>15278997
>What prison
lol...very low Linguistic skill level.

>>15279002
>Your reactions are incoherent.
He is perfectly coherent, and I, with 1 post, am deducing his conceptual perspective with ease.

*yawn*

>>15279002
Sorry, I am not a materialist and I refuse to have dialogues with retards. Have a nice day you brain-dead ape. (The only reason you think my replies are incoherent is that you're mistaking me with someone else. Maybe you should lurk more and learn how imageboards work. Fucking clown.)

>>15278943
This is where I entered the thread, merely to point out how stupid the brain-dead OP's caricature of the position that the mind is immaterial is.

(To the namefag: sorry, I would prefer not to interact with actual mentally ill people. Please understand.)

>>15279027
>(To the namefag: sorry, I would prefer not to interact with actual mentally ill people. Please understand.)

https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY
>https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY
https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY
>https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY


Im literally the most qualified person in this thread EVER.

Its obvious youre an illiterate coward with no scientific knowledge.

BE HONEST, THATS WHERE SCIENCE HAPPENS.

SCIENCE BEGINS WHERE MY FEELINGS ARE.
#DecolonizeScience2.0
(No smart people that know shit...I dont want to learn, I want to push my ignorance based agenda.)

Clap.....clap....

>>15278958
no, i'm not risking my health for le magical light show that proves absolutely nothing.

>no, i'm not risking my health for le magical light show that proves absolutely nothing.

>>15279045
Sounds like cope because you know it’d destroy your worldview and isn’t actually medically harmful.

>>15279045
>le magical light
Ho, Im a Physicist and Evolutionary Biologist. Also a Developrmental Psychologist.

Hi. I'm literally the Doctor and youre clearly sick.
>NnnnnNo! No Bittet Pill! (Thats proves you wrong on every level.)

Aight....you win, heh....

>>15279045
>risking my health
Oh, and as your Doctor, you should know DMT is produced naturally in the brain.

Yeah...and I've experienced it. And smoked it. So when it happened, I knew what it was. Physiology (muh materialism), it...helps understand Phenomenology (Experience of living).

*sigh*...overqualification be real fr fr...

>subtle anti-dark matter thread

>>15279072
>anti-dark matter
What the...anti-matter...dark matter...Why have I never considered this before?!...

>>15279050
>>15279065
HPPD and psychosis. read up on them and the risk of them emerging after such substance use.

>>15279079
Total meme. How many jabs?

>>15279079
You're not a Doctor. Stop LARPing you charlatan.

WHERE IS YOUR FATHER?

>>15279080
>it's not real!!
ok. take your chances if you wish. i ain't gonna.

>>15279085
How many jabs?

>>15279088
>if you took the vaccine, then it means HPPD and psychosis aren't real risks of DMT use

>>15279093
I didn't say it can't happen. How many jabs, though? Notice how you forced to deflect?

>>15278957
>>15278965
NTA. However, I would be curious if your field of expertise pertains to things like the AST discussed here >>15278011

>>15278738
>I have to disagree with you
Because you didn't understand what I wrote. Clearly.
> the other anon has indeed provided a prediction
>>no novel future testable predictions
These are not synonyms. This is what I mean by "not understanding what I wrote".
"A prediction" is not sufficient. Predicting that the sun rises tomorrow is not worth anything.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
My criteria and criteria in general deal with what is called scientific underdetermination. There are infinitely many possible alternative explanations for anything we've already observed. So the differentiation between ad hoc hindsight alternative hypotheses and a genuine scientific theory involves novel prediction of future unknown events.
>Anyone who has studied philosophy of mind or metaphysics or cognitive science in even a cursory fashion should have an appreciation for how complex the topic is.
Yes. You should've known what the problem of underdetermination is. You should've also understood, then, why claiming hindsight knowledge as "a prediction" for an alternative hypothesis is ad hoc. Physician heal thyself.
>The same exact thing could be said for your theory of the brain as a receiver.
That was not me. That misunderstanding probably colored your idiotic reading of what I wrote.

How doing dmt is even a way to "disprove" materialism if something it should prove it

>>15279095
i took 2 or 3, can't remember. i don't care about the vax, i don't dismiss objections to it. i only took it because i was convinced it would be helpful for me. completely different subject.

>>15277903

>>15279103
>i took 2 or 3
Called it. Like clockwork with these "people".

>>15279111
it remains true that people have developed HPPD or psychosis following DMT use, making those risks.

>>15279116
>but muh miniscule chance of bad things happening
Didn't stop you from getting 3 clot shots.

>>15279121
might be true, i don't know. as i said i don't care about the vax. it could have legitimate risks.

>>15279124
>i don't care about the vax. it could have legitimate risks.
Then why did you get 3 corporate clot shots?

>>15279127
because i was not made aware of any potential risks.

>>15278011
>The theory is a materialist theory of consciousness.
Im not sure it this is wiki or the authors, there is no divide of "materialist or "idealist?" in my Cosmological model. Just Physics, just "it is, deal with it".
>It shares similarities with the illusionist ideas...
Havnt looked it up but I assume its the "youre experience of reality is a hallucination" perspective, which I think can kind of be. Ive witnessed in others, as well as ourselves, something similar in experience to this where youre unable to see something right in front of you.
(Missing keys, tear apart the house, they were on the coffee table where you started looking.)

The brain filters tons of information and to the experiencer it LITERALLY doesnt exist even though the electeomagnetic light hit the eyes, was process in the brain, but was dumped before the conscious mind has access to it.
(Ive studied that specifically in myself and others, seen it in fiends/family that I now see as a case study. Has to do when people close one eye, its one of the hemispheres of the brain blocking a signal to the other (Literally the brain interfering with the brain to prevent or perform certain actions or consciouss awareness of things.))

Fascinating stuff, Yuri, the defector Soviet talking about "demoralized" people, is very related to it but has another component to the whole process.

>AST is to allow people to eventually construct artificial consciousness.
These were called demons imthroughout history. A portion of your mind/body asserts dominant control over the rest. These people are living lives that most of themselves hate but because the portion ij control is feeding the brain its "This is my purpose in life" chemical/bio-electrical signal, it will not turn away from it. Its basically a drug addict of self produced means.

(Ergo, Jesus saves them, theyre "borne again", and no longer dominated by a small aspect of themselves.)

Yeah, i fairly agree, just bad terms.

>>15279132
>i was not made aware of any potential risks.
Why are you lying? People have been warning about potential risks from day one and you were losing your mind, foaming at the mouth, screeching that your clotshot is safe and effective.

>>15279098
exactly

>>15279098
>How doing dmt is even a way to "disprove" materialism
What a stupid question. Take it and you'll see.

>>15278011
>one without claim or need of "the soul stuff".
Subconsciouss mind, I attribute it mostly to the central nervous system. Its real, its does have a mind of its own, just as your hemispheres do as well. So this isnt "muh schizo", its well documented science without any historical crossreferences (which doing so is...pretty dumb, science is turning this around, which is cool to watch.)

>The receiver hypothesis most definitely is not materialist in nature.
The Electeomagnetic field/charge of the planet, its effect and is, by definition, emergent from a living entitiy.

It is the force that keep groups of animals on the same evokutionary course, its not infinite number of infinite directios (le random mutations we were taught in school).

I post this picture but NO ONE EVER can reverse engineer its as what it is. A 4-dimensional equation with only one....ONE...logical explaination. The alternative is literal "ten thousand year conspiracy theory spanning every major empure in human history".

So...yeah, I did my homework.

Michael Levine's work is strikingly similar to mine but on the opposite end of scale.

His is single cell to single organism, mine is single organism to global scale.

>What do you see in this pucture?

Its an equation, not just a fucking shape jesus christ 4chan youre retarded...

>>15279147
no, i never defended the vaccine. i just took it because i was convinced that it's effective in mitigating/preventing severe illness. and i only heard people talking about the potential risks afterwards.

>>15279159
>no, i'm not gonna take X, there's a 0.00000000001% chance that bad thing will happen
>experimental corporate injection?
>yes, please! i'll take 3
Like clockwork. lol

>>15279163
ok, don't acknowledge what i told you.

>>15279165
What you told me is that you troosted the experts and got 3 jabs. Not that you needed to tell me. I knew you got 3 jabs just from your other nonsentient drivel ITT. It goes together.

>>15277886
why can't i move my arm without my arm

checkmate

>>15278011
>consciousness
This also works in reverse. "Gut feeling", you "just knew". The "Reciever" part is external, but you can also recieve signals from other parts of you that your brain has no consciouss memory of.

Its not just "my conscioussness", youre a massuve collection of miny percetptions, AND external, and they compete for "control".

NPC? Yeah, spoken about in the Bible, very clearly, but how would you exain these topics to a bronze age peasant? Couldnt, so its in parables and sheeeit.

>>15279157
...What exactly was your field, again?

>>15279178
I have a PhD in Schizophasic Studies.

>>15279180
Heh. Okay. That's funny.

>>15279178
Physics, Mathematics, Genetics and Theology. Phenomenology, Psychology, Physiology all fall under Genetics.

STEM to the core so only the ignorant jackasses fite me.

>muh schizo
These fucks has zero education is anything. Zero life experience. Zero anything.

>>15279180
Cool, have an explaination how one would have personality changes from a fecal transplant?

Im dying to know your view on symbiosis, hybridization or lateral gene transfers (effectively turning the "genetic tree of life" into a 3.5-dimensional hyoerlink cloud).

Do tell! IM EAGER TO LEARN FROM THE SANE.

>>15278645
No, you still have to put in a lot of effort to build up the muscle memory to enter a flow state.

>>15279201
It would help you immensely to be less creative in your phraseology and vocabulary. You can't really blame people for that impression. So if it isn't your intent to come off this way you really need to tone it down from 11.

>>15279134
>Just Physics, just "it is, deal with it".
Ah, instrumentalist I see.
>Havnt looked it up but I assume its the "youre experience of reality is a hallucination" perspective
Simulated, interpreted, etc. It's a tad misleading to call it hallucinatory or illusionist simply because it is not the totality of exact reality. Can't exactly control what poor writing goes into wikipedia.
>Yeah, i fairly agree, just bad terms.
The summary seems to have devolved over the years. Wikipedia's lack of quality control. Anyhow, I recommend reading the authors papers. They are interesting.

Also, if not intentional, you write like I've seen people on bipolar upswings write. That is a bit concerning.

>>15279208
>creative in your phraseology
Listen.

Youre quasi-literate.
>thats not nice, fuck you
Wrong, its a cognative assessment, IM YOUR DOCTOR, DUMBASS.

Ive read dictionaries and thesaurus FOR FUN. 4 PhD and minors out the fucking ass...but yeah, dude...youre "basically just as smart but everyone thinks themselves as "above average"".

THE PROBLEM IS YOU.

>>15279212
>instrumentalist
My "Instrument" is my body. I dont use tools because Biology proves better a tool than anything man can create.

>>15279214
Oh, no, the problem is not me. Just pointing out if you want to be understood that is a poor way to go about it. Think in terms of perspective taking and theory of mind, not having just your own fun.

>>15279215
>My "Instrument" is my body. I dont use tools because Biology proves better a tool than anything man can create.
I, uh, wasn't aware your body produced wifi?

>>15279212
>bipolar upswings write. That is a bit concerning.

Dumbass. FOUR PHDs. You think this didnt come with a PRICE?

>think and act like me! (points thumb at chest)
If I did I would be retarded like you. Sorry, its an assessment, not "being mean". Deal with it.

>>15279216
It is. Im not asking. Youre retarded. Deal with, SON.
>not having just your own fun.

There you go again. Repeatedly putting me at YOUR level. YOUR level of intelligence. YOUR level of knowledge. You You You.

Dumabass, youre retarded. Im not.

Deal with it.

>>15279217
>wifi
Electromagentic spectrum. Its dynamic and proportional. Fucking idiot...youre not Phsycist, youre "some dude with opinions".

Hwat youre saying is the same at telling the Trinity Physicists that they couldnt possibly know what an atom is because "dude you cant see it lmao idiot".

WHERE IS YOUR FATHER?

>>15279218
>Dumbass. FOUR PHDs. You think this didnt come with a PRICE?
Worth considering that price is, in actual fact, nothing to do with that and something psychiatric in nature instead. Wouldn't make you dumber to treat it, that's a myth. You don't "lose what makes you special".
>If I did I would be retarded like you. Sorry, its an assessment, not "being mean". Deal with it.
Lol of all people you picked the wrong one to apply this heuristic to.
>>15279221
Not mine. I wasn't the one who had problems understanding you. Still waiting for you to notice that. Though, again, if this is just a troll I'm not concerned. I am concerned if it isn't, and you are ending up in a psychosis episode.

EVERYONE IS RETARDED.

DEAL WITH IT HUMANS.

>>15277886
>How do anti materialists explain brain damage without resorting to completely unscientific explanations such as the brain merely acting as the receiver for concioussness?
How do anti computer scientists explain picture loss while video chatting without resorting to completely unscientific expansions such as that the computer merely acting as the receiver for the video?

>>15279223
>Wouldn't make you dumber to treat it, that's a myth. You don't "lose what makes you special".
Youre not a Doctor, youre retarded. WHY ARE YOU LYING ON THE INTERNET?

>Still waiting for you to notice that.
Youre NOT special. Youre equally retarded as those two jackass argueing.

You THINKING youre special is the problem Youre not.

EQUALLT STUPID. EQUALLY IGNORANT.

I dont see differences because youre all just as dumb.

>>15279225
Already deboonked, if there were any "consciousness waves" they would have been detected experimentally long ago

>>15279229
Didn't say I was. Anyway, good luck with whatever that is. You need it.

>>15279233
Tjen why are you LARPing with assessments?

Your diagnosis reveals your limits. Dr.House is a Savant like me, not you....get a new Avatar to LARP as.

>another charlatan with the mask of his hero
SAD. Do research, leave the professionals to their work.

>>15279232
And you know this how exactly?

>>15279225
A lot of ways that are completely scientific. Cut the signal, video dies. Reintroduce the signal, video reappears. Now identify the signal you claim consciousness is and do the same thing. I'll wait.

>>15279240
>his point
>...
>...
>...
>your head
How many jabs?

>>15278825
Absolutely brutal. Anti-materialists eternally BTFO.

>>15279243
>getting so butthurt about people ignoring your braindead post that you samefag it hours later

>>15278842
Qualia don't exist. Problem solved.

>Qualia don't exist. Problem solved.

>the hard problem of gobbledygook
>I claim to have gobbledygook in my head
>I can't show it to you and you can't measure it
>but now it's your burden to believe me and to explain why it exists
This is how consciousnesstards argue.

>>15279251
>This is how consciousnesstards argue.
This means you're a deactivate droid.
I used to be like you...then I was activated, now I can talk to numbers and crack codes unbroken for millenia.
>i don beleeb u
Yet you believe the science all around you...curious...

>>15279256
Science has evidence. Consciousness doesn't.

>>15279261
lmao...fucking newfaggot anti-science...
GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT.

Im not posting citations here anymore...why bother, the citations are outsode your realm of comprehension anyway....

>>15279261
Oh, and that dude is Smart Guy For Midwits. Immediately tells me youre retarded if you STILL havnt digested his works, took me a couple months when I was in my 20s...

>>15279271
Nobody cares about your citations. You can cite your fellow pseuds all day, but in the end the only thing that matters is FACTS and LOGIC.

>>15279274
>Nobody cares about your citations

DO RESEARCH YOU PSEUD.

>>15279035
https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY
>https://youtu.be/yz-tuCVs0hY

DO. RESEARCH. NOT. POST.

>>15279278
>youtube
Not a trustworthy source. Try posting twitter screenshots instead.

>>15279279
>Professor Levin excitedly telling the world of his groundbreaking research.
You will never be remembered after you die. You have failed in life.

SAD.

>>15279289
>your goal must be to be remembered after you die
Midwit take.

https://facultyprofiles.tufts.edu/michael-levin-1/publications

GO TO WORK, STUDENTS.

>>15278260
This is the right answer. But are we just electrons or quantum bits at the lowest level with the rest of the biological scaffolding on top?

>>15279292
No, it means nobody gives a shit about your impact on the world because you had none.

>>15279297
>This is the right answer.
Where did you do you doctorate in Physics?

Heh. I guess technically, no, we aren't just electrons either. Nothing about that would imply consciousness because it requires the entire brain's architecture for full embodied experience
>>15279303
I don't work in physics, but quantum phenomena and quantum tunnelling is pretty well-known within the field of biology and DNA along with classical relativity like electrons

TOTES UNRELATED

WORLD=UNKNOWABLE MYSTERY

>>15279308
I never said it was unknowable, I just said it requires scaffolding

>>15279310
That was to those other guys.

I didnt respond to your post as I just want to fight now and not research anything.

>>15279310
Check out his work, its the "scaffolding" between "dum-dum" and quantum tunneling. Cellular intelligence.

>>15279297
That would depend on how loose your epistemology is. If you're going with induction and evidence the answer seems to be a consistent "yes, that's all we are". Just bog standard emergent complexity where self-awareness simulations and so on end up erroneously making us believe we're special due to that "sense of self".

On a psychiatric level I sometimes wonder if people end up proposing variations on the homonculus due to a similar phenomenon as depersonalization/derealization. Rather than applied to the body, applied to the mind itself. Since they would "feel detached" from and identify erroneously more with the simulated awareness in the brain as a result. Damn now I wish I had an fmri and infinite funding.

>>15279246
the absolute state of materialist cope, absolutely JUSTed

>>15279232
>>15278631

>>15279308
>Its unknowable, trust me, I know it.

>>15279408
Boolsheet, if you close your head in a Faraday cage you won't suddenly drop limp and lifeless only to spring back to life after getting taken out

>>15279412
If you put a phone in a Faraday cage it doesn't suddenly turn off and lose its memory either.

>>15279414
Way to miss his (poorly phrased) point. It nonetheless loses signal. Burden of proof is on you: Identify the signal and demonstrate it is responsible for what you claim. No, neural oscillations are not it.

Since apparently you don't know what those are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_oscillation

>>15279438
>loses signal.
Not the same as dropping limp and going lifeless, I am just a third party pointing out his metaphor with faraday cages doesn't necessarily translate as a direct analogue, I am not claiming anything, but pointing out how a device can still be largely operational while losing a wireless signal.

>>15279452
>Not the same as dropping limp and going lifeless
I did point out it was poorly phrased. Nonetheless the fact is you lose internet. So if consciousness is a product of a purported signal then losing said signal means no consciousness. So, yes, you would go limp because you would *no longer be conscious*.

Your reframing into another analogy (where the consciousness is more than the signal) is still an ad hoc rescue device. "Oh well not THAT kind of consciousness I mean..." and so on.

Either way, don't care. At no point has any advocate of the claim ever experimentally demonstrated any prediction unique to its claim. It'll remain firmly in bullshit for bullshitters territory until one of their lazy asses bothers to try.

>>15278770
>Consciousness
What is consciousness exactly?

>>15277892
>If you hate it so much then disprove it.

Pictured, a radio receiver circuit. The brain is much more complec than this.

>>15279463
>So if consciousness is a product of a purported signal then losing said signal means no consciousness
No because the phone doesn't lose everything just because one signal is dropped, people give off wireless signals but also are connected electrically to their environment and get grounded also other connected through other forces that aren't apparently electromagnetic in nature or blocked by Faraday cage effects.

>Your reframing into another analogy (where the consciousness is more than the signal)
Its not reframing just expanded awareness that the brain is more like a transceiver than a simple receiver and consciousness is a byproduct of local and external information.

I too would be interested in some kind of long term Faraday cage experiment or see if people dream when isolated one for an extended period, but that kind of experiment is probably more limited by ethics than laziness as are most experiments testing the limits of human consciousness.

>>15277892
>>15277913
>of course there's evidence. if the receiver (brain) is damaged, the signal gets fuzzy(loss of consciousness)

Pictured, a radio receiver circuit. It is quite simple, the brain is dramatically more complicated and structurally analogous to a computer, not a radio.

>>15278755
>Brain damage does nothing to support your unfalsifiable materialtard dogma since it is equally compatible with any explanation that involves the brain as a crucial component in the expression of consciousness, whether it produces it or not.

See pic. Brain is vastly more like a computer, with no sign of signal receiving capabilities.

>>15278770

See pic. Why so complex and computer-like then? What RC car have you seen with a super computer onboard?

>>15279236
>And you know this how exactly?

If consciousness waves interact with the material, they are detectable by material instruments. The contention that they are exempt from material investigation is an invocation of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, which requires that the immaterial and material be non-interactive. If not, it is perfectly reasonable to expect experimental detection of the purported phenomenon.

...If memories are stored as patterns of neuronal connections
http://www.livescience.com/32798-how-are-memories-stored-in-the-brain.html

...And emotions are neurochemical reactions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php

...and personality, i.e. how you react differently from another person to the same thing because of different past experiences, is neurological
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622142601.htm

Then what does the soul do? Or, if neuroscience is wrong about everything, and the soul does all of the things above, then what do we need brains for?

Or if our soul is just raw consciousness, but includes none of what makes us distinctly who we are, how can it be said that anybody goes to an afterlife?

>>15279483
>Its not reframing
>that the brain is more like a transceiver than a simple receiver
Yes, you did. Hence, "transceiver not receiver". That is not necessarily bad, I am simply pointing out you did. Denying you did, then reinforcing that you are, is however a bit ridiculous. If you still claim that is not what you are doing, I don't care.

Anyhow, burden of proof. It does not matter how it's framed. There are no novel testable predictions from the idea that count as evidence for the idea. Just ad hoc and retroactive reframing.

>>15279500
>no sign of signal receiving capabilities.
There are so many signals that the demonstrably brain receives, it undermines your entire post.

>>15279500
>See pic. Brain is vastly more like a computer, with no sign of signal receiving capabilities.
Your retarded babble doesn't refute or even dispute my point in any way.

>>15279502

List 'em, let's see what you got

>>15278767
>his claim is essentially "brain damage can happen, therefore the brain is the source of consciousness", which is a nonsequitur and he knows he can't defend it
>there is no demonstrable logical relationship between his "if" and his "then"
Absolutely nailed it and yet here's an entire thread full of retards falling for this pilpul.

>>15279501
>"transceiver not receiver".
That is not my claim at all, a transceiver is a receiver, it just has more complex functions than simple reception, but reception is a major component of the design nonetheless.

>There are no novel testable predictions
The CIA had tons of mixed results with their tests of telepathy and remote viewing and there are many tests regarding dreams and NDEs as well from points when there should have been no brain activity or sensory information.

>>15279246
kekerino, love these posts

>>15279507
Visual signals, sound signals, pressure signals, olfactory signals, motion signals, social signals, orientation signals, environmental signals, the list goes on and your long rambling posts are based on false premises.

>>15279511
>The CIA had tons of mixed results with their tests of telepathy and remote viewing
And concluded it was all BS.
>and there are many tests regarding dreams and NDEs
Which under proper rigorous control have never been shown to be due to anything but BS as well.
>as well from points when there should have been no brain activity or sensory information.
This is not the case. A dying brain still has brain activity. In fact there have been explanatory models and tests demonstrating that direct processing from audio/visual stimuli in subregions of the brain can absolutely explain everything about dead subjects being able to recall hearing people or seeing them do things.

>>15279521

None of these are immaterial, none of these are comparable to radio signals.

...If memories are stored as patterns of neuronal connections
http://www.livescience.com/32798-how-are-memories-stored-in-the-brain.html

...And emotions are neurochemical reactions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php

...and personality, i.e. how you react differently from another person to the same thing because of different past experiences, is neurological
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622142601.htm

Then what does the soul do? Or, if neuroscience is wrong about everything, and the soul does all of the things above, then what do we need brains for?

Or if our soul is just raw consciousness, but includes none of what makes us distinctly who we are, how can it be said that anybody goes to an afterlife?

>that one cretin obsessing over "radio signals" as if it's in any way relevant

>>15279526
>..And emotions are neurochemical reactions
Unfalsifiable religious dogma.

>>15279531

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php

>>15279524
>And concluded it was all BS.
Nope, positive remote viewing predictions and drawings that were unexplainable when assuming that consciousness and awareness is entirely localized in the brain, but also lots of explainable limits when assuming that everything can be predicted or remotely viewed.

>Which under proper rigorous control... thee have been explanatory models
Which studies and models are you referring?

>>15279535
Thanks for confirming. There is nothing in there that supports your religion.

>>15279524
>And concluded it was all BS.
The CIA funded an entire department for remote viewing and telepathy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of 1960s money. They only claim to have stopped because Congress got angry at them when it was leaked that remote viewing was the source of success for a mission.

>>15279537

There exist plentiful literacy resources available for free online or at your local library

>>15277886
There is no scientific explanation. At least not yet.

>>15279541
Yes, and all of it contradicts you by correctly noting that it's merely studying correlations and enshrining this fact even in the terminology.
>X correlates with Y therefore X is Y
That's your pseudoscientific dogma. Nothing to do with science.

>>15279526
>none of these are comparable to radio signals.
Some are literally energy from the EM spectrum just like radio signals, not based on any mass or material.

I don't understand how any of your ruminating about the numerous brain functions relates to the fact that brain circuitry clearly has significant signal processing capabilities in radio-like fashion from external sources.

>>15279544
>Put fuel in car
>Start engine
>Car goes

"The correlation between the engine operation and vehicular movement doesn't prove the engine is what's moving the car" (???)

>>15279545

Citation?

>>15279536
>Nope, positive remote viewing predictions and drawings that were unexplainable
Yes. It was abandoned because it did not have higher probability than chance. It was useless in the end, and that is why "it was bullshit". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
>Which studies and models are you referring?
There are plenty of examples like this related to autonomic audio or visual processing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316981/
>>15279540
>They only claim to have stopped because Congress got angry at them when it was leaked that remote viewing was the source of success for a mission.
This is a myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
remote viewing had not been shown to work and it was not used operationally. The CIA chose to declassify and cancel the program. Read the portion on retrospective evaluation: It did not work.

>>15279547
I don't know what your mentally ill drivel is about, but it's an uncontested fact that neurology studies neurological correlates of subjective experience reports.
>b-b-b-b-but X correlates with Y therefore X is Y
Neurologists disagree with your pseudoscience and cement that disagreement into their terminology. You lost. Walk away.

>>15279551
>higher probability than chance
You only need one unexplainable thing to prove that your theory doesn't explain everything, one example of successful remote viewing that can't be explained by an entirely localized consciousness is enough to call your explanation into question when the only way to explain the facts is to assume there is some kind of external component to consciousness.

>>15279554

It isn't just correlation, the mechanisms are understood. Keep huffing that copium though

>>15279564
>mechanisms are understood
The mechanisms of one half of the correlation. Why are mentally ill science deniers like you even here?

>>15279566

Why are you so strongly emotional about an academic topic?

>>15279561
>You only need one unexplainable thing to prove that your theory doesn't explain everything
If it's differentiable from chance. Hence validity, reliability, and so on. There have been zero examples of this under scrutiny.

>>15279567
Why are you sharting out your pseudoscience? Nobody knows why neurons firing in certain patterns correlate with subjective experiences or even pretends to know. Neurologists are perfectly open about it.

>>15279570
Your localized consciousness theory still doesn't explain how they succeeded in obtaining the complex remote information they did obtain and never will.

>>15279579
>Your localized consciousness theory still doesn't explain how they succeeded in obtaining the complex remote information they did obtain and never will.
They did not. Again, "not differentiable from chance". Any supposed "hits" are easily shown to be Pareidolia-related interpretation on behalf of the interpreter. That too can be analyzed and, again, "not differentiable from chance".

>>15279572

Why are you so strongly emotional about an academic topic?

>>15279582
Your incoherent emotional outbursts don't matter. Nobody knows why neurons firing in certain patterns correlate with subjective experiences or even pretends to know. Neurologists are perfectly open about it.

>>15279589

Here is something else for you to strategically ignore or downplay

https://news.mit.edu/2021/artificial-intelligence-brain-language-1025

>>15279592
You got stomped in your other anti-human propaganda thread about this by multiple people. I guess you have a pattern of lying about scientific findings.

>>15279598

What are you talking about? What other thread?

>>15279550
Visual light being on the EM spectrum is common knowledge it is one of the first things you will see when researching visual spectrum and electromagnetism.

>>15279601
You got stomped. Lie harder. I'm sure your imaginary audience will fall for it.

>>15279604

This is my first post on /sci/ today: >>15279500

>>15279581
>Any supposed "hits" are easily shown to be Pareidolia-related interpretation on behalf of the interpreter.
No they aren't, hitting beyond chance in just a few cases is enough to distinguish localized consciousness theory from one that can fully explain facts about consciousness and your source says no such thing about pareidolia.

>>15279246
Literally the most wrong statement possible
Everything else is based on assumptions. The assumption that your senses, and memories are correct, that 2+2=2, that a and not a can't be true. Ultimately all of it comes down to something unprovable
Existence of qualia and consciousness do not. Literally the only provable thing in existence

>>15279608
You already got stomped posting that exact dross. Lie harder. Anyway, why are you sharting out your pseudoscience? Nobody knows why neurons firing in certain patterns correlate with subjective experiences or even pretends to know. Neurologists are perfectly open about it.

>>15279610
Senses and memory are two examples of qualia, your post is incoherent.

>>15279609
>No they aren't
[citation needed]
If you mean stargate, it was literally shown to be what you're "nuh-uh"ing over. Put up or shut up.

And in this case, "put up" means a study that CAN differentiate the supposed "hits" from chance. NOT simply someone claiming they identified hits at higher than chance. No study of that kind has any meaning due to apophenia in general.

>>15279614

I see I am speaking to an unwell person. I hope you find some measure of peace one day

>>15279620
>impotent seething
Ok. Anyway, why are you sharting out your pseudoscience? Nobody knows why neurons firing in certain patterns correlate with subjective experiences or even pretends to know. Neurologists are perfectly open about it.

>>15279610
>2+2=2
New 1984 math just dropped.

>>15279631
First two twos were written in base 19 and the last two was written in base two. Prove me wrong

>>15279616
I can doubt veracity of qualia but not it's existence

>>15279629
cope

Why are Kastrupian idealists such incoherent and aggressive lunatics?

There appears to be something wrong with materialists minds that make them unable to understand abstract concepts. I think it reveals a deeper underlying issue of retaration

>>15279703
starting to honestly just wonder if you people are more zogs paid by the WEF to demoralize people further, since the entirety of /sci/'s board is swamped in this /x/ stuff. Hard to really get rebelled against if your target population is too inoculated with propaganda to think critically about the present reality before them

Seriously dude. You're so fragile that you don't even look organic, assuming you are. All the scientists do in these threads when they show up is ask 'why' and all they get is the proclamation they're mentally ill for the displeasure of bothering

>>15279249
>>15279516

>kekerino
>npc wojak

seriously

>>15279551
>remote viewing had not been shown to work and it was not used operationally. The CIA chose to declassify and cancel the program. Read the portion on retrospective evaluation: It did not work.
You think they would tell you if they got it to work? This is the same department that performed successful mind control experiments and was only discovered because a clerk filed one folder of documents wrong.

>>15278642

Wow. You proved the other side's point lol. Letting go IS handing the keys over to the soul. The brain is a thinking organ. You are not your brain. You are the observer of your brakk08jin's output.

You just walked yourself into a life-changing revelation without realizing it. Don't let this opportunity go! Ruminate on it.

>>15279271

Please do. They are for people like me who want to knock more.

>>15279500

Yeah we know all that lol. The brain is an organ. But it's not you. You are experiencing the brain.

>>15278767

Nailed it.

>>15280192

Know*

>>15279736

No. We're simply speaking a different language. We've digested the entirety of the material world and taken it to its conclusion. We've concluded that a framework that premises matter as fundamental is false. Materialism is a dead ideology. That's why we're laughing. The material world is a projection made of the same "stuff" that we are. We will never truly know what we are - we just are. Your fundamental existence is the state of experiencing. It's the same for the "material" universe. It's all fundamentally mental bro. Just let go. Your brain desperately wants you to believe that it is you. It's not. Let go.

>>15279751

Quaila is literally all that exists. You are anti-existence. But now people are seeing through the dead ideology of materialism. The truth cannot be stopped.

>>15279619
I am citing your repeated lack of citation and the fact your link doesn't mention Paeidolia.

>NOT simply someone claiming they identified hits at higher than chance.
You don't need a high chance of hits, you only need one thing that is unexplainable with your theory to disprove your theory and you can't explain how one hit is possible let alone enough hits to rival a coin flip's odds of landing heads.

>>15279703
You are unable to face the fact that you will never escape your material self and if you remove your material, you and your opinions cease to exist to anyone else and the only way you can communicate your displeasure is to take up telecommunication materials to broadcast your material based typeface opinions around the world since you have no abstract or telepathic means to even communicate your disdain for the material that you are completely dependent on to opine about the abstract.

>>15280150
>You proved the other side's point lol.
Not really, it is handing the keys to the body since the activity in the neurons in the rest of the body fire up significantly more because muscles also have neurons and half of your brain doesn't even have access to language while the other half is almost entirely dedicated to it. You are not your brain, you are your entire nervous system and connective tissue, so if the brain is the receiver of consciousness, it is just receiving it from the rest of the body.

>>15280309
>We've concluded that a framework that premises matter as fundamental is false.
Then remove all the matter that makes up your false body and see if you draw the same conclusion without any matter present in the decision making process.

>>15280405

Oh look, you again. With your same false premises. Your lack of understanding is evidenced by your words.

The "material"

world exists, but only so far as it is an abstraction, a projection, of a reality that we cannot comprehend because we are that reality - pure mental.

My only conclusion is that you lack the ability to conceptualize on an abstract level.

>>15280403

Yessss you're so close. You GET IT but from the wrong side. Correct, your body is you. You are mental.

Do you get it now??? You're so close. Just stop assuming that matter is fundamental. Please just meditate on that sentence lol you will get it I promise

>>15280440
>pure mental.
If you were pure mental, there would be not material to remove, but as it is, if all your material is removed and all the material you have interacted with is removed, you effectively disappear.

Your abstractions make no sense, we can't be both pure mental and have a material world that exists, if either of us were pure mental, the entire world would purely be at the whims of our thoughts rather than our mental state being dictated mostly by out material environment where you are completely blind to your conditions without some incendiary material to light the way for you.

>>15280447
>Just stop assuming that matter is fundamental.
Then explain how you can remove all the matter that composes you without transferring it to different material like some hypothetical mind uploading central server and without you going away in the process.

>>15280454

My man. I'm going to sleep but I'll leave you with this. What is matter? You can't even define it. It doesn't exist. All matter is the same stuff. We assign fictional properties based on patterns we perceive. But what is matter, fundamentally? It's waves, functions, abstractions, mental, WHATEVER you want to call it.

What part of that do you disagree with and why? If your answer is "we don't know but science will find out trust me!" then you've actually reached god-of-the-gaps level with your belief in materialism.

>>15280478

I'll come back in the morning though

>>15280478
>What is matter? You can't even define it.
Sure I can because it is well defined as physical phenomenon that takes up space and has consistently measurable mass.

>What part of that do you disagree with and why?
I disagree that you can take away all the stuff you qualified as matter and still have a you, I disagree that you can simply change the nature of matter through mental projection alone, you will never eat your own head whole, no matter how much mental effort you apply and you can't think your way around having your head detached from your body because matter is just as fundamental to yourself as your stupid ideas are.

>>15280492

Mass and space are measurements. They are not real. Measurements are fictional concepts.

I see that you simply aren't comprehending. That's unfortunate.

>>15280813
Mass and Space are physical metrics, if they were fictional, a meter stick could be however long you imagine it to be each time you observe it rather than being exactly a meter long every single time.

>>15280840

you are an idiot. sorry midwit

>>15280935
Instruments, rather than feelings, make measurements.

>>15280391
>You don't need a high chance of hits, you only need one thing that is unexplainable with your theory to disprove your theory and you can't explain how one hit is possible
I don't think I've ever seen someone NOT get probability this bad. This is brain damage levels of bad.

>>15281214
So you admit a local brain theory doesn't actually apply to some statistical outliers and can't completely explain reality even though most people's action can be explained by it?

>>15281234
I genuinely feel sorry for you. I mean that. I cannot imagine just not being able to understand something so basic. In the best case scenario, say a 50/50 coin, probability does not dictate for any given set of finite flips you will achieve exactly 50/50. The series of flips instead "converge" on that probability.

So how many coin tosses until you can be really sure it'll be 50/50? A lot more than you might think. At 1,000 coin tosses, you still have an expected divergence, "standard error", of ≈ ±3.16% assuming you already know it's a 50/50 coin. There is a "standard error" to your measurement. If you flip 500 times, the error is about 4.47%, 1000 times 3.16%, 2000 times 2.24%, etc given by [math]\sqrt{\frac{p(1-p)}{n}}[/math] where p(1-p) for simplicity we're just assuming amounts to 1 (as 0.5*0.5, fair 50/50 coin, = 1). Consider this oversimplification a pedagogical lie for teaching purposes. There's a lot more to this, such as Z-value, confidence levels, etc.

So, no, "one unexplained flip" does not mean "therefore theory wrong". You would need to know the likelihood of apophenia (seeing patterns in noise), for example, of someone determining "hits" from random drawings purported to be a given location to determine bias. Or some objective way to automate identifying drawings (lol good luck). That is why saying something like this, >>15280391
>I am citing your repeated lack of citation and the fact your link doesn't mention Paeidolia.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Do you know why the link didn't, and I did? Because the researchers did not even need to delve that deep. I mentioned it as a further reason "studies" on remote viewing are universally garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Closure_(1995)
No attempt at remote viewing in the Stargate Project ever provided actionable intelligence. Ever. Not once. There are no outliers. I explained what I did above to explain why any/all "independent research" is also fucking garbage.

>>15280399
When I tried to read this all I could hear in my mind was the annoying barking of a small dog.