/sci/ - Science & Math

Ok.

>>15740272
Your mom solved the problem of my hard schlongus

>>15740272
There was never a problem to begin with.

>There was never a problem to begin with.

>>15740272
You should probably start with the easy or medium problem of consciousness.

>>15740354
Cope

>./cope.exe
>Cope

>>15740272
>awe sweet, I can't wait to try out all these new wojaks I downloaded!

>>15740272
You're going to have to solve the binding problem and the vertiginous question in the process.

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

>>15741759
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
This can be decoupled from consciousness proper.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
This is not a real question.

The binding problem and hard problem of consciousness scientifically probably have something to do with topological segmentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0YID6XV-PQ

>To address this problem we first need to break down “the hard problem of consciousness” into manageable subcomponents. In particular, we follow Pearce’s breakdown of the problem where we posit that any scientific theory of consciousness must answer: (1) why consciousness exists at all, (2) what are the set of qualia variety and values, and what is the nature of their interrelationships, (3) the binding problem, i.e. why are we not “mind dust”?, and (4) what are the causal properties of consciousness (how could natural selection recruit experience for information processing purposes, and why is it that we can talk about it). We discuss how trying to "solve consciousness" without addressing each of these subproblems is like trying to go to the Moon without taking into account air drag, or the Moon's own gravitational field, or the fact that most of outer space is an air vacuum. Illusionism, in particular, seems to claim "the Moon is an optical illusion" (which would be true for rainbows - but not for the Moon, or consciousness).

>Zooming in on (3), we suggest that any solution to the binding problem must: (a) avoid strong emergence, (b) side-step the hard problem of consciousness, (c) circumvent epiphenomenalism, and (d) be compatible with the modern scientific word picture, namely the Standard Model of physics (or whichever future version achieves full causal closure).

>>15741762
>This is not a real question.
Found the NPC

>>15741776
You will never experience qualia. You will never even read the png you keep reposting, which has actually nothing to do with p-zombies.

>>15741759
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
Your mistake is that you believe every feeling of peculiarity with regard to your circumstances translates into a meaningful intellectual inquiry. In this case, it clearly doesn't.

>>15740272
Square 1:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

>>15741771
insemination doesnt have anything to do with it coomer degenerate

>>15743253

Too late OP. I solved it already.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>15744924
were you sleeping while typing this? I don't understand why people have some abstract interpretation of consciousness like this.

>>15741776
Interesting read and I agree with most of his criticisms, but I don't see what the "qualia dial" idea solves.

Ways it might be possible to scientifically determine if other people are NPCs or not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

>>15745506
>pic rel

>>15745494
Jaron wins inconsequential arguments against children with the help of the qualia dial. My inability to understand his definition "the cross between Plato and a radio dial" means I'm a third type of person he hasn't seen or recognized.

>>15741762
Where did you get your degree, the University of Jarvis Island?

>>15741762
Based consciousness understander making the zombies seethe.

>>15740272
What are you going to do? Commit suicide?

>>15740272
Whatever. I am the only conscioussness that exists. All of (You) faggots are merely decoration in an exercise to prove myself to myself.

>>15745615
Whyst are thou seetheth?

>>15746802
This is unironically what Mario Montano believed before he killed himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXITVRl0LjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIt-w8BwvV4
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/why-other-people-might-not-be-conscious/

>>15746802
>an exercise to prove myself to myself.
did you prove yourself to yourself anon?

>>15747737
Seems like a retard who was too weak for the truth.

>>15748111
Not quite yet

Consciousness is not an object of spacetime.

Consciousness is the subject of description, all of spacetime, all of the universe, is the objective description OF consciousness.

https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM?si=rNt17Taz4gwCxikT

>>15746849
Why doest thou seetheth, learn proper grammar faggot