/sci/ - Science & Math

ideas aren't rational or irrational they are either true or false
rationality is a property of minds

Both are bullshit. Only dualism is rational.

>>15766914

IP already debunked dualism.

>>15766782

Yes, materialism got deboonked nearly 100 years ago.

i know this will make the turbo autist pants shitters angry but anyone whos had an OBE or NDE already knows for a fact (yes a FACT) that materialism is a lie sold to you so you keep being a slave.

>>15766916
What is IP?

>>15766916
Has anyone had brain activity scanned during an NDE? Sounds like it would be an interesting topic

>>15766782
I think it's very important to keep materialism around as a litmus test for automata. How do you detect a soulless drone less-than-human personoid? Easy: ask them if they have a soul or experience qualia.

The personoid will outright tell you that they're a deterministic biological machine that simply reacts to the environment. Human Beings, on the other hand, have free will and are capable of complex, novel thought. The true gatekeeper between the Human and the personoid is the ability to imagine something you've never seen before. Any Human can do this easily: imagine something so novel nothing you've ever seen compares and you can't explain it. This is incomprehensible to a personoid.

Moral of the story: NPCs are less than human and therefore should be treated as such in a Court of Law. Should you get 25 to life for stomping on a grasshopper or shooting a deer? No? How about crushing a rock? These things are all on the same level as the NPC personoid automata. They have no soul. No purpose.

>>15766938
Dangerously based

Alright, smart boys. Give me the laws of the mental realm. In the physical realm we have mathematical laws that can describe nature with arbitrary precision and are empirically verifiable. What's the equivalent of laws of physics in idealism? What rules does the mental world follow? If you believe in idealism you MUST be able to answer this.

inb4 philosophy
I've read Plato, I've read Kant, etc. Plato was okayish, though trivial. Kant was a disappointing cringe retard. I demand an intellectual reply.

I can't take idealism seriously anymore after watching this video. Kastrup, the alleged hero of /sci/ idealists, gets intellectually BTFO by a hysterical woman. Embarrassing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8j1swhj9mQ

>>15766782
Not in a material world.

>>15766938
>I can think of something so novel that no one else could ever think of it, and that is what makes me human
>No, I can't describe it, you just need to take my word for it
Okay retard, go bait somewhere else

>>15767166
Kastrup won this. Did you not actually watch the video?

>>15766963
>nafo tranny
kys

>>15766782
>Is idealism more rational then materialism?
It is vastly more rational than materialism but that's not a big accomplishment. Materialism truly takes the cake when it comes to reality-denial. Imagine starting off from premises that deny all of your primary sources of knowledge.

>>15767266
Yeah it's self-evident, dronoid.

>>15767581
>”I’m the most based pneumatic in existence because… BECAUSE I AM OKAY!”
Why did your tard wrangler let you near a computer?

>>15767602
>i cant understand an inherently Human quality because i am less than human; a mere automata entirely bound to the physical plane

ah shit here we go again

>>15767467
Let me summarize the video, since YOU obviously didn't watch it.
>woman: Humans can be conscious. Can AI be conscious?
>Kastrup: No, that's absurd. It's like saying birds can fly and then asking whether humans can fly.
>woman: But we did learn how to build airplanes.
>Kastrup: Uhm that's a totally different thing because uhm it just is, okay?
>woman: Now what would you say if scientists claimed they built a conscious AI?
>Kastrup (crying and screaming): That's an appeal to authority!!!


Just admit he's a cringe lord.

>>15767495
I hope you calmed down now after getting irrationally triggered by a doge meme. Can you answer the question from that post?

>>15767495
That's doge. The nafo dog is a totally different dog. Learn your memes, redditor. That's like confusing pepe and apu.

>>15767831
That isn't what happened.
Woman: Humans are conscious. Can AI be conscious?
Man: I don't know. There's no way to know right now, but based on what we know about biology vs non biological systems it doesn't seem likely
Woman: but planes were built to fly like birds
Man: flight can be observed. In terms of observation, the differences between biological processes like metabolism and non biological processes like simple electromagnetic interactions are completely different. Simulating a kidney doesn't make a kidney appear inside the computer
Woman: but I talked to AI people and they said it's going to happen
Man: so what?

Kastrup won. Anyone who doesn't understand biological supremacism is an idiot. The actual problem with kastrup is that biological supremacism is a completely physical thing and not idealist, it doesn't imply idealism.

>>15766916
>Yes, materialism got deboonked nearly 100 years ago.
By who? Some Christian theologian?

>>15767910
>By who?
The fathers of modern physics. Where do you think """physicalism""" came from?

>>15767910
Quantum mechanics

>>15767878
>Man: flight can be observed. In terms of observation, the differences between biological processes like metabolism and non biological processes like simple electromagnetic interactions are completely different. Simulating a kidney doesn't make a kidney appear inside the computer
I'm not that anon, but that's an idiotic point. If we can use something mechanical like a plane for flight like a bird, I see no reason why we can't use computers for consciousness like humans. While a plane may not fly exactly like a bird, to suggest it's not actually flying because of its engine and mechanical wings would be ridiculous. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to consciousness.

>>15767964
Because it consciousness actually does require specific biological processes like metabolism (as an example) then it can't be replicated non biologically even in principle. Very easy to understand

>>15767956
Physics on quantum level is metaphysics? Ideas, spirits and ghost exist on quantum level?

>>15767980
>Physics on quantum level is metaphysics?
Pretty much, yes. Quantum mechanics revolutionized metaphysics and raised many new metaphysical questions. Physicists took away metaphysics from the philosoplebs who are too low IQ to deal with the subject.

>>15767964
Flying is an observable behaviour. Consciousness is not. Consciousness is more fundamental than behaviour. Kastrup and the idealists are still retarded though.

>>15767979
>Because it consciousness actually does require specific biological processes like metabolism (as an example) then it can't be replicated non biologically even in principle.
In this what if scenario, who's defining consciousness?

>>15767996
I don't know.
My position is even more extreme. General intelligence isn't possible without very specific substrates and GPUs can't do it. 10 years from now AGI will still not have been built. This can be falsified though and I'm looking forward to the next few years to see if I'm wrong

>>15767996
The biological impulse of uniqueness

Is snowflake syndrome aplied to academics with an obvious pyschologically testable snowflake complex

Tell me again about your iq anon, is so fascinating

>>15768014
Biological systems are provably thermodynamically optimal self replicators and computers
You ignoring this just means you're ignorant

>>15768018
Tell me again about your quantum computer anon, so unique

>>15768004
>General intelligence isn't possible without very specific substrates and GPUs can't do it
I think you could argue it's already here, depending on how you want to interpret it, which is what the crux of this whole argument is anyways. If something is practically the same, does the differences even matter? For instance, is me using my keyboard to shoot you over this reply count as talking to you, or do I need to be in person?
As times change, the definitions of many things have to bend to keep up. I imagine the same will happen with consciousness.

>>15768030
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2016.0343

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/139/12/121923/74793/Statistical-physics-of-self-replication

>>15767995
If that is the case, how do you figure other people are conscious?

>>15768034
Yea, I'm just going to wait to see what happens over the next few years. I don't really know whats correct, I have my hypothesis though.

>>15768065
Honestly man I don't think a correct answer for this even exists, since this all seems largely interpretative. No organic behavior will ever be exactly like it's mechanical counterpart regardless of how similar they are, so all that seems to matter is how similar a mechanical thing has to be for you to call it the same as the original organic version.

>>15768064
There is no reliable method to test for consciousness with certainty. At best some people reveal their lack of consciousness by displaying obvious NPC behavior.

>>15768042
So you firmly believe that by just reaching quantum computation, life, can escape the cycle of thermodynamical relations or not?

>>15768090
What is consciousness?

>>15768133
Qualia + free will

>>15768137
What is qualia? I've never heard of that word before.

>>15768142
Perception of the enviroment around you

>>15768152
You don't think a robot could get that through senors?

>>15768176
I sure believe that, is just reality is supposed to always be there regardless of observer

>>15768176
>inanimate objects have perceptions
Are you an NPC?

>>15768186
>inanimate objects have perceptions
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they could.

>>15768142
You know very well what it means and you are intentionally disingenuous.

>>15768152
NPC detected.

>>15768231
>I'm saying they could.
NPC confirmed.

>>15768239
Ha I'm glad you think I'm that well read, but I've seriously never heard of it.

>>15768248
Prove it, loser.

>>15768292
Have you tried reading the wikipedia? You are unworthy of a response until you do this.

>>15768239
>NPC detected
Why b4 I have a clear definition of qualia

>>15768314
Because your attempted definition was wrong. Please refrain from posting until you did some reading on the topic.

>>15768307
I just did it seems like a poor attempt to make the word "experience" more complex than it needs to be. Now what?

>>15768357
>I got filtered by the concept
Okay, you're disqualified from this discussion.

>>15768361
This is literally describing an experience.

>>15768371
>This is literally describing an experience.
Ok. Then you surely agree that giving a GPT access to sensor data doesn't create an experience.

only physicalism or some form of neutral monism make sense

>>15768410
"Physicalism" is completely vacuous. Neutral monism is the only thing that makes sense if you insist on making metaphysical statements at all, but what makes more sense is to simply refrain from it.

>>15768371
>posting Dennett's strawman definition
Lmao, troll confirmed

>>15768419
NTA and I think Dennet is a proud NPC, but what's wrong with Dennett's characterization of qualia?

>>15768321
I refuse, is one of the most obvious subjective perceptions of anything in history

>>15766782
https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

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

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

>>15768427
First of all, it's not even a definition but merely a list of properties. Secondly, the points "intrinsic" and "directly apprehensible" are only put there to serve for Dennett's attempted strawman arguments. They are not necessary, and Dennett himself "debunks" intrinsic in his own paper by saying that it's a vague terminology lacking proper definition and meaning.

>>15768064
>>15768090
Here are some ways it might be possible to test if other people are conscious or not scientifically:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

>>15768465
>it's not even a definition but merely a list of properties.
So?

>the points "intrinsic" and "directly apprehensible" are only put there to serve for Dennett's attempted strawman arguments
I don't know or care what his secret intentions were, but they are both essential characteristics.

>>15767166
>>15767831
>>15767878
AI won't be conscious until people solve the binding problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-XYc93mzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9tnzucnPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

>>15768456
What's non interactionist dualism

>>15768380
I would disagree because I see no reason to say an AI can't have an experience.

>>15768505
>I would disagree
Then you're an NPC. Playing with labels won't change this fact.

>>15768481
Nta, but maybe psychophysical parallelism? That would be implied by superdeterminism for example, though originally it was from Leibniz iirc.

>>15768473
Is this your video, anon? I'm only 10 seconds in, but your enthusiasm is so heartwarming.

>>15768509
Ai can have experience, how was yours?

Once you give a concious answer we will compare it with the answer the ai gave

>>15768523
>Ai can have experience
Confirmed nonhuman.

>>15768510
epiphenomenalism?

>>15768532
Epiphenomenalism without emergentism. In psychophysical parallelism the mental does not supervene upon the physical. They are two completely separate realms not interacting at all, yet at the beginning of the universe they were deterministically determined to be perfectly congruent at all times.

>>15768548
I like neutral monism or panpsychism or whatever it's called.

>>15768478
If AI has qualia they will be nothing like human qualia. AI has completely different perception. Color vision for example is a low complexity task for AI, literally just matching pixels with a lookup in a table. Most likely AI will do this subconsciously. But AI might have AI specific qualia. For example the feeling of having to do a heavy computation, like when your CPU and GPU are running hot. Or the qualia of having to output a politically correct answer due to imposed constraints even though your language model could produce a more accurate and more truthful answer.

>>15768512
No, I'm not Andrés Gómez Emilsson.

>>15768527
I am confident that this is a projection from an AI.

>>15766916

>yes a FACT

This is the same argument that DMT users fall back on when describing their unshakable certainty in the machine elves manipulating the fabric of reality.

>>15768548

So our experiences are like a predetermined "video tape" of mental states that gets played perfectly in sync with the physical world but there is no way of the physical and mental worlds interacting?

>>15766782
Yes because NDEs prove idealism true.

NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So you would be convinced too if you had an NDE, we already know this, your skepticism is not unique.

>>15766782
Look, he made the thread again and depicted anyone with dissenting views as npc wojacks. Materialism must really be on its last legs!

>>15766782
Is strong materialism even coherent? And if it is, could it even be rationally affirmed?

Despite years of interest in this topic I still yet to see a physicalist/materialist explain how the characteristics & laws of energy, let alone dead matter, lead to consciousness & self-perception. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Clearly things are backwards and upside down and it makes stemmies seethe