/sci/ - Science & Math

Ways it might be possible to scientifically determine if someone is an NPC or not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

i never know if im an npc or not
i see no pictures in my head but when i think of a thing im processing it visually and 'looking' at it, its just an invisible thing im looking at

>>15784717
>"how do you do 'y'all' fellow pcs"
many such cases.

https://nintil.com/p-zombies-are-still-undead

>I'll try here to help anyone conceive P-zombies.

>Let's start by the trivial zombie case. In this hypothetical world, you have beings that are like humans but are not conscious. In this world, there is no vocabulary relating to consciousness - no talk of pain, unconsciousness, redness, qualia, etc-.

>Is there any problem conceiving this world?

>When you first arrive there, you see what you would expect to see: cities, roads, people doing what people do, etc. You would initially think that they are conscious, but on a closer look, you would realise that they never talk about anything mental!

>These lite-zombies do not engage in certain activies that regular humans do engage in, like discussing consciousness.

>>15784717
Doesn't /lit/ love that guy?

>>15784740
I'm gonna go ahead and assume "no."

An effective way to detect if someone is an NPC is to ask them what they think of the vertiginous question. If their response to it is something like "the question is meaningless", they are an NPC.

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

>>15784749
I don't think the wiki page explains it very well.
I get the basic idea but I feel it's alluding to something deeper but fails to clarify

>>15784749
Consciousness is relative and it would be a different consciousness experiencing if the things to be experienced were any different.

>>15784717
It's amazing that this person has learned to read and write...

>>15784749
>what they think of the vertiginous question
Literally nobody has ever even herd of that before you absolute fucking mong.

>>15784730
How do you know p-zombies wouldn't talk about consciousness? They could if they have the same brain structure with the same synapses firing as us. There would be no tangible difference between you and a p-zombie exact replica of you

>>15784882
>They could if they have the same brain structure with the same synapses firing as us
what the fuck else is there moron? scientifically speaking

>>15784749
Its seems pretty trivial that the specific body associated with the specific brain would have the specific experience of that body and brain, why do you think you are entitled to some foreigner's experience or some other animal's experience when it is quite obvious that you are you rather than any of them?

>>15784812
He has been spamming it for months if not years, here and on several other boards.

Since these faggots are "dude weed!!!" Types, what the hell do the experience when high? Whenever my drop out friend wanted me to get high, I'd always see vivid images of things I was already imaging. If these people can only think in words, how do they even dream?

>>15784943
I can't visualize
I can have visual hallucinations while high.
I dream with no problem. Seeing things just like in real life.

The only way to me actually see things while not dreaming is during daydream. When that happen I'm problably just dreaming, tho lmao. I can't do it at will.

>>15784717
>among us
sus

>>15784901
Why would your consciousness be associated with a particular brain? Why not with all brains at the same time, for example.

>>15785098
It is a property of a nervous system, an interconnected network of sensation capable tissue with the brain as the central hub.
All brains are not directly connected to a central hub in a mesh of interconnected tissue in the same way a nervous system is directly connected to the central nervous system, so brains have to connect with each other in different more abstract indirect ways through language and description instead of direct perception.

>>15785112
>It is a property
False

>>15785115
True, it consists of many different properties of the human nervous system that are lumped together and vaguely described as human consciousness but varies from host to host since nervous systems have many trillions of variables that are not entirely understood.

>>15785119
Still false.

>>15785127
Wrong.

Here's a simple NPC test:
Can you jerk off to sexual fantasies or do you need porn / real sex to coom?

In the latter case you are an NPC.

>>15785134
You are simply justifying your own virginity, though, since fantasy can accentuate both of those alternatives by being able to ignore the flaws and focus only on the attractive parts.

Can you have an orgasm without cooming or are you an NPC that can only orgasm if there is literal coom shooting out of your body?

>>15784717
A good hylic test is someone who never creates, no art, no wood shop, no novel.
Btw they are all painfully obvious if you ever have to grade college papers.
I’m more interested in a good Pneumatic detector.

>>15785152
What am I meant to take away from that picture?

>>15785152
>I’m more interested in a good Pneumatic detector.
they can't shut up about synchronicities, they know that the dress is black and blue but see it as blue and brass.

Lol

>>15784717
>i also cannot, like, tell you the layout of a room unless I'm in that room
what the fuck, I can remember basically the layout of every room and building I've ever been in

>>15785177
study size not large enough. but interesting results.

anything larger? maybe it's possible that excessive hyperphantasia is hallucination. normies are morer prone to hallucination. for example, thinking niggers are intelligent, or seeing a nigger murder a child and thinking that the nigger is not the criminal.

people less prone to hyperphantasia, perhaps, simply have enough brainpower to see reality as it is, rather than an amalgamation of abstracted primitives.

>>15785215
man. he can't remember the layout of a room? that's pretty bad. I mean it was always obvious from the start that guy was not sentient, but stilll.

well that's a bit more evidence that >>15785177's study was underpowered.

I suddenly remembered the object tracking studies. chimps perform better than niggers, and niggers perform better than humans. probably because the brain regions typically used to process multiple moving objects have been repurposed for abstract thought.

I wonder if there is something like this going on for people with higher iqs. still, that's just a possibility. I lean on the side that people that are aphantasic are lower iq on average.

its also possible that there is a high iq hyperphantasic component whose brains are sufficiently large to handle all duties, but that among middling iqs, sacrifices have to be made, and hyperphantasia is one of them that must be sacrificed in order to eke out another 5 middling iq points

I see muted colored hues, and a limited number of shapes. for example, I can see a face in extreme detail but if I zoom out to the body the face will temporarily disappear. what do other people see?

>>15785213
based Mapper

>>15784717
I don't have a very clear visual imagination but i know i'm conscious.
My imagination comes in more as the feeling of information and relationships between information.

>>15785152
I don't have much of a visual imagination but i still draw and make music.

>>15785198
>can use an inner voice but doesn't
the npc that made this is a liar
>thinking speed limited by internal speech
anyone with internal monologue knows that thoughts are timeless and any thought ends when it begins, you already know the end of the thought before you say it and, you can easily imagine multiple people speaking over each other while knowing exactly what each imagined person was trying to say.
>accidentally thinking out loud
is for people who don't have an internal monologue who instead have to mutter under their breath and annoyingly muttered when silent reading in school
>spews whatever
characteristic of someone who can't think before speaking
Anyway, internal monologue doesn't preclude abstract thinking and visualizations. NPCs do neither.

>>15785249
that pic is either a cope or a troll. inner monologue is obviously necessary for sentience.

I am less convinced hyperphantasia is necessary for sentience. not that I would mind dunking on people anyway.

>>15785249
If your thoughts are all timeless, then why do you wait to cope and seethe until after someone like me BTFO of your argument instead of addressing everything we would say before we get a chance to say it?

>>15785198
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but in my mind, I have three "channels" of conscious thought; words, images and abstractions. I can't simultaneously think of two separate things at the same time with the same channel, for instance, two different streams of dialogue, but I can if I use different channels. Like, think about one subject with my inner monologue, and a totally unrelated subject with my visual thoughts. Maintaining two separate thought streams is easy, but doing it with three different things requires strong concentration.

>>15785249
Only an NPC would get this mad over a meme picture

>>15784901
The question is why those responses are associative with your sense of self and not the other.
There is no reason why you are in you're body and I am in my body from a physical perspective. Just saying "but I have my nervous system and you have yours!" isn't an answer to the question, it's literally what the question is

>>15785177
>>15785215
Same has been known since 1880
https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Galton/imagery.htm
>To my astonishment, I found that the great majority of the men of science to whom I first applied, protested that mental imagery was unknown to them, and they looked on me as fanciful and fantastic in supposing that the words 'mental imagery' really expressed what I believed everybody supposed them to mean.
>On the other hand, when I spoke to persons whom I met in general society, I found an entirely different disposition to prevail. Many men and a yet larger number of women, and many boys and girls, declared that they habitually saw mental imagery, and that it was perfectly distinct to them and full of colour.

>>15785522
You are your nervous system, you don't simply have a nervous system.

>>15785529
And there is no reason why my sense of self is this nervous system and yours is that one from a physical perspective.

>>15784717
can 5's even jerk off without porn?

>>15785537
You are that nervous system and I am this one instead of that one. Its simple identity.

>>15785527
If it's age and gender heavy then you would need to ask a series of questions.
>what regions of the brain light up when these thoughts are attempted?
>what physical changes do male brains go through during puberty?
>what are the uses (professions, hobbies, talents) that benefit from this?
Well /sci/? Any of you know some with brain scanning equipment or need a paper to publish?

>>15784749
Also when they ask you to define experience and assert that you have no free will. NPCs have no free will because they are deterministic automata. Human Beings have free will because we can make irrational decisions with zero payoff.

>>15785538
yes
t. 5

>>15785547
That's not an answer, the question is "why are you that nervous system and I'm mine". It's similar to "why are there qualitative experiences at all"
Saying "you are and I am" isn't an answer, and saying "it's simple identity" isn't an answer.
Witten puts it well in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

>>15785554
>"why are you that nervous system and I'm mine"
Why is the word for why why instead of something else?

>>15785562
Happen stance.

>>15785562
You and I aren't the exact same nervous system, there are differences in the physical structure and interactions etc. That does not imply at all that you should be that body and I should be this one. My nervous system could be exactly the same as it is now, and yours could be exactly the same as it is now, but you could be in my body and I could be in yours, and there would be no contradiction in the physics of the system. This isn't the same as an actual physical theory, where changing variables would lead to a contradiction.
You can't use the physics of the system to answer the question of the problem, which is what Witten was talking about.
>Why is the word for why why instead of something else?
It isn't. There are different words in different languages that mean the same thing as "why" does in english. The semantic meaning of a word is different from the syntax.

>>15785537
>>15785554
>Saying "you are and I am" isn't an answer, and saying "it's simple identity" isn't an answer.
It plain and simply is the answer though. It's a completely valid answer in normal philosophical frameworks for well-grounded people such as materialism or physicalism or whatever. It's only a problem for looney shit like whatever David Chalmers comes up with. It even says so right there in the abstract of the paper that coined the question:
https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-abstract/73/2/304/169499
>‘Egalitarian' views of consciousness treat my stream of consciousness and yours as on a par ontologically. A range of worries about Chalmers's philosophical system are traced to a background presupposition of egalitarianism: Chalmers is apparently committed to ‘soul pellets'; the ‘phenomenal properties' at the core of the system are obscure; a ‘vertiginous question' about my identity is raised but not adequately answered; the theory of phenomenal concepts conflicts with the ‘transparency of experience'; the epistemology of other minds verges very close to a priori physicalism; the system predicts that dualism is alluring, when it is not.
muh soul pellets
lmao

>>15785575
>It's a completely valid answer in normal philosophical frameworks for well-grounded people such as materialism or physicalism or whatever.
Except it isn't, which is the point. Materialism and physicalism don't answer the question, they straight up say they can't conceive of an answer, as Witten clearly states.
You don't actually know what you're talking about

>>15784717
>It wasn't a meme.
Yes, I said this here many years ago and it has been known for many 1000's of years and I have been trying to warn you that if you let these people get power they will drive you and your civilization right off a cliff and guess what? We are about 3 feet from the edge of that cliff

>>15785578
>these people
They're literally sheep. They can't even navigate their own homes. The people with power just use them.

>>15785577
>Except it isn't, which is the point.
I am simply going by the source of the wikipedia article you keep linking. Anyway it's obvious to see that "X person is aware of X's sensory inputs" is a valid answer in materialism and you only get problems when you introduce some disguised "soul" concept, namely the problem of why certain souls are bound to certain physical entities.
Not gonna watch some faggy video, got a transcript?

>>15785591
>I am simply going by the source of the wikipedia article you keep linking
I haven't linked any wikipedia article, I only linked the great Witten's video.
>Anyway it's obvious to see that "X person is aware of X's sensory inputs" is a valid answer in materialism
Except it literally isn't, and you simply insisting it is isn't an argument.
As already outlined, there is no reason why one sensory apperati is associated with one sense of self and not another, from a purely physical perspective.
>you only get problems when you introduce some disguised "soul" concept, namely the problem of why certain souls are bound to certain physical entities.
Except it's literally the opposite, this problem only arises when you take a eliminative materialist standpoint. Again you literally don't know what you're talking about.
>Not gonna watch some faggy video, got a transcript?
Watch the video, it's only a few minutes

>>15785591
>>15785597
This might make it easier for you to understand:
By what you're claiming, the actual physical structure of the apparati is all that matters for the sense of self, then two physically identical apparati must have the exact same sense of self (otherwise you're contradicting your own claim).
This contradicts the fact that 1) you don't have the same physical structure as you did yesterday despite having the same sense of self, and 2) this means that two identical structure would have to have the same sense of self, the dislocated apparati would be "sharing a sense of self" across spacetime, which violates both the fact that information can't go faster than light, and is also just weird and certainly wrong on the face of it.

The physics can't, even in principle, answer this question. And that's okay!

>>15785597
>I haven't linked any wikipedia article, I only linked the great Witten's video.
Oh ok I was referring to this wiki page here >>15784749
>As already outlined, there is no reason why one sensory apperati is associated with one sense of self and not another, from a purely physical perspective.
Sorry I just don't see how, especially if you emphasize "purely physical". My brain generates my sense of self and my brain only has access to my sensory inputs and not yours, because the information flows are simply physically connected that way. This is the most naive elementary neuroscientific picture of the world and if you think it's wrong you at least have to contend with it.
>Except it's literally the opposite, this problem only arises when you take a eliminative materialist standpoint.
How so?
>just watch the video bro
no

>>15784717
>See an apple in your head even when there is no apple in reality
kek, imagine thinking that the people who *don't* have these weird hallucinations are the subhuman ones. I'll bet you hear voices in your head too, you schizo

>>15785606
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I think you have an unwarranted reification (treating it as an object when it is not an object) of "sense of self". So from my perspective you are indeed introducing a disguised soul concept in the form of a reified sense of self.

>>15785612
>I think you have an unwarranted reification (treating it as an object when it is not an object) of "sense of self"
I'm not treating it as an object, I'm treating it as a process. Whether you treat it as an object or a process doesn't change or absolve the problem.

>>15785608
the brain si matter how can produce a sense of self?

>>15784812
Sssshhhh. Don't disturb the philosophers when they're trying to be smarter than science

>>15785608
where the sense of self comes from? From the output and accumulated feedbacks?
I want to tell you a story: I don't remember shit from my childhood but I remember that once I was in kindergarten and I saw an animal. That stimulated my curiosity that much that all my senses were so focused, I was really aware of that moment. So my conscious experience was at 100%. I remember that in that moment I felt the same guy I feel today.

I was only 5-6 years old. I don't remember shit about my childhood and not even teenage years. My personality changed a lot trought the years but in that moment when I was fully aware and conscious it felt me
I know it was ME, and nothing else, the same ME as today

>>15785665
You're neither a scientist nor a philosopher.
I am a scientist by education, not a philosopher btw

>>15785177
mean iq is watered down by having double the amount of femoids vs males in the hyperphantasia group

>>15785152
looks like the protectors on the corners of an old-fashioned suitcase. Is this evidence of AI generation? Because a dresswr is not a suitcase?

>>15785615
Your statements such as
>>15785606
>this means that two identical structure would have to have the same sense of self, the dislocated apparati would be "sharing a sense of self" across spacetime, which violates both the fact that information can't go faster than light
contradict that you are treating it as a process. If it were a process you would not say that two identical processes happening in different locations violate the speed of light.
Also:
>1) you don't have the same physical structure as you did yesterday despite having the same sense of self
You talk as if it is "the same" object at both times. If you treat it as a process, you will see that the processes are not literally identical (since the inputs, outputs and internal states are different), there is just a sense of self generated by the process which has the subjective feeling of having some connection with the earlier process. So it is not a problem at all that there is a subjective notion of identity while the physical structure has changed.

>>15785152
>>>/x/ is that way

>>15785708
otoh it looks like a typical modification a thrifty person might make in an obvious spot

>>15785711
>contradict that you are treating it as a process. If it were a process you would not say that two identical processes happening in different locations violate the speed of light.
What? If the two processes are the same i.e. the same motion of electrons and atoms in the system, that's the same process.
>
You talk as if it is "the same" object at both times. If you treat it as a process, you will see that the processes are not literally identical (since the inputs, outputs and internal states are different
No, a flipping of an electron is the same. They are the same process.
You're not actually saying anything here. If I have two systems composed of the same atoms and the same motions and transformations, they're the same. By your logic they need the same sense of self.

>>15785772
>If the two processes are the same i.e. the same motion of electrons and atoms in the system, that's the same process.
And how would that violate the speed of light?

>>15784717
>It's real and subhumans walk among us.
This "subhuman" has written one of the world's best-selling books, is a millionaire and has an extremely popular YouTube channel, and you're probably just a random basement dweller spending all your free hours on 4chan and porn sites. He's been successful despite all the "aphantasia" thing, and you, well, you haven't accomplished anything like that yet. What's your excuse?

>>15785789
You'd feel as though you were in two bodies simultaneously across space instantaneously. Imagine seeing out of two sets of eyes in two bodies at once across space. It's weird to think about.
If you're claiming that wouldn't happen, then you have to explain why the exact same processes in the same physical system don't have the same sense of self (which also contradicts your claim which is that your sense of self is such because you are that specific combination of atoms and interactions, that specific nervous system).

>>15785804
>You'd feel as though you were in two bodies simultaneously across space instantaneously. Imagine seeing out of two sets of eyes in two bodies at once across space. It's weird to think about.
Only if you treat that process implicitly as a soul-like object, which you are still doing despite your claims to the contrary. Sorry but I think you're too confused at this point for me to respond more meaningfully.

>>15784749
>Christian
stopped reading right there kek

>>15785828
>Only if you treat that process implicitly as a soul-like object
No, I am explicitly and clearly NOT treating the process as a soul like object. By NOT treating the process as a soul like object you get the result I'm talking about. Why are you having trouble with this?
>which you are still doing despite your claims to the contrary. Sorry but I think you're too confused at this point for me to respond more meaningfully.
No, I'm not, you're the one confused here.

Again, if there is just the atoms and their processes, and the only thing that makes you have your sense of self is that you have specific atoms in specific combinations, then any time you have those specific atoms in those combinations you will get your sense of self. Thus two identical clones will have the same sense of self.

You're not understanding your own argument anon.

>>15785177
brainlet bros WE ARE LEAVING

>>15785828
>>15785845
Seriously anon you don't even realize what your own claim is making.
>"the reason I have this sense of self is because I am this nervous system, which is built of a specific combinations of atoms and processes"
>"Okay, so if I have to identical systems built of the same atoms undergoing the same processes, they'll have the same sense of self".
>"NO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOULS"

You don't understand what you're even claiming here anon.

>>15785845
>>15785852
Anon listen up, YOU are the one who says that if you have two identical brains in different locations then "you'd feel as though you were in two bodies simultaneously across space instantaneously". That's simply wrong and also retarded. Therefore I feel safe in my conclusion that YOU are confused and not me.
>>15785851
*slams door*

>>15784717
Being unable to visualize something means your brain is actually malfunctioning somewhere in your occipital lobe since thats where your vision exists.

>>15785860
Anon I think you have trouble understanding logical implications.
>if you have two identical brains in different locations then "you'd feel as though you were in two bodies simultaneously across space instantaneously".
This is equivalent to the statement "the sense of self is equivalent to the set of atoms and their processes". Both statements are equivalent. Why are you having trouble with this.

If you're claiming it's wrong, you have to change your original statement to amend this implication. Because the statement "the sense of self is equivalent to the nervous system which is a specific combination of atoms and processes" implies "two equivalent sets of atoms and processes have the same sense of self"

>>15785867
I'd be careful to call something that's correlated with higher IQ, scientific accomplishment and being a man "malfunctioning"

>>15785875
No I mean if you cannot visualize anything at all it means your brain is malfunctioning, even morons can imagine simpllistic images.

>>15785875
holy cope

>>15785884
Morons need to be fooled into perceiving something that's not there in order to even think of it. I don't see how that's desirable.

>>15785874
You are confusing qualitative identity and numerical identity.

>>15784882
>How do you know p-zombies wouldn't talk about consciousness?

You can talk about something without experiencing or understanding it, and also believe you understand it. There's so many people with aphantasia that can't visualize don't notice something is strange until adulthood.

>>15784717
is this just attention seeking? everyone can visualise stuff. Animals can probably visualise things.

>>15785551
Ways free will might be able to exist scientifically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>>15785167
The girl masturbated using the corner of the nightstand enough times for her fluids to warp the wood.

>>15784717
>some of y'all see stuff in your mind
Everyone sees stuff in their mind. It just depends on how your brain handles that info. Some people "see without seeing." All you ahve to do is cut the visual cortex. Your brain still sees, but you can't consciously do anything with the visual information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QWaZp_2I1k

>>15784812
>>15784904
>Literally nobody has ever even herd of that before you absolute fucking mong.
That's the entire point of spamming it. If no one knows about it and then it starts getting spammed, more people will know about it.

>>15784958
Try lucid dreaming to experience a lesser form of consciousness. With practice you can attain a higher level of consciousness while dreaming. That is being aware of the consequences and implications of dreaming, like changing everything in the dream and do anything you want. Otherwise you will easily forget you are dreaming just a few moments after you realized you were dreaming.

>>15785708
That is not AI, the fingers are too well drawn.

>>15784749
Consciousness is completely illusionary. You may as well ask "Out of all apes, why is bigfoot seen in North America?" It doesn't exist.

>>15786291
>Out of all apes, why is bigfoot seen in North America?
Cuz that's where he lives obviously.

>>15785215
>people less prone to hyperphantasia, perhaps, simply have enough brainpower to see reality as it is, rather than an amalgamation of abstracted primitives.
this. hyperphantasia is a trap it fucks you up if you indulge in it. it's really an affliction

>>15785675
I'm something of a scientist myself

>>15784717
I see but also don't. Like if I look at for example a lamp, but imagine an apple i don't start seeing an apple in front of me, even if I close my eyes. But I also don't think of an apple as a word or a concept, I sorta "feel" it's properties, all of them.
Is that what the image implying? Or do I have to literally have a hallucination of an apple in front of me when I close my eyes.

>>15785152
looks like she taped over the sharp corner to avoid hurting herself, also notice how the upper frame is also padded

>not being able to imagine an infinite number of dimensions
>not being able to predict the future

>thinking other people are npcs because they were not probabilistically as lucky as you were

>live in a world where people treat each other as npcs since we want to derive the maximal potential for having as much as I want at the expense of others

Humans are such pathetic animals.

>No matter what type of reality you construct, you're always left with a bunch of selfish monkies

>you generate all the possibilities for all universes

>nothing ever changes

>tfw

>>15785152
>I’m more interested in a good Pneumatic detector.
https://www.tiktok.com/@shaninblake999/video/7280724949138984222?lang=en

>>15785798
stop seething John

>>15786030
based riddle poster

>>15784749
The Wikipedia article is terrible but the idea seems to be "Why am I me and not someone else?". I guess I'm an NPC because this feels largely meaningless. My brain is in my body and not connected to yours so why wouldn't I have my experiences? What exactly would a PC think about this question?

>>15785152
nice lady bulge

>>15786030
Wave function collapse isn't random, it's predetermined.

>>15784717
Everyone claiming 1 is larping because if they were there they'd just manifest the thing to appear in their hand, no? Isn't that what all the schizo rambling has been about? Muh soul and so on.

>>15785529
Why am I not my endocrine system? Hormones also have a large effect on behavior.
Also is this only CNS or does it include PNS? Because you can cut off someone's arm and they will be the same person despite this cutting off a large part of the PNS

pseudoscience

>>15784717
>Green
Jews confirmed subhuman.

>>15785529
Bro no way
*hits joint*

>>15785177
>higher iq correlated with aphantasia
All this suggests is that people with higher iq are better at describing their interior world and feel less of a need to exaggerate

>>15784717
>It's real and subhumans walk among us.
>among us

>>15787064
At least the amogus has the actual rainbow colours

>>15784717
>imagine doing maths visualizing the numbers or monologueing the entire process
Kek it doesn't surprise me that aphantastics >>15785177 have higher iq in general. This whole npc meme is just for chuds to feel better about themselves.

Not that there aren't zombies out there, but lack of mental visualization or internal monologue as the only indicators of it is dumb.

>>15784717
caring about this makes you NPC

>>15785708
Someone’s put packing tape on the corner of the desk they keep whacking their arm on, padding it.

>>15784749
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E0CLuUPavU

>>15784717
How do people like this experience the blind spot test? Do they not perceive a filled-in pattern/color?

>>15785610
That's what Hume thinks too when talking about thinking about things or remembering sensations.
>The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: But, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable.

>>15787484
of course they do, it's not like you don't have an actual retina/visual system

>>15785606
My sense of self from today is definitely not the same as it was yesterday

>>15787488
The retina doesn't do any interpolation here though, no? Presumably whatever does in the brain isn't all that qualitatively different from whatever interpolates the contents of a closed cabinet, but at a lower level in the cortical hierarchy or whatever.

>>15787496
I don't really know what the image you posted is testing exactly
gonna need some explanation

>>15784717
The Sleeping Beauty Problem is another example of how NPCs walk among us. The people who answer 50% do so because they are NPCs that can't grasp the concept of perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW27QJYNXtU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeSu9fBJ2sI

>>15784717
Im confused. Do people actually SEE an apple or do they just imagine it?

>>15787596
Reply only if you think you're a 1

>>15787566

>>15785198
My internal voice speaks within my internal dimension, and there's like 5 of them. I have no idea how my shit brain works. Its like having independent coprocessors which sometimes work in tandem

>>15785198
>>15787649
To add, I can literally watch TV shows or shit like that all through an internal playback of sorts hyperactively if my brain decides it wants me to do that.

>>15786034
FUCK!

>>15787645
That stuff about the literal blind spot where the nerve bundle attaches to the retina is obviously for everyone I'd say. I'd also expect the general version of filling in as described there to happen for everyone though it would be cool if it could be shown otherwise. But it seems to me all this stuff is too low-level to be affected by lack of mental visualization.

>>15784749
Thank you anon I've been asking this question since I was a child
now that I have a topic name I can see other people's thoughts on something that has bothered me for ~25 years

>>15785249
>the npc that made this is a liar

so you’re admitting you can’t turn off your inner monologue, even if you wanted to? ngmi

>>15785259
the point is the ability to control your inner monologue. if you have none, or can’t turn it on/off at will, you might be an NPC.

>>15787987
>only people whose thought process is similar to mine are not NPCs
I wonder if you see the irony

>>15787995
reading is hard, huh?

>>15788013
cope

>>15786279
Im doing dream journaling for 3 months, and have some lucid dreams every week. I have normal dreams.
Me problem is to visualize shit with my mind while awake, at will. I can listen to music with my mind at will, but not visualize, feel touches and smell(? dn if it's the right word).

>>15785606
>this means that two identical structure would have to have the same sense of self, the dislocated apparati would be "sharing a sense of self"
They wouldn't, because spacetime is a factor for the sense of self you fucking moron.
Two "identical" structures is nonsensical because if they were truly identical it's actually the same singular structure in spacetime. Unless you want to start arguing particles can occupy multiple places at once and also two different particles can occupy the exact same position simultaneously.

>>15785606
>1) you don't have the same physical structure as you did yesterday despite having the same sense of self, and 2) this means that two identical structure would have to have the same sense of self, the dislocated apparati would be "sharing a sense of self" across spacetime, which violates both the fact that information can't go faster than light, and is also just weird and certainly wrong on the face of it.
Seems like a parameterized mapping, a structure with variable or coefficient t, relating to whatever you're defining as time. The "space" portion is irrelevant if our parameterized functions are operating in an affine space. You seem to lack perspective and mental/logical contructions on which to operate, hitting a dead end, and proposing that there is no solution without a negative proof.

>>15788278
The fastest way to lucid dream is the wake-back-to-bed technique. Go to bed at 11 or so, an alarm for around 4 in the morning, get up and pee, then go back to sleep with the intent to remember the dream. It works almost every time.

>>15786279
Lucid dreaming is impossible because consciousness is an illusion. You have no free will whatsoever, you are just hallucinating the experience decision making while random noise tricks your senses.

>>15784749
terrible wikipedia page, but this is a question I have wondered about since I was a kid.

>>15788549
LMAO, your brain is smooth like butter.

I'm at 5, ama. Got a little better, maybe to 4.5 after weeks practicing something called image streaming. Also if I'm an NPC I'm a very dysfunctional one.
I learned about aphantasia before it even got a name, as I was playing with hypnosis and found out people actually saw stuff even when they were not hallucinating.
I have an IQ of 128, but I don't really think that's of any relevance whatsoever. Identifying rotating patterns on a game-like test is a skill that can be learned and has nothing to do with being useful at real life in any means.
I have no inner voice as well.

>>15788545
I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO LUCID DREAM.

WHAT I WANT IS TO SEE THINGS WHILE AWAKE, WITH ME MIND AAAAAA

>>15784749
I didn't know that this exact thought had a title. I think about this all the time it's a hard one to wrap your head around, it's like, there's just something missing to any explanation you can come up with. Like -why- am I the one experiencing the thing, why is my perspective stuck to me? Do other people experience things the way I do, like, if they were built similarly to me, but say, they didn't have a soul or consciousness or whatever the same way that I do, would they still experience things the way I do, and, would they think that they have a soul/are actually conscious?

>>15785527
Why is it distinct for 'men of science' to be more lacking in imaginative thinking? Could old scientists be akin to the redditors of today, merely able to parrot information with little change or experimentation?

>>15787484
Depending on where I'm looking I see this

I didn’t even know this was a thing. I can see the apple, I can taste it, I can hear the crunch, I can feel it against my teeth all in my mind. I can even feel which muscles in my jaw would move if I were to bite off a piece. If you can’t “see it” in your brain, then how do you think of objects? I can’t project it out of my head, but if I relax and focus, it almost feels like the colors and shapes blend with what I physically see.

>>15784717
Do type 5 people even read books?

>>15788278
nigger I've been dream journaling too for multiple monthers probably longer then you and I got nothing, I eventually stopped cause it was gay shit.

It's almost the most existential soul invoking thing to think about besides death itself

Aphantasia can be observed behaviorally.

Have subjects, and ask run them through rudimentary tasks of identifying shapes set on a table.
condition them on this a few times
clear the table, and then ask the subjects to imagine the objects on the table and to find the square for example

People with mental imagery will have pupil dilation.
People with aphantasia will have no dilation

this phenomenon is not merely an issue of people describing them phenomenal experience using different language.

>>15785215
>see reality as it is
and what exactly is reality genius? the way your brain interprets it? do you and a mantis shrimp have the same reality? do you and a non npc have the same reality?

>>15790379
Yes.

Mental images are NOT normal. Seeing things which aren't physically present is an indicator of brain damage.

>>15791057
How come brain damageness is part of iq tests

>>15791028
share the same environment but not the way it's perceived because of you know...senses. why is this so confusing for chimps?
>>15791057
pretty much
>>15791067
primitive tests. they haven't yet realized people seeing things that don't exist are afflicted and extremely limited in developing more complex models for reality.

>>15791037
I mean fiction. What would even be the point of reading a story if you can't visualize it in your head as a sort of movie or a series of images?

>>15791057
Holy cope. I guess abstract thinking isn't normal either lol

>>15791067
High IQ is a form of brain damage. It makes you socially dysfunctional.

>>15791121
>mah heking soiciety
I reject it

>>15791121
"it makes you socially dysfunctional" and "is a form of brain damage" are completely unrelated

>>15790379
>>15791115
yes I read a lot of books
you have to realize that we can still do the things you do using visualization (mostly), just using other means. Otherwise we'd be completely retarded lol. I can still just follow along with the story, think about what's happening and what the characters are feeling, even imagine some scenes in 3d without really "seeing" it etc..

>>15784717
John greene is just retarded you should be able to describe an object even if you can’t visualize it. Regardless being able to actually visualize something being the criteria for being an NPC is retarded, it should be about an individual’s ability to consider and understand truth, reality, and the opinions of others around them. In essence

NPC
>These people disagree with me they must be stupid or evil

Person
>These people disagree with me, they probably either have access to different information than me or have drawn different conclusions from the same information

>>15791037
>>15791115
I'm 5 and I do not read fiction exactly because of what you said. It's not entertaining at all.
I do read a lot of articles and science books though.

>>15784717
among us????

are people with aphantasia even human?

>>15787578
That's retarded. If you woke a girl up like that who has no memory of the times before, she would likely say she doesn't know then guess 50-50 because heads or tails. These masturbatory problems are gay as fuck.

>>15785198
My internal voice isn't always active. I don't think people understand that. You're not constantly hearing a voice in your head.

>>15785213
I'm very good with directions and anything that is spatial. I can visualize the paths i have taken at certain places. I only have to go to a place once or twice before i can navigate around myself.

>>15785215
that's not hallucination, that's delusional thinking and being tricked by propaganda. No one hallucinates that the person isn't a criminal. They assume they aren't to not be racist and make excuses for them if they are. That has nothing to do with hallucinations.

>>15788545
fall asleep on your back.

>>15791057
You're seeing it in your head, not in front of you. You're imagining it.

have you guys considered that this has nothing to do with aphantasia and everything to do with John Green being retarded?

>>15790433
It's hard to do. Your best bet is to go back to sleep after waking up in the morning, or taking a nap. Fall asleep on your back. Your goal is to induce sleep paralysis. When you get sleep paralysis ride it out. Eventually you will fall asleep and begin lucid dreaming.

>>15785215
they're not hallucinating though. they can visualize things in their head. it doesn't mean that's what they see around them.

>>15786387
maladaptive day dreaming

>>15784749
>Why is my experience mine and mine alone

It’s a really interesting question and strikes directly at the heart of the free will question. I’ve been thinking about this one for the past few months, but didn’t realize there was a name for it. But of course there was.

I feel like I’ve tried to mechanize an answer to this question and usually failed. Where I usually end up is that the physical arrangement of neurons that became your brain is the only instance that could support your specific identity. That’s why brain transplants in brain reading will never really be possible. That’s why we seem to evaporate when we fall asleep, our brains disconnect from our bodies, but they have to reconnect eventually when we wake up.

That’s why the Internet is such a weird place. You can get onto it with little more than the oculomotor feedback loop; the rest of your body is almost irrelevant. But this also means that when you’re interacting with the Internet, you forget about your body, and you detune from it.

We’re not all operating on the same architecture once you get past the eyes and brainstem. But we are all operating on the same set of interfaces when we use technology (keyboard/mouse/touchscreen) and so we end up converging in behavior.

>>15791966
So the internet is heaven?

>>15791057
Copity copedee cope cope cope

>>15791955
>>15786387

>>15784749
I don't really get the question
We know that God exists because of the Kalam cosmological argument and so God created the Universe
I was just (and from God's perspective am) a thought in God's mind as he created the Universe
My individuality is the existence of my soul

>>15784749
> I ask "Why does a body have a particular soul?"
And people that don't believe in souls obviously have no soul.
"Consciousness" and "experience" are flamboyant words.

>>15792521
The schizoid life ain't all that bad once you accept yourself as you are and stop craving intimacy

>>15784727
fuck you and your face, nigger. bitchboys do not own “y’all”. im not changing how i talk because some faggots decided to co-opt it.

>>15792611
>>>/lit/fiction

>>15784755
it's called handwaving. when combined with condescension, it's how the dummies pretend they're on to something

>>15784717
I've met a guy who has full aphantasia. He couldn't remember who I was, but he was a good mathematician. Pretty sure aphantasia = NPC is a meme.

>>15786291
>"Out of all apes, why is bigfoot seen in North America?"

Indeed. Why? Sightings should have a more or less uniform distribution across the world if he does not exist.

>>15791067
It's F and I don't see mental imagery. You don't need visualization for mental rotation tasks. Or maybe only people who visualize by default need it.

>>15791966
>Where I usually end up is that the physical arrangement of neurons that became your brain is the only instance that could support your specific identity.
You are literally describing a soul but just calling it "identity" lol.

>>15786291
>why are aliens reported everywhere
because they don't exist
>why are dragons reported everywhere (in history)
because they don't exist
>why is big foot reported only in a few hot spots in one continent in one type of habitat and climate zone
because he doesn't exist
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER

>>15784717
I've been watching a tv show for years and as people are moving recently there's been talk about the interiors and exteriors and who is living where etc. And when it comes up usually I am totally lost, I never really paid any attention to the interior or exterior of the houses. And it struck me that I couldn't describe the interiors of any tv show unless I paid special attention to it, unless it's Friends style interior I'm lost, and even then the details am not so sure about.

>>15791067
I got F too.
Must mean I scored low.

>>15793184
Why isn’t the loch ness monster seen in lake eerie? Checkmate, libtards

>>15793526
Agree. If you've ever read about people paying blindfold chess, a lot people who play it can't actually "see" visually where the pieces are like people assume, they're just know they're there. They don't see the rook and knight etc. in their minds, they just remember what's there, and they just "know" what connects with what.

People who can't visualize are in some ways living a realer life I think, as in they're not hallucinating with these fake images.

Also I'm pretty sure A is also valid and is more straightforward than F.

>>15793583
>Also I'm pretty sure A is also valid and is more straightforward than F.
damn guess my colorblind ass saw the red in A as green or something

>>15784749
>Why can a machine check the results of its own computation as it does them?

>>15792521
tranny

>>15791057
The dude in OP's screencap has difficulty recalling the insides of cabinets and the layouts of rooms, things every neurologically normal child can do instantly. If you're unable to complete trivial visuospatial memory tasks then you are diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder i.e. brain damage. And since recall consists of some neuronal activity in the brain it is completely normal for someone without an altered level of consciousness to have a corresponding subjective experience, unless it amounts to an unconscious unvolitional reflex arc like instinctively moving a hand off a hot plate.

>>15784717
>the layout of a room. no moron, your problem is you can't put that in your own words and any attempt to realize on a gross miscommunication.

>>15784749
Finally, this is exactly what one of my first thoughts was when I was about 4 or 5.

>>15793576

Your answer?

>>15784717
I just visualized an shiny red delicious apple with a sun like aura around it, rotating, donning a penis with my eyes open in between my phone and I. I hope I'm at least a 2 or 3.

>>15784717
to people who are 4 or 5: how do you draw?
lets say you have to draw a bicycle, how do you start?

>>15793896
His inability to recall cabinet contents and room layouts could well be completely orthogonal to his non-visualization. I don't visualize yet I can recall cabinet contents and room layouts just fine.
So now we not only have visualizers that think everyone needs visualization to do things they use visualization for, but also we have non-visualizers blaming random deficiencies on their lack of visualization.
I'll once again post this image I made a while ago for a similar thread.

>>15794527
Hang on I'll draw a bicycle and annotate it with the order in which I drew the parts.

>>15794765
>>15794527

>>15794765
>>15794527

>>15794527
Also it might interest you to know that most people who claim to be able to see a bicycle in their mind's eye actually have no clue what a bicycle looks like, i.e. what are the parts and in what way are they connected. This proves they are not actually seeing an image of a bicycle with the fidelity they would probably claim, but rather just a very vague representation of a bicycle concept.

>>15794775
sorry I forgot the pedals & chain but I would obviously draw those next.

>>15784722
Consciousness can not be detected or measured by any method. Being an NPC has nothing to do with the being conscious. NPC status is based on actual observable behaviors.

>>15794785
lmfao

>>15785140
No, but I can coom without orgasm. It's frustrating.

>>15794761
Intact recall is a necessary condition for visualization, however. So it's not too far of a stretch to apply the principle of parsimony and suggest a causal relationship

https://pubmed.gov/30876729
https://pubmed.gov/30688194
>While brain regions involved in actual sensory perception and mental imagery overlap substantially, perception is associated with bottom-up “feed-forward” projections from the primary sensory areas, and imagery generation and maintenance are associated with top-down “feedback” projections from the prefrontal cortex and superior parietal areas involved in cognitive control. In addition, mental imagery also recruits neural regions involved in the retrieval of information from long-term memory stores and the maintenance or manipulation of such information in working memory. A corollary is that neural damage to neural regions involved in cognitive control and memory will impair mental imagery functioning.

Stimulating certain memory storage regions directly with electrodes instead of relying on sensory input and/or some ulterior network to do it leads to reports of re-experience as well, albeit with increased vividness

https://pubmed.gov/33885966
https://pubmed.gov/22098266

There aren't many cases of total inability to imagine what something looks like, sounds like, feels like (somatosensation or emotion), tastes like, smells like, etc in the literature. Those without comorbidities are even less common. You can even find psychophysics experiments in healthy individuals measuring the angular velocity of mental rotation. At the very least it would be wrong to claim 'not normal' from a population statistics perspective.

Regardless, I don't doubt your anecdote. Inter-individual variation in cognitive strategies for completing a given task is diffuse (https://youtu.be/P1ww1IXRfTA&t=3538s)) and much computation in the brain happens unconsciously. Lamme has done a lot of work in demarcating the two
https://youtu.be/RDFYf7QVSMk

>>15785119

So then why would the grouping of properties have an end point

>>15791867
define human.

>>15784749

God is the answer my bros. Hylomorphism.

>>15795613
reality does not give a fuck on what you want it to be. it just is

>>15795505
>Intact recall is a necessary condition for visualization, however. So it's not too far of a stretch to apply the principle of parsimony and suggest a causal relationship
You cannot infer from the fact "recall is necessary for visualization" that "visualization is necessary for recall". That's not the principle of parsimony, that's simply a logical fallacy.

>There aren't many cases of total inability to imagine what something looks like, sounds like, feels like (somatosensation or emotion), tastes like, smells like, etc in the literature. Those without comorbidities are even less common.
Yeah this is quite curious but I'm pretty sure it's simply because of widespread confusion and lack of awareness on both sides. Before I found out that many people visualized in a much more literal sense than me, if some experimenter had asked me "imagine an apple" I would've just said "ok I'm imaginging it, now what".

>You can even find psychophysics experiments in healthy individuals measuring the angular velocity of mental rotation.
Don't know what that's supposed to prove if we know that non-visualizers can also do mental rotation tasks.

>>15784749
Cringe

I'm a 2.

>>15795781
1 is subhuman because it doesn't categorize the imaginary.

>>15786291

>an illusion

who is it fooling? materialist like you are really, really dumb.

>>15795750
>You cannot infer from the fact "recall is necessary for visualization" that "visualization is necessary for recall". That's not the principle of parsimony, that's simply a logical fallacy.
I never claimed this and you're missing the point. Assuming his visualization is busted and his recall is busted amounts to more assumptions than assuming only the latter and produces the same observational outcome (both are). These are hypotheses, of course. There is insufficient information to falsify either one.

>Yeah this is quite curious but I'm pretty sure it's simply because of widespread confusion and lack of awareness on both sides. Before I found out that many people visualized in a much more literal sense than me, if some experimenter had asked me "imagine an apple" I would've just said "ok I'm imaginging it, now what".
The concept of a "mind's eye" is typically introduced in secondary school psychology courses. Most psychology experiments are done on undergrads who passed secondary school.

>Don't know what that's supposed to prove if we know that non-visualizers can also do mental rotation tasks.
Eye movements (smooth pursuit, saccades, etc) are not inhibited during mental imagery, just as they aren't during dreaming.

>>15795782
I'll take a 1 over a namefag any day of the week

>>15794780
Anyone who draws could tell you that. If people could visualize perfectly, nobody would ever need to use a reference.

>>15795865
Nobody can "visualize" anything. It's absurd. You don't have a third eyeball inside your skull.

>>15795866
Sounds like cope. For me it's a bit like peripheral vision.

>>15795865
I know. But most people seem to think otherwise until you point it out.

>>15795866
You sound like the faggots that get butthurt when someone says "the genes want to reproduce."

>>15795887
I actually made a test to show people they aren't visualizing fully. The point is that you progressively describe something and the person has to visualize it.
You start with an interrogation room. Describe the layout, details, furniture. Don't forget to mention the lamp giving the sort of lighting that you usually see in these scenes. Next you describe the interrogator sitting across the table from you - his age, hairstyle, clothes, face and so on.
Finally you draw an oval and ask the person to add the correct shapes for all the shadows in the interrogator's face cast by the bright light of the lamp.

>>15795871
That's called schizophrenia. You may want to see a doctor.

>>15795911
People can't even count the number of fingers they have while dreaming and dreams are considered more vivid than awake visuals.

Idealists and materialists are talking past each other. They are both talking about the exact same reality, from different sides. Reality appears to us as material. But fundamentally it is not material. God is the missing puzzle piece for both sides to understand.

>>15796006
It's every fucking thread with guys.

>>15796006
>God is the missing puzzle piece
that only means you don't understand it yet. everything we didn't understand was "god".

>>15796006
This thread is about mental visualization not idealism vs. materialism which is off-topic for this board and anyway just an obvious proxy for religion vs. science which is banned on this board
>>>/x/

>>15784717
Something I never hear brought up in this discussion is accuracy and consistency. My inner world bounces around between a state of extreme vivid experience and near inner blindness. I am able to conceptualize imagination-objects purely visually, but also as non-visual abstractions. That said, this is an unstable inner world, and I am unable to hold onto a requested form for very long. Quickly, this form will morph into something else. Oftentimes it seems like people here like to flex how vivid their imagination-objects are, but it's interesting to me that in doing so, they reveal a weakness: persistence of form within the image and lack of control. There is more going on here than "thinks visually" or "thinks in abstraction".

If you're not a 2 you have a retard's brain, capable of retard visualization and illusion.

>>15784749
>Why am I, me?
Insufficient data. The ghost is either a product of the machine or the ghost is housed in the machine. An identical machine would either house or perpetuate an identical ghost, but it would not be you or your ghost. You are tied to your machine in some way, which is why you don't belong to another machine.

>>15795672
Wrong. Consciousness is not a product of reality, rather, reality is a product of consciousness.

>>15796294
>You are tied to your machine in some way, which is why you don't belong to another machine.
this is pretty retarded. you're looking at it wrong, and you also have the wrong idea about who you are.

>>15796339
Not a useful comment. In what way am I approaching the problem incorrectly? Simple answer is fine.

>>15796338
well clearly you are an idiot as you cannot will reality into being. you can try and imagine what the fuck you want, you'll still get splattered by a car if you're jaywalking

>>15796343
And? What does that have to do with anything? I'm not arguing for solipsism, here.

>>15796342
well you are not unique, only in the spacetime spot you occupy, nothing more. 10 identical yous are all just as valid. you have a wrong impression about who you think you are.

>>15796347
well you implied reality does give a fuck on what you want it to be.

>>15796348
I am unique in the sense that "I" am "I". Still not seeing the incompatibility here. I'm not contesting validity of any other form of me in any sense other than the location of "I".

>>15796355
you belong to any identical machine, that's what I meant. you are any identical machine. you cannot even avoid it, as long as it's identical at some level (at least)

>>15796384
From your perspective, two identical machines would functionally both be the location of "me". Two identical others. From my perspective, I would remain "I" and the other person would be a different "I", just as different as I am from you. "I" am nothing but my perspective, and this other me would lack my perspective (having its own instead). If I was perfectly duplicated, I would not share two sets of sensory input.

>>15795389
>he unironically believes in epiphenomenalism
Yet you have the ability to talk about consciousness, which is not what you would expect if epiphenomenalism were true. Some force is causing your lips to move and your mouth to produce words that just so happen to align perfectly with your internal conscious states.

>>15796461
Even if you propose that some entity outside of the brain is controlling it. That does not actually resolve anything, you are just moving the problem somewhere else.

>>15796352
It gives a fuck what WE want it to be, or rather, expect it to be.

>>15796461
explain the premis of that paper:
>Percepts-Qualia Nonidentity and its
incompatibility with the Physical Closure Paradigm.
>Asymmetry Proof built on counter-counter-example as basis
>Qualia are devoid of any
causal influence on physical
events.
Non-falsifiable

>>15796461
>disproof by counter example:
- A paradox is a quale not a quanta, as there is no means by which to quantify it without relying on logical descriptions (quale)
- Some to all Paradoxes then, can be considered at least one or more classes of Qualia, with some of which having the property of logical consistency, but experiential incongruity
- Paradoxes can cause Bafflement.
- This Paradox Bafflement is not a misperception of precepts, and can't be measured.
- A Paradox Bafflement, though unable to be measure, can have an impact on the external world.
- One experiencing A Paradox Bafflement was Einstein.
- Einstein transformed the Qualia into Theories of Relativity
- The Theory of Relativity resulted in the splitting of the Atom, and the death of many.
> Disproof: Qualia can have an influence on Physical Events.

>>15784717
Yeah and he’s OP

>>15784717
what he is saying in this screencap is such an alien concept to me. i can't remember textual information to save my life, but i can be in a room once and draw you a fairly detailed map of it for MONTHS after visiting it.

>>15785152
>A good hylic test is someone who never creates, no art, no wood shop, no novel.
Fully agree. They really are happy to just exist, wage, shit and then die. Regarding the college papers can you elaborate or give an example?

>All these virgins circlejerking and seething about how they can see things in their heads and how that makes them better than everyone else to compensate for being friendless losers who never achieved anything commendable in their lives
Lol, lmao even

>>15796393
>From your perspective, two identical machines would functionally both be the location of "me". Two identical others.
well only for the first instant. right after you both start existing at the same time you will inevitably diverge into two different humans, as times goes on. you don't have a choice but to diverge.
> I would remain "I" and the other person would be a different "I"
you have no choice but to preserve your POV as long as you don't switch bodies, which is a harder pill to swallow.
>just as different as I am from you
only in the locality sense. apart from that there's virtually no difference between you or any perfect copy of your body. the only thing you don't share is spacetime location, that's it, but only at first.
whatever you think you are, now, as internal experience, that always happens to any perfect copy of you. think of your counsciousness as a side effect of that particular matter arrangement we call (You). this thing that you have now, thinking about this, that's 100% identically present in any copy of you. there's no choice for it but to manifest exactly like it does now, for you.
all copies of you will say and think and have the internal experience of you. because they are 100% you, it is you, anyone of them.
>"I" am nothing but my perspective, and this other me would lack my perspective (having its own instead).
yes. but helps to think of it like if there were say 10 copies of you, and you, you are all the same thing but cannot share sensory inputs, each of you is stuck in its physical body.
but you are not only your perspective, you are everything any copy of yours is, just from a different perspective. the POV is the only difference between you, that's it. there's no more value to your present you/body, than any other perfect copy of you, apart from location in spacetime.

>>15796493
>Even if you propose that the game Doom cannot be directly accessed through the electrons of a harddrive, claiming that it exists on an OS gui simply moves the problem somewhere else

>>15796393
>>15797333 me
the weird bit is that you cannot reconciliate with looking at a perfect copy of you and "knowing" that "it's not you" only because you are you. you cannot fathom you in more places at the same time, because you somehow expect to also receive the experience from those others POVs.
if we replaced your body each night, without (You) knowing, each day you'd complain on 4chan that you are only you and that's what matters or whatever the hell you think.
that's the weird bit that will be incredibly hard to explain to plebs. because it's completely nonintuitive based on the limitations we had so far.
as in the fear of you "dying" is retarded, has no basis on anything. you wouldn't know you "died" if we replaced your body, because you think of yourself as something more than your body, that's where the confusion is created. and you are but in other ways. which permit for you physical body to "die", be replaced with identical one, or even abstract your identity and put it in a completely different body.

>>15785538
They just lie down and conjure the word "PUSSY" in their mind and masturbate.

>>15786279
I rarely have lucid dreams but I remember every dream I've had. Most of them are pretty boring.

>>15784717
I used to be two but now I'm a three. I can still visualize things in colors if it is somewhere or something I interact with all the time but not new things. Their colors are muted for me. I guess you could say that bright color visualization has been limited to my memories only.

>>15785152
Ironic that you say this because the guy in the tweet is a famous book author.

>>15784749
Consciousness is universal and simply an aspect of the universe we live in. "Your" consciousness is not yours, and it's not specifically linked to you; the specific qualitative experience simply contains the experience of Ego and separation from the rest of existence. That is an illusion.
For that matter, the only thing in existence is also the combined totality of everything. Everything together as one unity, nothing separate. All separation between things is illusionary and arbitrary, a heuristic interface that does not match the true nature of reality.
The moment you stop thinking of things as truly and metaphysically separate, these questions stop being dilemmas.

>>15794780
That is a good point. I have both high IQ and hyperphanta, and requires a lot of focus and effort to imagine things in detail, working as expected, and all in full color. Basically going from 5 to 1 by consciously adding details.

>>15795871
HOLY SHIT. Dude you just made me able to visualize things perfectly. It's TOTALLLY like peripheral vision. Before I was trying to envision things in the center of my vision, but when you use your periphery you can see every detail, you create an entire landscape, you can rotate it around, all with perfect color, it's like splicing out a mental image. Do you see it with your left periphery? Because that's how I'm doing it right now. Wow, that's exactly what it is. I can't believe, I'm just so shocked. What the fuck. It's like a finding out you have a second pair of eyelids that are trasparent and can see an entirely different world, or like suddenly putting on a VR headset, but using your periphery to do it works the best. Like there should be a level 6 to this scale.

It sounds dumb but try this. If you're short sighted take glasses off and try and read the text away from the screen. It's a blurry mess but I can still understand it. There is a difference between the image I am seeing and what the brain is translating back. I think this is what it's like for aphantasia zombies.

>>15794780
I struggle to draw even with reference. Most people can't draw so not good analogy.

This test is so rigged for people just looking to boost their own ego.

Here is a visual represntation of an apple. By the way, what do you see when someone says apple now that you've been given a symbol of an apple? You see an apple? A red apple? A red apple with a leaf? Is the apple orientated so the leaf is on top. Oh, does it have a worm sticking out of it, too? Do a house now. Does the house have two windows surrounding a door, too? Maybe the Sun in the background? A tree with a swing?

A real test would be to ask someone to draw an apple. If you draw a cliché symbol, you're an NPC.

>>15785666
>I know it was ME, and nothing else, the same ME as today
A very interesting story anon. More?

>>15798659
Let me put the test in a different context.
Think of your anime girl from Girls und Panzer. Does she look really detailed, basic but still recognizable, stick figure, or just the most nebulous concept of her?
That's the test.

>>15784717
5 is the enlightened form. imagine having visual representation for reality. like lmao, that's the most complex abstraction your brain can make? playback movies for retards to understand?

>>15784749
nonsense that puts the cart before the horse

>>15798802
That's not a different context. That's an entirely different question that actually does apply to what OP's exercise would be if it was actually honest. You can replace draw with describe if you want to appease people who say they can't draw, but drawing will always be better as it will reveal symbol drawing in cases like things such as apples that are always red, always orientated one way, and always have a leaf.

The question in OP framed another way is:

Which of the following is a circle?
A. A square
B. A triangld
C. A rhombus
D. A circle

>>15799094
No, the example in the OP is pretty clear. Some people have no internal monologue and others have no ability to visualize. End of story.

>>15794780
Funnily enough, I have aphantasia yet can perfectly draw a bike. The way we think is less visual but more 'fact' based, so I'll remember what happened better in a situation but can't tell you what they were even wearing

>>15784749
>An implication is that the conjunction of the first-person sentences “I am in conscious state X” and “I am in conscious state Y” is necessarily false
this assumes that the relationship between "I" and "X"/"Y" that disallows the conjunction of the two. There are two ways to resolve this that doesn't encroach on the other three main components (one world, 1st ppov realism, nonsolipsism).
One: either introduce a mechanism that can disassociate the "I" from the "X" and re-associate to the "Y" as needed (so that different subjects can have different experiences while sharing a single "I").
or Two: Identity soft-Nihilism, but not so nihilistic that it negates 1st ppov realism. This can be achieved by deriving the "I" from the "X", and 'another' "I" from the "Y". As in, your "I"-ness is contingent on your experience. and "I"_x will experience "X", and an "I"_y will experience "Y". This retains 1st pov realism, but not the non-contingency of the 1st ppov.

>ummm how can I trust you?
I remember you from the original thread about 'why am i me and not someone else?'
I was the one who linked you the wiki on tVQ, and described the fish anaology.
I've seen you post the wiki afterwards.

also, I'm a Christian. Read Exodus 3:14 and these philosophical 'problems' won't be.

>>15785606
>the actual physical structure of the apparati is all that matters for the sense of self
you don't actually believe this.
if you did, you would respond to the teletransporter problem with: "I am the physically-identical clone"
instead, you respond with: "it's my physically-identical clone, but it's still not me"

>>15786636
say that again after you can predict which of the two slits the photon will go through when fired at a double-slit

>>15784740
I'm pretty sure this is the guy who let's other men cum in his Cherrios

>>15799442
do you have like a max number of dudes cumming into your Cherrios? is like 2-3 dudes ok but no more?

>>15799414
I got over my fear of sleeping. I was worried that I might not get my body back when it wakes up. Likewise people will be able to overcome the fear of teleportation if they have to do it.

>>15784717
I know people who get nothings visually, but literally the quantum foam their bodies's protons are made from is thinking and can produce algorythms better than humans mind.

Be carefull who do you call subhuman. Also after 15 years their imagination is working on command, without need to be used meanwhile, when it comes to imagining apple, it also imagines crunchy crust of late picked ones, fuller than in stores, being sarcastically acidic apple harvested only after being frozen for a while, and I can imagine harvesting them robotically, growing them robotically, in few milisecond of synchronous activation of mezo regions that are waiting just for those frosty apple's expansion into...

Well, my mental picture of apple is so sharp I know their technology to the pinpont of weak points of authentification certificates they use to update their system.

>>15784717
>just learned about people who visualize and people who have aphantasia
Congrats.

>>15796493
>Even if you propose that some entity outside of the brain is controlling it
An algorithm, which is well beyond human intelligence to create.

>>15785198
>can use an inner voice but doesn't because he knows it's inefficient

I thought I was the only one that did this. Internal voice thinking is slow as fuck, I just switch to abstract thinking when in a hurry.

>>15784717
Some people visualize things very clearly in a tangible, "Zoomed In" way, which would be 1-2 here. Other people visualize in a "Zoomed out" way, which is less of a clear picture and more of a vague impression. In terms of spatial relationships it still works, and because of the lack of detail you can conceptualize more at once and understand more difficult abstract concepts. This is why art hoes can draw in crystal clarity while a physics professor can barely draw a diagram. I encourage you all to experiment with these two extremes of internal perception, and the points in between as well.

>>15784717
How does he write fiction

>>15791121
Learn to mask up fucker

>>15784717
scare someone enough and you can take a natural "1" and drop them down to a "5".

the middle finger was for u.

>>15784749
wtf. I didn't know you could post .pdfs on 4channel.org

>>15796006
> Reality appears to us as material. But fundamentally it is not material. God is the missing puzzle piece for both sides to understand

God literally doesn't exist retard. Learn to face reality without believing in imaginary friends..

>>15800578
>God literally doesn't exist retard.
Refute Montano's "steelmanned" argument for the existence of God.
>inb4 he's wrong because he's dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/

>>15800830
>existence of God.
that in itself can very well be an emergent property of this universe.

>>15784717
It is no surprise to me john green is an NPC. Shame he wasn't the one that got cancer.