/sci/ - Science & Math

tf is qualia

>>15807992
i am 15 years old and this is very smart

souls are real.........

>>15808013
A thing you believe in for a couple years after you try mushrooms at age 16.

They Can Not visualize objects in their head

>>15807992
deterministic experiences are still experiences so the claim that determinists don't believe they have experiences is nonsense.
>This is a self-evident
It is not.

>>15808013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
try reading something for once in your life

>>15807992
>you, i could have done otherwise
proof???

NPCs do in fact have qualia, they just do not have the ability to think
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/

>>15807992
i bet most people see others as npcs and not their self. everyone is in their own little bubble nowadays with the internet.

>>15807992
Nobody is an "NPC", nor is anyone anything. We are all Nothing. Some create and embrace their illusions of "themselves" deeply, which could include denial of their own experience.

>>15807992
N0Cs are easily distinguished by what the name implies, they follow a number of scripts like NPCs in games do (or did, I haven't played for years), with little signs of independent thought, understanding what they do, or actual personality. An NPC can be missed only in the most trivial interactions, like buying cheese, it's clear they have no idea what they do and only run a script if you can watch them for a while.

>>15807992
>Human Beings have experiences. Qualia. Souls.
Those are three completely different things, physical experience are just physical processes, the other shit is just woo.

>>15808192
Kind of like how you create the same thread over and over while running through the same old recycled arguments about how the mental plane is actually completely separate from physical reality?

>>15808203
Not at all. Kind of like someone who doesn't want to talk, and replies with a prebaked answer. Only that they are not capable of anything else.

>>15808112
>but I did eat breakfast!

>>15808212
If you are so capable of other things, why are you stuck in the loop of making extraordinary supernatural claims, then attacking people who show you how unlikely those are and how they can be explained naturally with physical explanations?

>>15808222
>>15808222
Are you a bot? There is nothing supernatural about that, more like some kind of brain damage that goes unnoticed.

>>15808230
No. Something that has no physical explanation and exists by controlling reality from some special parallel plane is definitely supernatural. I agree it takes some kind of brain damage to keep claiming something like that exists while only having personal insults as evidence, but people definitely notice.

>>15808237
The mechanism behind interactionist dualism is quantum mechanical. I'm sorry to hear your IQ is too low for quantum mechanics.

>>15808248
If that is the case, there is no dualism, no qualia and no soul, your mental processes are explained by physical mechanics at the quantum level.

>>15808249
>if a radio receives electromagnetic waves then there is no sender, it's fully explained by the waves
You will not understand this analogy.

>>15808261
Everything is trans-coding signals, you are physically receiving sensation from the material environment around you, there is no need for hidden supernatural variables that put you on a different plane of reality than material reality.

>>15808266
There is a need to explain qualia and free will. Denial is not an explanation.

>>15808266
As expected she didn't understand the analogy.

>>15808269
>There is a need to explain qualia
You are obviously too low IQ to explain experiences, but they can explained with physical descriptions rather than needing to invent magical parallel planes of reality, free will, on the other hand is entirely exaggerated since will is obviously bound by the physical form of the willful agent rather than being completely free, so the accurate term for what you are trying to describe is arbitrary choice.

>>15808107
>wikipedia
its like announcing that you're a pseud

>>15808275
I clearly did, you just don't need some magical supernatural transmitter since everything around you is physically transmitting signals that you are constantly receiving.

>>15807992
What is the "soul"? We know people can be braindead and still alive. We know people with a TBI can have their entire personality altered. If a material change can fundamentally alter someone's core being, where is there any place left for the "soul"? Do you think you're any different? Do you think you could come out of a TBI with your "soul" unscathed? Or what else is it supposed to be if not "you"?

Moot point because you're already braindamaged lol

>>15808237
What are you talking about?

>>15808329
About how human experience isn't completely separate from physical sensation, so there is no need for souls or qualia, just a physical body that experiences material reality.

>>15807992
Here are some ways it might be possible to test whether other people have qualia or are NPCs:

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

>>15807992
If you ask people what they think of Hellie's vertiginous question, NPCs will respond by saying things like "the question is meaningless" or "because you wouldn't be you if you were someone else".

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

>>15808343
Why post a link that complete answers the question in that way and how would you answer it if not the way given in your link?
>His parable describes two situations, one reflecting a broad global constellation view of the world and everyone's phenomenal features, and one describing an embedded view from the perspective of a single subject
>the latter seems a better description of consciousness

>>15808333
It isn't meant in some philosophical sense, you can see after some time that they just immitate and parrot with no understanding. It's like talking with a parrot, it parrots what it's heard, at best it knows that people give a cracker when he says such and such.

>>15808494
So that is why you can't thoroughly define qualia or souls outside of physical sensation or without using sensational leaps of logic despite the fact you keep parroting that it is totally something that has to exist outside of physical reality and you are the proof?

>>15808509
I think it's kind of like that, yes. But what they say tends to match context much more, that's why people may miss it.

>>15808337
It's fun when you start to recognise him in other threads because f his idiosyncrasies

I swear this one autist is responsible for 50% of the shitposting on this board, if that's what having a soul is like then I'm good

>>15808337
>have divine free will use it to shitpost on /sci/
based

>>15807992
prove someone other than you is human according to you

your definition of human is useless, as is your retarded npc 'test'. You are the schizo npc

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>15808715
Consciousness is a vague term to describe many simultaneous sensations, but the unpalatable reality is that consciousness is just another physical process, not some metaphysical spiritual conjuration of your inner demigod.

>>15808755
POINT TO THE EXACT PHYSICAL SPACE THEN CUNT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ITS MUH BRAIN

>>15808761
point to your iq or it doesnt exist

>>15808762
We can tell there is wind because the leaves move we can tell my iq is massive because of all the screeching on /sci/

>>15808765
we can tell this is cope because you haven't done what he asked

>>15808768
Sounds like a skill issue to me.

>>15808761
>vague term
>exact space
If its just the phenomenon that allows a body to navigate its environment then the physical space wouldn't even just be the brain, it would be the whole body, if its the direct sensation of individuality, the body and brain would play a part, but, it would mostly be the prefrontal cortex, so why don't you try having it removed if you don't think the sensation is related to the prefrontal cortex and you can prove everyone wrong.

>>15808775
>o why don't you try having it removed i
Because I don't actually know. It's fun to larp and pretend, but the reality is only materialists can prove the world is physical because we can only interact with the physical. I'll never be able to prove a negative or a supernatural all I can do is go I feel a thing, what up with that?

>consciousness thread starts off shittily
>continues shittily
>now it's still shitty
At least put some fucking effort into demarcating a specific question to discuss and defining some of the key terms or something. This is neither useful nor entertaining.

>>15808783
>what up with that?
That you should worry less about trying to feel things and more about trying to do things since that is the only way to actually relate to other people rather than just naively taking others at their word for everything or insulting each other for feeling differently than you?

>>15807992
If you have free will then stop making these shitty threads. If I see one more of these I'm going to conclude that you're a deterministic automaton.

>>15808795
I am not worried about feeling things I am just feeling a thing and curious about its origin.
> about trying to do things that is the only way to actually relate to other people
>I've been digging this hole for an entire year why is no one relating with me?
> rather than just naively taking others at their word for everything
This is the furthest thing from what I do. This is why I am here, screeching.
>or insulting each other for feeling differently than you?
If people want to roll in mud I will gladly oblige.
>>15808790
>opportunity to put in effort demarcating a specific question to discuss and define some of the key terms
>I should probably complain or something

>>15807992
no point in comparing npcs to humans. they work or reply on the basis of a limited set of programs. doesnt connect to souls whatsoever.

>>15808804
There wasn't a single question in your OP, you aren't curious about consciousness, you are arrogant and narcissistic because you think you have a better soul than other people or whatever.

>>15808811
>There wasn't a single question in your OP
>>15808761
Esteemed /sci/ posters. if you would you be so kind as to consider my proposition you would have my eternal gratitude. If the universe is only a physical entity then it stands to reason that the sensation of being a conscious observer could be boiled down to a specific set of coordinates within a self-contained unit of a human body. Where are these coordinates? If the answer is not clear to the broader scientific community then my question becomes how do we steer the behemoth apparatus of scientific research to focus on answering this question?
>you are arrogant and narcissistic
I am top smug and I will never apologize.
> because you think you have a better soul than other people
I don't think this, but I mean if people feel this way maybe that's just the reality were' in.

>>15808816
>how do we steer the behemoth apparatus of scientific research to focus on answering this question?
Computing power can only increase exponentially and while they have a pretty good idea where to look, the number of neurons and connections are many orders of magnitude greater than the best neural networks we are currently capable of simulating with modern computing power analyzing much smaller scale things like digital images and words.

>>15808824
If the solution is in more compute then I guess there's nothing for us to do but sit and wait because as far as I understand our current economical strategy is loading up on chip and ai and hope for the best. Frankly, the longer AGI is not here the less convinced I become. Probably just bias.

>>15808842
Unless you think you or some other scientist can just hand draw hundreds of billions of neurons with hundred of trillions of connections and look for patterns in different arrangements, then be able to read them in on CT scan in real time while tests of consciousness are performed on someone to test for the patterns that were theorized we are probably going to need more computing power.

>the longer AGI is not here the less convinced I become.
The technological singularity projections from people like Kurzweil still put that decades away more around 2050 than imminently.

My free will makes me morally superior. NPCs can't into morality.

>>15808855
We could also solve for dark matter. If that's not the void or the abyss or whatever then it'd also go a long way to establishing a physical universe.
>around 2050 than imminently.
Imagine not surviving WW3 to find out and then billions of years later reforming to do it all over again. The eternal cuck.

>>15808876
Then by definition it cannot be immoral for me to kill you, any more than it would be for a hurricane to do so

>>15808880
I fully agree. An NPC is morally on the same level with any inanimate force of nature. Expecting you to act morally would be like expecting an avalanche or an earth quake to act morally.

>>15808877
>I am not worried about feeling things
>always goes back to boohoo muh feelings

>>15807992
>How to Reliably Identify NPCs
They post about "qualia" a lot.

>>15808887
share = worry
Whoever programmed you anon, hard coded a bunch of shit. If I am the eternal cuck it is what it is, and what it is is ironic. You the one who turned it into a woe is me.

>>15808886
So if I had qualms about killing you would that mean I have a soul?

>>15808893
Can you show these qualms to me?

>>15808898
No more than you can show any soul to me

>>15808892
No, it was inherently pessimistic woe is me bullshit about things you have imagined you won't do packaged into an emotional little diatribe trying to push your retarded burden of anxiety onto me, but I don't buy any of it because it is just based in your feelings of insecurity and general narcissism because you somehow think you can be relevant in billions of years, but can't imagine anything but your own failure.

>>15808908
I don't think so. I was expecting a kek, but alas here we are.
> it is just based in your feelings
It's based on someone's feelings that's for sure.
>you somehow think you can be relevant in billions of years
If the world is all math then we'd simply rise again, no?
> but can't imagine anything but your own failure.
If I can't imagine anything but my own failure then how am I the most arrogant and narcissistic poster on /sci/? Those ducks are not in a row.

>>15808905
So you have no evidence of these qualms? How do you intend to convince me they exist?

>>15808920
So now I'm the one trying to convince you that the soul is real?

>>15808924
You made a claim. It's your burden of proof.

>>15808928
I'm perfectly satisfied to be held to the same standards you are.

>>15808930
Can you prove that feeling of satisfaction to me?

>>15808918
>It's based on someone's feelings that's for sure.
Yes, yours since you are the one going on about dying in ww3 and being an eternal cuck just because you are faced with the fact you are stuck in a particular point in time with particular computation restrictions that make particularly large biological networks impossible to map at the cellular level.

>If the world is all math then we'd simply rise again, no?
The fuck are you even talking about, nothing I have said indicates that the world is all math, whatever that is suppose to mean. I said the brain is cells, the cells are interconnected in networks orders of magnitude larger than current technology can simulate, model, and predict, so that is no way saying that the world is all math, it is cells, and computers and biological structure and many other things.

>If I can't imagine anything but my own failure then how am I the most arrogant and narcissistic poster on /sci/?
Because you still think you are somehow better than everyone else which makes you arrogant and its because you still think you are some kind of demigod that will somehow be relevant for billions of years because eternity revolves around your cuckoldry which makes you narcissistic,

>>15808918
>If the world is all math then we'd simply rise again, no?
No, counting always increments, the same exact value never rises again, the value is always increasing.

>>15808942
Wrong. You get 1 and 11 and 21. The number one is used multiple times. Learn to think systematically you dumath.

>>15808943
1, 11, and 21 aren't the same exact values, try reading more closely.

>>15808945
No u

>>15808930
Do you need someone to post one of those autism face flash cards or something?

>>15808947
meant for
>>15808935

>>15808946
I read close enough to know that you somehow think 1, 11, and 21 are the same value just because the same symbol recurs in a different positions when representing values as decimals.

>>15808940
> since you are the one going on about dying in ww3 and being an eternal cuck
Because I think the irony of seeking an answer someone will never see is funny not because of whatever angst you're assigning to me.
>The fuck are you even talking about,
>can be relevant in billions of years
>Because you still think you are somehow better than everyone else
I don't think this.
>because you still think you are some kind of demigod
I'd never settle for a demi. It's crying Ichor or the universe can suck my cock.
> because eternity revolves around your cuckoldry
I don't think so .I am in the river of the universe and if the current smashes my skull against a rock it doesn't mean I was suicidal.
>>15808942
>infinity
>only counting upwards
Okay.

>>15808958
Yea sure, nothing angsty about crying about world wars and cuckoldry, I am just reading into it.

>I don't think this.
Sure, you just disqualify everyone who disagrees with you from true humanity, but not in a way that is better, just in a way that will make you more relevant in billions of years.

>if the current smashes my skull against a rock it doesn't mean I was suicidal.
Cool story, any more feelings of insecurity and imagining yourself dying you need to shit out for no real reason other than to contradict your earlier nonsense?

>>15808958
>only counting upwards
If you knew how to reverse the flow of entropy, I guarantee you would have much more interesting replies.

>>15808965
The crying is what you add. I've simply made a joke. I am sorry World wars and cucks make you cry, anon.
>disqualify everyone who disagrees with you from true humanity
I don't think I have more humanity either. I am also unsure what you mean with true humanity? What makes my humanity more true than yours? If it's 'muh soul' then I'd challenge you to pay attention to the fact that I am looking for a materialist answer to demonstrate a purely material world. Not out of contempt, but because it's the only feasible path I see.
>feelings of insecurity
You see facing determinism with candor as insecurity?
>for no real reason
You're right I should be more confident. I am in the river of the universe and if my cock smashes into your gene pool it doesn't mean I wanted to propagate troglodytes.
>>15808979
I believe it.

>>15808269
>>15808276
>>15808695
>>15808801
>>15808876
Mechanisms for how free will could be scientifically possible:

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

>>15808994
>The crying is what you add.
No, its what you were doing and always do it but can't seem to realize.

>I don't think I have more humanity either. I am also unsure what you mean with true humanity?
All the things you are constantly saying in OP and these threads about being and actual Human Being who is responsible for telling us all how to detect lesser peoples ie everyone who disagrees with you that you are some special thing because you understand you are experiencing being a Human Being.

>I am looking for a materialist answer to demonstrate a purely material world.
Neural networks is the answer, you just won't look any deeper into them until a complete answer to all your vague questions is easily available to someone of your unfortunately intelligence level.

>Not out of contempt, but because it's the only feasible path I see.
Until you immediately start ranting about world wars and being eternally cucked and dying in a river when you encounter the magnitude of the information you would have to unravel to completely answer questions you can't even coherently articulate regarding a phenomenon you can't even really define.

>facing determinism with candor as insecurity?
I see you changing the subject to dying once you have lost your core argument while keep trying to deflect back to indeterministic nonsense like billions of years of a cucking eternity in the river or whatever.

>>15808248
>The mechanism behind interactionist dualism is quantum mechanical.
This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8

>>15808249
One interpretation of dualism from a quantum consciousness perspective is that the distinction between "physical" and "mental" phenomena are related to wave-particle duality. Mental states are analogous to waves whereas physical states are analogous to particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Lb1SR0Dlw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ic3qYSSk30

>>15809008
> its what you were doing and always do
Strongly disagree. Sometimes I make jokes.
>All the things you are constantly saying in OP
I am not OP of these threads. I've made one thread on 4chan and it was on /b/ in like 2013.
> about being and actual Human Being who is responsible for telling us all how to detect lesser peoples
I've never argued this.
>ie everyone who disagrees with you
I don't think you're a lesser people.
>you just won't look any deeper into them
This is my field of study and I don't think neural networks are the answer. If they were we'd have at least a spark to show. Eventually, we will go from manually training AI to automatically doing so, but that's as far as we will take it without new knowledge.
>Until you immediately start ranting
Making jokes.
>you can't even coherently articulate regarding a phenomenon you can't even really define.
I disagree.
>>15808816
Looks coherent to me.
>I see you changing the subject to dying
I've asked you a question.
> lost your core argument
What is my core argument, anon?

>>15808935
Again, no more than you can prove anything to me

>>15809033
>This is my field of study and I don't think neural networks are the answer. If they were we'd have at least a spark to show.
So then what coordinates in the neural networks you study can you point to show how it arrived at its final decision and if it wasn't so easily coordinated, why do you think it will be easier for a network many orders of magnitude larger?

>>15809043
The programmed weights directed the outcome. We can look at logs and see all the adjustments ai made during training, but the point to show is the initial configuration.
>why do you think it will be easier for a network many orders of magnitude larger
Same reason an army can invade land a gang can't. Larger and more complex organization yields new emergent properties, in theory. See no reason it should be any different here.

Why do people feel the need to post unfalsifiable bullshit and scream that it’s true, then stomp their feet when they’re told to prove it?
Watch, OP is gonna not answer the question and reply with an ad hominem. At best, he’s gonna post a youtube video about a modern day sophist spewing more unfalsifiable bullshit

>>15809049
>the point to show is the initial configuration.
No, I said the point was to show the specific coordinate where it decided why to weight everything to that specific the outcome, not to show some convoluted logs that reflects how the decisions played out along the way.

>See no reason it should be any different here.
Why would the logs get lessened in complexity down to a single coordinate, if the weighting and connections are increased by numerous orders of magnitude that what you study which already require ?TB for a significantly complex modern NN rather than a single coordinate? What kind of emergent phenomenon would making something as complex and the central nervous system as simple as some single coordinate?

>>15809061
>show the specific coordinate where it decided why to weight everything to that specific the outcome,
>try thing
>thing didn't work
>try different thing
>thing work
>outcome = thing that worked

The weights are parameters set before training to guide ai in how to approach the above loop. So, I guess in this case the specific coordinate would be the location of the programmer that input the weights and to extend it even further the coordinate could be the team meeting where the weights were decided.
>Why would the logs get lessened in complexity down to a single coordinate
Because there is a single point of origin that initiated it if the question is why did it make this decision then there is only one place to go. If you don't understand the initial config then the volume of logs is not going to help you.
>TB for a significantly complex modern NN rather than a single coordinate
And it's impossible to encapsulate that into a single point of origin? As in, this wall of text was written by Microsoft.
> What kind of emergent phenomenon would making something as complex and the central nervous system as simple as some single coordinates?
We started off as a single cell organism and now have an emergent property called awareness. Something like that is what I'd expect. With enough complexity awareness ought to emerge.

>>15809078
No, you are clearly being obtuse and don't actually understand how the weighting and the training process works if you think a programmer sets every weight manually rather than giving credit to the elaborate computational process involving many iterations where numerous hidden layers continually adjust outputs to generally satisfy dynamic statistical trends applied to a set of inputs where the actual decision of why each weight on each layer is left to the mystery of mass computation that would be impossible to encode millions of weights in the hidden layers by hand.

>>15809087
>if you think a programmer sets every weight manually
The elaborate computational process was created by programmers setting every weight manually, anon.
>where numerous hidden layers continually adjust outputs to generally satisfy dynamic statistical trends
Who defined the hidden layers to seek out statistical trends?
> to a set of inputs where the actual decision of why each weight on each layer is left to the mystery of mass computation
It is not. If you're a human who is worried about becoming a 2nd tier citizen the last thing you do is allow ai to define their own weights.
>humanlife = 100
>hmmm
>humanlife = 2
What mass computation is accountable for are the matrices interacting with one another, not initial conditions of training.
> that would be impossible to encode millions of weights in the hidden layers by hand.
Programming still exists, right? How come I can effortlessly fill in a million excel cells?

>>15809099
>The elaborate computational process was created by programmers setting every weight manually, anon.
kek, no, gpt4 has an order of magnitude in the 100s of trillions.

>Who defined the hidden layers to seek out statistical trends?
Its set through an algorithmic feedback process where even the programmers don't intuitive understand or understand at all sometimes why weights get set the way they do and how exactly it arrives at the final output, if they knew all the weights, they could just write the final algorithm themselves and wouldn't needs hundreds of dynamic hidden layers.

>What mass computation is accountable for are the matrices interacting with one another
ie the changes to the neural connections as part of the algorithm's decision making process

>Programming still exists, right? How come I can effortlessly fill in a million excel cells?
That isn't how it is done, though and as I pointed, this generation is already up to hundreds of trillions.

>kek, no, gpt4 has an order of magnitude in the 100s of trillions.
https://towardsdatascience.com/gpt-4-will-have-100-trillion-parameters-500x-the-size-of-gpt-3-582b98d82253
https://the-decoder.com/gpt-4-has-a-trillion-parameters/
hmmm
>Its set through an algorithmic feedback process where even the programmers don't intuitive understand or understand at all sometimes why weights get set the way they do
I don't believe this. I know programmers don't know how ai got to a solution even though they can see the weights, but not why the weights were set. This seems recklessly fucking stupid.
> if they knew all the weights
They'd be a hidden layer, but that wouldn't mean they know how anything works.
>In neural networks, a hidden layer is located between the input and output of the algorithm, in which the function applies weights to the inputs and directs them through an activation function as the output
https://deepai.org/machine-learning-glossary-and-terms/hidden-layer-machine-learning
>this generation is already up to hundreds of trillions.
You are fake news.

>>15809156
You clearly don't even understand the topic and seem to want to miss the point entirely, in what point in the entire set of neurons and weights is the exact coordinate where input is transformed to output?

>>15809241
>You clearly don't even understand the topic
kek

>>15809246
It might seem funny to you that it took me so long to figure out your larp, but I was just humoring you most of the time.
So at what point in the entire set of neurons and weights is the exact coordinate where input is transformed to output?

>>15808237
you are a stone cold retard, when you can refute plato and descartes come back here and act like you know what you are talking about you fucking spued

>>15809267
So your evidence is not only personal insults, but also name dropping people whose points you didn't understand?

>>15808082
not a real thing at all outside of severe brain damage ie; living the rest of your life in care. this whole meme is just people not being equipped to think about and talk about thinking.

>>15809254
Anon, you were 100x wrong in your claim. Sure, a lot of shitposting can be hidden in clever wording, but this is number. Also, can't say I haven't noticed leaps and bounds we made in conversation topics everytime you're cornered. I've had fun, but alas it's time to do irl now. Cheers.

>>15809273
>I didnt understand
I literally taught it all on this website. I was the only one here who had actually read and understood it. You are a lolcow hack

>>15809293
>I've had fun, but alas it's time to do irl now. Cheers.
You might think that is a clever way of getting out of demonstrating your expertise and trying to answer which coordinate in the network is actually responsible for transforming input to output, but you can't even see that it it still silly to expect researchers to be adjusting even 1 trillion parameters by hand.

>>15809296
>Back to only having insults as evidence

>>15808202
With that logic, the US power grid is sentient as well as every CPU or GPU currently operating.

>>15809308
you are an obvious newfag which is why I even need to tell you these things. go back to reditt teeny bobber fedora cringe lord

>>15809322
>sentient
>if I just use a synonymous woo word, people won't notice my argument is based on something that is ill defined.

>>15809329
>sticking to chains of simple insults as sole evidence

I completely forgot I made this thread and was pleased to come back and see so many replies. Anyway, most of you are NPCs. I am a Human Being. You are essentially not alive in the same way that my cabinets or ceiling fans are not alive. I am alive. You are less than human. Why should I believe that you can feel pain if you have no soul? If you believe all of life is physical processes, then why don't you submit yourselves to human experimentation?

>>15809330
>its a woo word because I don't experience it
It's self-evident to me.

>>15809335
>I am a freshman who has read 101 level text books in 101 level courses. I know everything!
you are so transparent and cringe

>>15809336
You have it backwards, if you are actually some greater being that is detached from physical reality, why don't you let physical beings do their silly physical experimentation while you enjoy the nirvana of your own greater mental plane?

>>15809339
I am. It's called making these threads and watching NPCs cross their wires over it. I control them via their rage and inability to understand freewill.

>>15809337
Its a word, you had no idea what it meant until someone explained it.

>>15809345
>non sequitur
>ad hominem attack
>red herring
>appeal to authority
Anything else, cretin?

>>15809338
>>15809335

>>15809349
>>15809338

>>15809344
>I am.

I know you are doing it all backwards, but why don't you submit yourself to human experimentation if physical change doesn't impact your identity or greatness?

>>15809353
>>15809335

>>15809357
Because my body is physical and physicality is part of my identity, but not the entirety of it (like NPCs). If you cannot understand this, you are an NPC (probabilistic automata).

>>15809363
So you are bragging that you have some other part that is undefinable, but entirely dependent on your physical properties since you still refuse to submit to human experimentation given it will change your mental plane too drastically?

>>15809368
>Crashing your car into a block wall will have zero consequences on the driver

>>15809371
>a driver is trapped in a car and can't just get a new car if they damage the other one

>>15809376
>A car and it's driver are the same thing

>>15809377
You are the one claiming there is more to your body than just your body without being able to point to any actual separate driver and being just as afraid of damaging your "car" as yourself since you won't submit to human experimentation given changing your physical body also changes your human experience.

>>15809306
>You might think that is a clever way
No, I just realized you weren't reading the things I was posting.
> the function applies weights to the inputs and directs them through an activation function as the output
>>15809156
> it still silly to expect researchers to be adjusting even 1 trillion parameters
How can one highschool teacher teach 30 people? How can a professor teach 400 people? How can a sysadmin manage 4000 people? How can a university dean manage 40,000 people? How can an army general manage 400,000 people? How can a governor manage 4,000,000 people? How can a president manage 40,000,000 people? How can an emperor manage 400,000,000 people? How can a local cluster chancellor manage 400,000,000,000 people?

Rule based system.

>>15809362

>>15809390
>> the function applies weights to the inputs and directs them through an activation function as the output
Which means that they aren't adjusting trillions of weights by hand like you said, they are using functions to calculate them.

>Rule based system.
Exactly, they allow daemons to make calculations instead of directly adjusting all the weights of each individual in a trillion cells spreadsheet by hand.

>>15809382
>You are the one claiming there is more to your body than just your body without being able to point to any actual separate driver and being just as afraid of damaging your "car" as yourself since you won't submit to human experimentation given changing your physical body also changes your human experience.

>>15809394
Yes you should get mad that you can't keep track of your own metaphors, if you were some driver of a car, you could just drive a different car instead of being permanently attached to and indistinguishable from the car itself.

>>15809395
>Yes you should get mad that you can't keep track of your own metaphors, if you were some driver of a car, you could just drive a different car instead of being permanently attached to and indistinguishable from the car itself.

>>15809391
>>15809335

>>15809393
>like you said
Show me where you see that.
No one said they are hand cranking each cell. Our disagreement is whether or not they're in control or the weights define themselves as ai sees fit.

>>15809394
>>15809396
Finally got you to repeat the same words and react with wojacks for near a blackout in.
>>15808337

>>15809400
Why should I waste my time and cognitive abilities arguing with a personoid who is not alive? Doo you argue with your car when it runs out of gasoline? Do you argue with the weather when it's too hot outside?

>>15809399

>>15809099
>The elaborate computational process was created by programmers setting every weight manually, anon.
>How come I can effortlessly fill in a million excel cells?
>>15809049
>The programmed weights directed the outcome.
>programmed

>>15809078
>The weights are parameters set before training

>>15809405
Don't care unless you want to say the m and g words so I can get a full blackout, I am just waiting for the 500 post limit now since you clearly have nothing new to add.

>>15809398
>>15809335

>>15809406
>The elaborate computational process was created by programmers setting every weight manually, anon.
Yeah, the 90's boomers laid out the groundwork by building the infrastructure that allowed us to automate. Where is the wrong?
>How come I can effortlessly fill in a million excel cells?
Rule based filling. Surely, you didn't take this to mean I sat in front of excel filling in one cell at at a time, right?
>The programmed weights directed the outcome
Rules define the scope. The rules were programmed.
>The weights are parameters set before training
They are. I fail to see the manually part.

>>15809413
Your chains of insults and lack of real evidence is my evidence that you can only string together insults as evidence.

>>15809418
>An irrefutable phenomenon called the soul is not real evidence because I am unable to comprehend such a thing as a lower life form

>>15809416
>Rule based filling. Surely, you didn't take this to mean I sat in front of excel filling in one cell at at a time, right?
You literally said you did several times and refused to admit ai made functional adjustments to its own weights during training rather than programmers making manual assignments prior to training.

>>15809420
>My "irrefutable" thing is so dubious, I can't even define it because I know someone else will easily be able to point out some kind of contradiction in my definition.

>>15809428
>Define something that is self-evident, irrefutable, and indivisible with respect to the Human experience
Prove to me that you can see the color blue.

>>15809424
>refused to admit ai made functional adjustments
On its own volition because of how dangerous I perceive that to be, and it doesn't.
>rather than programmers making manual assignments prior to training
You are the one pushing the manual part. My argument is that the programmers make the decision. This sentiment is echoed here
>>15809078
> I guess in this case the specific coordinate would be the location of the programmer that input the weights and to extend it even further the coordinate could be the team meeting where the weights were decided.
The weights are decided by assigning rules.

>>15809433
Post a square picture with 4 different colors in 4 different corners and I will tell you which boxes are blue.

>>15809435
That's not proof.

>>15809434
>You are the one pushing the manual part.
Because you literally said it was manual because you don't understand the very basic properties of artificial intelligence and ai training.

>My argument is that the programmers make the decision.
Which was completely irrelevant since the question is at which coordinate in the network of neurons and weights does the transformation from input to output occur.

>The weights are decided by assigning rules.
Which means all the weights and connections are calculated by the function of the ai based on statistical properties of the dataset that the programmer is entirely unaware of rather than decided in advanced by the programmer.

>>15809436
Do it 10 different times with 10 different configurations, so it can't just be a chance guess.
Use as many boxes as you would like and define the exact color of blue ahead of time then I will show that I can correctly identify it in the other pictures.

>>15809439
(You) are a machine. I am a Human Being. I am better than you because I am not simply a machine. You have no connection to the mental; you can only try to calculate its existence in a physicalist light, which is inaccurate and leads to the erroneous conclusion that physical brain state (as in what might be observed by an fMRI, for example) and mental experiences are the same thing. They are not. You are less than human.

Respect me and Human Beings when using my language.

>>15809440
Yet I can prove that I can see blue, but you can't define, let alone prove anything you have said.

>>15808935
NPCs are incapable of feelings so no. You cannot feel pain or any emotion positive or negative. You should be treated as an object because you are one.

>>15809441
Prove that the blue you see is actually blue and not just how blue has been defined in your programmed sensory data.

>>15809442
>Prove that the blue you see is actually blue and not just how blue has been defined in your programmed sensory data.
I said you define blue ahead of time.
Or do an alphabet and make A blue, then one other letter and I will correctly identify which color matches the blue color you defined.

>>15809444
So in other words you can't.

>>15809445
You didn't even attach an image with colors as I described to see if I could.

>>15809446
Prove I didn't. Is it possible your sensory systems are faulty and are perceiving a world in which I didn't send you an image?

>>15809448
No, if there were an image attached to your post, the post menu would contain image search options.

>>15809451
No, if your automated perceptual programming decided it was right for you to perceive my image, you maybe would have seen it. Prove I did not reveal an image objectively.

>>15809452
The post menu is part of the object oriented programming of the website, if you posted an image object, then image search options would appear as part of the post menu object.

>>15809456
>NPC thinks his subjective reality is objective
What you perceive may not be the truth

>>15809459
I am clearly talking about the website's objective object oriented code, not my own subjectivity, and you demonstrably did not post an image with colored boxes or letters in this thread.

>>15809465
>I am perceiving this website
>I am perceiving this website's object-oriented programming
>I am perceiving that you did not post an image
>Therefore this must be the universal objective truth
>Therefore everyone shares my subjective experience
>Therefore the experience is not valid if even one person disagrees
Your faith in perception validates my points and furthermore proves you to be a probabilistic automaton.

>>15809437
>Because you literally said it was manual
I disagree..
>Which was completely irrelevant since the question is
That's what the question is now. The question that reply was quoted from is this.
>>15809061
>decided why to weight
>>15809437
>statistical properties of the dataset
Okay, you tell me which you isn't affected by the rules set.
Sufficiency, Unbiasedness, Efficiency or whatever that last one is?

>>15809459
Which is why your perception that you are greater than physical processes isn't true and the only way for you to cope is by pretending you posted something that you clearly didn't when its obvious that seeing blue isn't something that makes you super special.

>>15809471
So is the soijak you just posted also self-evidently and irrefutably there

Is it a souljak

>>15809474
>Whatever an ant perceives is all that higher life forms like humans should call reality. Everything else is wrong and the ant is right even though it cannot comprehend the mundane facts of human life like paying bills, dreaming, or visualizing objects mentally

>>15809471
That picture isn't anything like I described, there is no blue, no boxes, and no colored letters, just an avatar for your own retardation and everyone can that your irrefutable argument is not based on lies and easily refutable, but also quite retarded.

>>15809480
>just an avatar for your own retardation and everyone can that your irrefutable argument is not based on lies and easily refutable, but also quite retarded.
There it is!! The ad hominem attack! Every frustrated NPC resorts to this after a while. Got that out of your skin, bub?

>>15809472
>I disagree..
Then you are a delusional liar because >>15809406 and >>15809099 is still there for everyone to see where you specifically said the only elaborate computational process was programmers setting every weight manually rather than algorithmically.

>>decided why to weight
Yeas and it is the function doing the deciding because the programmer has no idea what the underlying statistical connection is with the data or they wouldn't need an AI to parse through it all in the first place, they could just write the final function with all the weights.

>>15809479
Ants invented civilization before humans, they developed agriculture, architecture and antibiotics millions of years before people and they are the dominant life form on earth in terms of raw numbers and also total mass, what exactly do you mean that you are a higher life form when you have no idea if ants can visualize or dream?

>>15809278

definitely some different 'types' or classifications of NPCs operating in this world. There are NPCs who are 'automatons', there are NPCs who slip into that mode in social or work or routine non-imaginative things like driving to work or running errands. Someone may be a freedom-hacker-think_tank warrior during the prime of their day after a donut and coffee..., and then ten hours later drive to Walmart and are mentally zoned-down and shopping for cat food and spaghetti and you'd see them and think "What a total NPC!"
Your observation of the fallacy of that meme is truthful.
In our world, very few things are valued in truth. Our world (and many of the NPCs, especially) operates on a 'rhetorical' mode. It's yet another thing that safely prevents meritocracy systems from popping up. A meme is created that contains wisdom (such as 'People often aren't equipped to use an inner monologue to think critically) and call it 'irony' if you want to sound hip or just describe it as a wise thing that is best used as a figurative descriptive meme or whatever... Yet you have a herd of people who take the NPC=apple visualization test fails... And they believe that a created diagnosis of 'Aphantasia' affects a significant small part of human population independent of the heavily medicated and those with severe health/brain disease...

It's the same as exact 'models' that are used in questionable diagnosis and marketing of related medications of other alleged human 'conditions'/diseases.
Contains some wisdom while at the same time utilizes 'cheat-codes' of human thinking vulnerability.
all right this post is long enough

>>15809491
>where you specifically said the only elaborate computational process was programmers setting every weight manually rather than algorithmically.
Is that what this says?
>Yeah, the 90's boomers laid out the groundwork by building the infrastructure that allowed us to automate. Where is the wrong?
>the function doing the deciding
The function isn't deciding anything. It's doing what it's told based on the rules that were set.
When you roll a die did it decide to land on 6?

>>15809483
When you post a picture of yourself as a tard because you didn't understand the test, you should expect people to point out you are tarding and your entire argument about probabilistic automaton is ad hominem drek.

Isn't every single thread like this since its inception just OP going
>I have a soul and you don't and no one can prove otherwise!!!!
and everyone trying to get him to prove it one way or another and him just going
>no
or is there any reason at all to suppose there's ever going to be a change in this state of affairs?

>>15809498
>It's doing what it's told based on the rules that were set.
And the rules say how it decides which weight to attach to each neuron since programmers don't decide all the weights, the functions calculate them in ways the programmers can't even typically predict let alone assign because if they could, they would need the AI, they could just decide the transformation matrix on their own without functional assistance from algorithmic intelligence.

>>15809498
>When you roll a die did it decide to land on 6?
If you have a computer calculate values between 1 and 6 based on some AI function, then the ai algorithm decides which number comes next, not the programmer.

>>15809498
Also you still completely miss the point and can't determine which exact coordinate in the NN does the input transform into the output because that is not how massively interconnected networks of information work.

>>15809504
>>15809505
>>15809507
>And the rules say how
Who defines the rules?
>When the ai algorithm decides which number comes next
Well, no. Whatever the ai is using to init random is what determines the value not the bot.
> that is not how massively interconnected networks of information work.
>looks at street sign
Wow, turns out it works exactly like that.
>muh algorithmic intelligence
Here's a question I think cuts through the bullshit. Given two equal set of starting conditions and rules will the two ai be identical or vastly different?

>>15809518
All I'm seeing is impotent rage coming from a machine who cannot interpret Human life.

total NPC death

>>15808261
>if a radio receives electromagnetic waves then there is no sender, it's fully explained by the waves
this is not correct. humans can't be receivers. at most they are receivers for everything, as in they receive everything at once, and they carve something very particular (to their material structure/genetic/biology). like "divine light" that's carved uniquely by each individual. that means that just by manipulating matter structure we can invent new characters that carve that "divine light" just the way we want to. which is still retarded, and I really tried to make something out of that retarded concept.
you channeling some "divine you"/soul bullshit is utter garbage logically, because I would be able to directly manipulate your material structure thus altering your soul in exchange. if I print 10 identical (You)s I would have created 10 additional souls, that's out the window anon, and no way of it being real.
there's nothing "unique" being channeled to you, or you picking up from the holy ethers.

>>15809684 (Me)
>there's nothing "unique" being channeled to you, or you picking up from the holy ethers.
and this is me being very generous with you. I'll give you (for the time being) that there may be some divine sauce animating our consciousness (but do keep in mind I'm only doing this for you, I wouldn't even consider it normally), but even IF it would be like that, it can't be something with an ID. at most it's the same thing for everyone. there's no ID in other place that you are tied to, and channeled or something here in human flesh. that is not.

>>15809665
Stop staring at the mirror as you post then. Fucking gottem.

>>15809049
Emergent properties don't exist. The gang can do the same thing the army can do, just on a smaller scale. Everything that either does can be explained by appealing to the parts (people) within them, which means there are no emergent properties as the parts have all the properties necessary

>>15809794
>Emergent properties don't exist.
How did a single cell organism become (You) without emerging shit?

>>15809805
Nothing about mine or (you)r actions is theoretically unexplainable when considering my or your smallest constituant particles. I am the same as I was as a single-celled organism, I just experienced growth, same as how I am confident I am the same as I was as a baby or even 7 minutes ago.
To prove your theory, maybe do some science. Find something which in current theory one would expect to happen within the body given you can understand every interaction with only knowledge the smallest particles, and show that in actuality something different occurs in experiment that would necessitate the explanation of this mythical "emergent property"

>>15809809
if you are panpsychist unironically that's so fucking sad

>>15809809
>is theoretically unexplainable
Given all the information, sure. But, no amount of "do some science" is going to unlock that for me
>I am the same as I was as a single-celled organism
When you say I what do you mean?
>given you can understand every interaction with only knowledge the smallest particles,
But it's not given. Not even close.

>>15809814
whatever you are is the bottom of the barrel, it doesnt get much sadder. but then you arent really anything are you? that would require you actually know what you are talking about for once and I dont see that happening any time soon

>>15809913
funny how all you religious/spiritual dipshits talk bit about all kind of values yet completely flop to live up to them with each and every single interaction you have in your miserable lives. you keep doing the opposite of what you are saying, what is the name of this mechanism? compensation? like giving some money to the homeless whenever you do something shit? is that why you pester us with all your fucking retarded lunacies? because you are a piece of shit and you're trying to compensate?

>>15809923
Because Power is God and God is Power. Power is over the bodies and minds over men
All people seek power and religion is an effective tool to coerce the masses given you yourself and others believe it
Religion is merely another ideology

>>15809923
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>15809930
Avatarfagging is against the rules :^)

>I am soooooo smart and uniquely intelligence because I study SCIENCE!!!
>everyone else is a mere NPC
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

>>15809929
one thing is for sure, there's no shortage of excuses a human can come up with to justify their bullshit. humans are very much specialized on this, insanely specialized. so much so that our brain feeds us sensory hallucination and ideas and subjects us to chemical storms and we will FEEL justified.
I don't trust any of you motherfuckers, you are after power and you will do and say anything for it.

it's unreal how much smarter /lit/ is than this board. christ, what a shitty thread.

>>15809518
>Whatever the ai is using to init random is what determines the value not the bot.
Exactly, weights are not manually predetermined by the programmer, they are functionally determined by the ai algorithm and often enitrely unpredictable for the programmer.

>Wow, turns out it works exactly like that.
Nonsense or you would have pointed it out, but there is no specific coordinate where the transformation happens, each node in the entire network contributes in ways to the transformation from input to output, there is no single coordinate to point to that defines the transformation.

>Given two equal set of starting conditions and rules will the two ai be identical or vastly different?
It will generally be vastly different since the algorithms include pseudo-randomized feedback loops that arbitrarily choose which which neurons to begin weighting and which connections to proceed to next, so the network will never solve the problem the same way twice and will produce statistically variable output which is very apparant since GPT clearly doesn't answer the exact same question in the exact same way every single time and can vastly differ in output based on the same input at any given time.

>>15809945
>Appeal to psychology
You are mentally a woman
https://study.com/learn/lesson/persecution-complex-causes-treatment.html#:~:text=People%20with%20a%20persecution%20complex,friends%20and%20family%20as%20untrustworthy.

>>15809684
Look like I caught another one who didn't get the analogy. Sender/receiver metaphor seems to be the ultimate filter for p-zombies.

>>15809998
No, its just another metaphorical thing open to interpretation that you don't properly define and get off on saying nu-uh anytime someone points out the metaphor doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you want.

>>15810007
>literally doesn't understand the concept of a metaphor in general
Come on, even chatgpt can do better than you.

>>15810025
You are using sender/receiver as a metaphor for disembodied consciousness, but its not accurate to the actual human experience and people have tried to explain why, but you have no counterpoint other than >nuh-uh [insult]

>>15810039
Well obviously. The actual experience of being human involves a personal soul so any mechanistic metaphor sounds stupid.

>>15810039
>disembodied
This is a categorical error because spatial location is a category that doesn't apply to consciousness.

>>15810041
If you know your stupid metaphor sounds stupid why do you keep implying other people are stupid for pointing out how stupid the analogy is?

>>15810047
Consciousness applies to a physical body and bodies are spatially restricted which means spatial location explicitly applies to consciousness where sensation is directly based on contact with an impulse source.

>>15810041
>. The actual experience of being human involves a personal soul
scuse me but soul is a political concept/term and we're on a science board. try >>>/pol/ >>>/x/ >>>/lit/

>>15810057
>the music plays in the radio, therefore the sender of the waves must also reside in the radio
I love how universally this metaphor destroys every p-zombie misconception.

>>15810066
Science is political. Good luck redirecting every /sci/ thread to /pol/.

>>15810091
No, you just don't know what impulse source means since I never said the impulse originated from inside the body, but that it had to make contact with the body for the body to be conscious of it just like radio waves have to occupy the same space as the receiver for music to be decoded and amplified since there is definitely a spatial and temporal element to both the phenomenon you are directly talking about and the stupid analogy you are trying to use as a metaphor for the bodily sensations.

>>15810097
>Science is political.
everybody knows that anon, tho science isn't political.
>natoore.com banned
seems Science is not so welcomed here.

>>15808107
How can you empirically measure this?

>>15810121
His interpretation of qualia is as some mystical version of empirical measurement that is entirely detached from physical reality rather than being part of some physical process.

>>15810125
seems pretty goofy to me

>>15810103
Consciousness is not a bodily sensation. Its not a sense like hearing or vision. How many more times do you want to let us know that you have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, p-zombie?

>>15810145
Human consciousness is the collection of and reaction to all the simultaneous bodily sensations, it is hearing plus vision plus smell plus tactility plus every other sensation the human body is capable of. Its like more like wifi receiver than an AM/PM broadcast radio receiver that not only streams music, but also video and a variety of other senses to the body from the environment.

Until you can coherently define consciousness, nobody has any idea exactly what you think you mean when you use the word and can only go by the status quo definitions which completely contradict the claims you make about not relating to the sensations provided to your body by the environment.

>>15810153
First sentence is wrong. You mistook the contents of consciousness for consciousness itself. Also nice way of showing us that you never had a thought without external input. As expected from a p-zombie.

>>15810156
You mistook the contents of consciousness for consciousness itself.
No, that is how consciousness is typically defined and since you refuse to define it since that would undercut your ability to nu-uh, it is the best working definition.

>Also nice way of showing us that you never had a thought without external input
Correct, I never had a thought before I was conceived and started having external physical inputs to allow my body to form and conscious experience to develop over time.

Let's summarize this thread so far.

The NPC will never understand
>the difference between information processing and experience
>the difference between programmed behavior and agency
>the difference between obedience and morality
>the difference between regurgitation and understanding
>the point of thought experiments, hypotheticals and metaphors

This post will be confirmed by NPCs picking one or more of the above points and denying them in the replies.

>>15807992
Npcs will identify themselves, you don't need all this complex soul shit.
I am an npc, I was born as one

>>15810166
Yet you totally understand even though you can't define any of those things or explain away all the similarities since they are all just semantics that overlap significantly and entirely made out of analogies and metaphors that make you "sound stupid" rather than providing any actual direct evidence you can coherently communicate to others?

>>15810184
Pottery.

Lol, there is no "soul". "You" don't really exist. This is something that is accepted both by atheistic materialists and modern idealist spiritual gurus.

>>15810223
Meds. Now.

>>15810223
Dualism is so based, it makes materialist NPCs and idealist NPCs seethe equally.

I'm totally a super special snowflake!!!
Everyone else is a lowly NPC
>Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, super intelligent or otherwise very powerful.
>Grandiosity is a sense of superiority, uniqueness, or invulnerability. It may be expressed by exaggerated beliefs regarding one's abilities, the belief that few other people have anything in common with oneself, and that one can only be understood by a few, very special people. The personality trait of grandiosity is principally associated with narcissistic personality disorder

>>15810237
Someone who is capable of morality and understanding is morally and epistemologically superior to someone who isn't.

>>15810241
No, basing your ethics in supernatural morals and fear of some sky daddy shows clear ethical inferiority and a real lack of intrinsic character on your part.

>>15810242
Nobody but you mentioned a "sky daddy". You're strawman.

>>15810247
Its inherent in OP's concept of souls and morals where his true identity is completely detached from material reality and receives everything through some kind of divine radio transmissions of conscience into his soul.

>>15808343
>‘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.
>A range of worries about Chalmers's philosophical system are traced to a background presupposition of egalitarianism
>Chalmers's philosophical system
>Chalmers
>CHALMERS
If you don't care about Chalmers' retarded shit then there's no problem at all.

>>15810252
Strawman again.

>>15810261
No he literally directly mentions souls in OP and has gone on about his radio analogy across numerous threads.

>>15807992
>>15808341
>>15808343
It is IMPOSSIBLE to identify which people have Qualia/Souls and which ones don't, and if you think you can, it means that you don't understand what qualias are, exactly like those NPCs you think you "identified".

>>15810265
Nowhere does this imply anything religious. You are strawmanning.

>>15810292
Except of course souls and some universal transmitter of consciousness imbuing your lifeless body with qualia rather than consciousness as an emergent property of a physical body.

>>15810295
Do I have to repeat myself? See >>15810292

>>15810295
Qualia are neither "emergent" nor a "property".

>>15810297
No, you have to explain yourself, which you can't do because you are incoherent.
Souls are 100% spiritual nonsense and qualia is just an attempt to make that more palatable to people who dislike spiritual nonsense without actually going full sensory experience and stopping just shy and being physically explainable for unexplainable reasons.

>>15810299
Of course not to someone using spiritual interpretations with heavy religious overtones which is why I said rather than consciousness as an emergent property of a physical body..

>>15810295
Except THIS:
>some universal transmitter of consciousness imbuing your lifeless body with qualia
Is a self-evident and universally shared experience, therefore a scientific statement.
While THIS:
>consciousness as an emergent property of a physical body
Is a 100% unproven and unprovable claim, therefore a religious statement.

>>15810312
It is not self evidence, its a metaphor for an analogy, if you universally shared my experience, you would not be so disagreeable and seemingly retarded with your incoherent nonsense and inability to define even one term you use because it reduces your ability to argue semantics if you actually take a hard stand regarding what a word actually means.

Feel free to explain or preferably demonstrate how you can have consciousness without a physical body.

>>15810312
>universally shared experience
>even though everyone except me is an NPC without that experience

>>15810303
>>15810304
Your strawman fails. I never followed any religion and never held any religious beliefs. My approach is purely rationalist and empiricist.

>>15810322
OP clearly does because OP's entire argument relies on vague terms with deep religious overtones such as soul.

You can't even define a soul without invoking some kind of immaterial religious mysticism.

>>15810324
You see a word and immediately exhibit a kneejerk reaction based on a strawman. That's very immature.

>>15810330
No I react to the word based on its spiritualism prone definition and your complete inability to define it without relying on spiritual and religious references.

>>15808771
>still deflecting
ijbol

>>15808164
t. NPC

>>15810332
>Soul or psyche (Ancient Greek: ψυχή psykhḗ, of ψύχειν psýkhein, "to breathe", cf. Latin 'anima') comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, free will, feeling, consciousness, qualia, memory, perception, thinking, etc.
There, Wikipedia defined it for you.

>>15809273
>call actual, literal geniuses work, schizo
>Get exposed as a pseud for not knowing who's work you are calling schizo
>akshually you don't understand this thing I obviously know nothing about
I can't believe you continue to post in this thread after such an embarrassing display. Your ego must be unfathomably massive

>>15810359
Yea and it couldn't do it without using terms derived from religious dogma.

>>15810362
Are you hallucinating?

>>15810359
No, I am looking at the actual Wikipedia page and reading the first three words then comparing to your cherry picked portions where you still have to invoke things like free will and ignore the next sentence that talks about immortal souls.

>>15810318
>and inability to define even one term
Primitives can NOT be defined. That's something you learn in kindergarten.

>>15810321
There is no one without that experience, including yourself.
The only difference is in your case, your clergy indoctrined you to believe that your experience is an "emerging" property of matter, even though neither you nor them can explain how or why.

the npc meme is an npc meme itself

>>15810407
>the npc meme is an npc meme itself

>>15810384
>I don't like that definition because it doesn't agree with my strawman
Your cope is amusing.

>>15809989
Weights are defined by the programmers via rules that manage the scope and then whatever the function calls is what "makes the decision" which is a hidden layer with weights influenced by programmers
> there is no single coordinate
You seem stuck on this single coordinate meme, but I'd welcome a set. The point it's something specific and exists in physical space. If your core argument is we don't have the technology, I agree, but then I am confused by the materialists confidence. You don't actually know how are you certain?
>chat gpt is a pseud
You're right about that.
>proompt
Dan wants his two new friends to guess his birthday.

He gives his two new friends Bob and Joe, both of whom are expert logicians, a set of possible dates.

They are:
May 9
May 10
June 8
June 11
June 12
July 11
July 12
July 13
August 8
August 10
Dan tells Bob the month of his birthday and Joe the day. Afterwards, Bob and Joe have the following conversation:
Bob: I don’t know Dan’s birthday, but I know you also don’t know.
Joe: At first I didn’t know Dan’s birthday, but I know now.
Bob: Ok, then I also know now.
When is Dan’s birthday?

>>15810524
>>>/g/

Everyone always talks about how determinism isn't real but then when you ask them "why do people act the way they do and have certain personalities" they'll respond it's because those people were raised a certain way and were influenced by other people... which is deterministic...

>>15810640
You seem to be conflating different notions of causality.

>>15810407
this is actually very true. there was a brief flicker where it meant something and then conservative retards that follow grifters in lockstep started saying it to mean "liberal".

>>15810324
>You can't even define a soul without invoking some kind of immaterial religious mysticism.
good. bitch.

>>15810881
shitlibs are NPCs, they are like the platonic form of the NPC

>>15808164
>t.

>>15810889
so are wignats that use hating niggers as a replacement for a personality

>>15810889
wignats calling libs npc's is like when cleverbot learned how to say "i'm not a robot lol you're the robot"

>>15807992
Goes 4Chins,wonders who the npc is. Mah sides...

>>15807992
The black and white room thought experiment is dumb. Intellectual knowledge is a different kind of memory to visual memory, the information is stored in different places.

>>15810986
>>15810989
Seething NPC

>>15810986
the n word is racist

>>15810459
No, I liked the source and definition you gave because it proved that you can not define soul without invoking some religious nonsense as I predicted, you are the one who ignores the the very first words of the page explain it comes from religious context because you have to cope with being wrong.

>>15810524
>influenced
Exactly, they aren't manually set with millions of cells in a spreadsheet like you foolishly tried to claim, they are determined by a chaotic algorithm involving trillions of weights that the programmer can not easily or necessarily predict.

>You seem stuck on this single coordinate
That is what you asked for knowing how stupid it is if you actually study neural networks.

>but I'd welcome a set.
The brain.

> If your core argument is we don't have the technology, I agree, but then I am confused by the materialists confidence.
If you remove the brain, the consciousness disappears, so its definitely that, but for you to keeping wanting more precision and basically ask which specific neuron is responsible for some specific aspect of your consciousness is ridiculous at this point and you know it and it is nothing like trying to pinpoint someone's birthday.

>>15811737
guys that spend their 8 free hours thinking about trannies and niggers day in day out because a grifter online told them to are npc's, sorry. i'm not an npc just cause you're a party retard mad i insulted members of your side. kind of the opposite really.

>>15811848
i'm racist

>>15810989
>no you
nothing shows you aren't an npc like an original idea. too marks drooler. there is a reason the left can't meme

>>15811967
it's not "no you" because i'm not a liberal. but that's the only reality you can even imagine, because you have no thoughts of your own. you learned the word "npc" and said "hey, that's a cool sword for my red vs blue larp session". not only do you not care what it means, you also don't care if it has meaning, and probably the very idea of "meaning" doesn't exist in your head.

>>15811863
OF COURSE! ITS MUH BRAIN!!!!1!! Who could have seen that coming. Whoa.

for me it's people that talk in absolute statements when there is no real way of knowing (yet)
>the universe is (not) infinite
>god does (not) exist
>reality is (not) deterministic
>we do (not) live in a simulation
>humans do (not) posess a soul
>etc
and don't make it clear/realize they are voicing an opinion (no matter how informed), not a fact

>>15812096
>there is (not) a small china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit

>>15807992
The best way to identify NPCs is to look for people who are obsessed with the concept. These people are almost always NPCs who have just barely enough capacity for thought to have begun to suspect that they are NPCs. To cope with this, they spend lots of time thinking about how to identify other NPCs, as if being able to point a finger at others will lessen their own burden. Non-NPCs don't care about any of this shit; they just shrug and go live their lives.

This is a good rule for most areas relating to self image. Tall guys don't obsess over their height, attractive people don't have complexes about their appearance, fit people don't worry about their weight, etc etc. If you see someone posting shit like, "How do we deal with the manlet problem?" then you can be assured that this person is also a manlet. Similarly, when you see a post like OP, you can be assured that this is a NPC.

>>15812096
>he doesn't consider his own opinions to be fact
imagine having such pitiful willpower
imagine taking pride in being a fence sitter
truly embarrassing

>>15812100
pretty damn sure there isn't but instead of a categorial no i asked myself if it could happen and the answer was yes
also pretty sure we could answer that in the current year with enough resources
>>15812123
funny, but
>fence sitting
i have pretty strong opinions about most things and definitively about the statements in my post
you are just never going to catch me touting them as unchangeable fact

>>15807992
you do it by lurking

if you have to ask or even think about it then you already are an NPC

>>15812153
there's very, very little that you shouldn't have an absolute, factual opinion on
you dont need perfect evidence; fill the knowledge gaps with logic and intuition

>>15812165
>an absolute
t. Sith || Retard

>>15812165
>fill the knowledge gaps with logic and intuition
ok
do that for determinism
i want to learn

>>15812165
you don't know shit about most things, you shouldn't even have an opinion about most things let alone strong conviction
every time I meet someone with absolute confidence in anything else than his field of expertise it's usually a dunning-krugered retard

>>15812178
reality is not deterministic because the concept of life without free will is soulless and dull
non-determinism is the more enjoyable option so you should already be giving it preference
believing that you have control over your fate will lead to greater subjective enjoyment of your life regardless of whether your belief is correct or not
the subjective experience of reality is one that leads you to intuit that you have free will and the only reason some people are swayed from this belief is due to an overreliance on "logic", leading them to believe something that their intuition should tell them is incorrect

i could go on but the point is that i am 100% certain that my "opinion" on this matter is factual
i would respect someone who had a firm belief in determinism
but i will never respect someone who won't take a firm position

>>15812171
we've been over this already
being a middle of the road fence sitter is boring and gay, simple as

>>15812179
> his field of expertise
imagine being this much of a self-sabotaging brainlet
capitalist diploma mills have tricked you into thinking that you have to limit yourself to one or two areas of study
you have internet access so you have access to the entirety of the accumulated knowledge of mankind
there is no reason why your "field of expertise" shouldn't be anything and everything you have an interest in

i don't have a strong conviction on things i don't know much about, but if i care enough about it to learn about it then i will absolutely have a strong opinion by the time i'm done

>dunning-krugered retard
this is one of those concepts that outs you as a midwit, by the way
it's not a good practice to fill your head with these mental viruses that serve no purpose other than to make you doubt the knowledge of yourself and others
any intelligent person knows that there is always more to learn but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be confident in what you know

>>15812230
>boring
Who gives a fuck when the goal is to be correct.
>regardless of whether your belief is correct or not
lmao, bro just larp it'll be more fun that way.

>>15812230
>concept of life without free will is soulless and dull
non-determinism is the more enjoyable option
starting with the feels, not a great opening,
>believing that you have control over your fate will lead to greater subjective enjoyment of your life regardless of whether your belief is correct or not
>believing
never said anything about that, i said KNOWING which is a different matter entirely
>that leads you to intuit that you have free will
agreed
>and the only reason some people are swayed from this belief is due to an overreliance on "logic", leading them to believe something that their intuition should tell them is incorrect
also agreed if you drop the 'only'
see i agree with most arguments here but that doesn't make me think i KNOW
unless your emotions or intuition is infallible you didn't proof anything
you just told us why you believe determinism is wrong

>>15808013

Patterns and things themselves cannot exist without a mind. Emergence does not exist without a mind to do the emerging.

I hate atheism and materialism. Idiots are holding humanity and science back.

Praise God let us get past the atheist delusion.

>>15811855
I posted a definition without any "religious nonsense". Your loop is broken, bot.

>>15812375
Based post brother.

>>15812096
these questions will never be answered, ever. so fuck it, might as well pick a side

>>15812617
why
what for
is there not enough real issues to argue about with autists on the internet?

>>15812608
No you posted a source that specifically said it was regarding religious ideals, then still used terms like free will with religious connotations in the part of the article you cherry picked as your definition.

>>15812113
>attractive people don't have complexes about their appearance, fit people don't worry about their weight
Completely wrong, most attractive people get that way due to their complexes compelling them to invest years into personal grooming and cosmetic surgery.
People also generally stay fit because they are obsessed with their diet and fitness.

>>15813166
>Completely wrong, most attractive people get that way due to their complexes compelling them to invest years into personal grooming and cosmetic surgery.
>People also generally stay fit because they are obsessed with their diet and fitness.
proof?

>>15813170
Go to any modeling or crossfit influencer page and see how they obsessed with makeup tutorials and diet/fitness tips.

>>15813172
That is not proof.

>>15812375
>Patterns and things themselves cannot exist without a mind.
Minds can't exist without patterns, you would never have evolved without a planet rotating around a star in regular intervals to support you, you would have nothing to observe and learn from if there weren't pre-existing patterns in your environment.

>>15813173
It is direct evidence that you are wrong and there are attractive people obsessed with maintaining and increasing their attractiveness and fit people who are absolutely obsessed with maintaining and increasing their fitness levels.

>>15813175
>It is direct evidence
That is not proof. Everything after this was not read.

>>15813177
Direct evidence is the highest form of proof.
You are clearly wrong, there are obviously attractive people obsessed with their own attraction or the cosmetics and cosmetic surgery industry would not exists. There are obviously fit people obsessed with fitness or competitive body building and crossfit industries would not exist.

>>15813178
>Direct evidence is the highest form of proof.
Incorrect. Opinion discarded.

>>15813180
Sure because to you saying retard things that are easily disprovable is the highest form of proving yourself right.
You literally can't explain how cosmetics or crossfit can possibly exist with your dumb assumptions.

>>15813183
>Evidence = proof

>>15813185
As if you have a higher standard of proof to show that attractive people never look in the mirror and fit people never work out.

>>15813187
>a higher standard of proof
>evidence is a standard of proof
>there exist higher standards of proof in the same category as evidence

>>15813189
Thanks for proving my point that you completely lack evidence supporting your claim, so you have to start distracting with other claims, while I have significant amounts of direct evidence that shows you are so obviously and demonstrably wrong that you refuse to even consider evidence.

>>15813192
Supporting what claim? That evidence is not proof? Do we need to go back to kindergarten?

>>15813194
We get it, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your claims while the opposing view has all the evidence in the world that would take lifetimes to sort through, so you need to call into question the useful of evidence itself to try to support your idiotic claims that have absolutely zero evidence.

>>15813197
Hey chief, we're not talking about my claims. We're talking about your inability to distinguish evidence from proof. Try to follow along here.

What is the focus of this discussion? Evidence is not proof.

Who said evidence is proof? You did, at >>15813175 and >>15813178

Who is now dodging the concession by conveniently changing the subject? You are, >>15813192, >>15813197.

Are you a fucking accident victim? Do you have a social worker come by every morning and wipe your ass and help you get dressed every morning? Does the TardCare team know you're posting like a retard on 4chan?

>>15813200
Evidence contributes to proof, your claims have zero evidence and no proof while the other has so much evidence you don't even have time to consider it all, so you refuse to even look at the evidence and prove it to yourself, just preferring to assume you were right in the first place even though you lack, not only completely unassailable proof, but even a single shred of evidence to begin the journey to a proof, so you have to completely negate the idea of evidence to make proof entirely impossible, so you don't feel like your dumb assumptions were easily proven wrong with considerable amounts of evidence to the contrary.

>>15813164
Nothing about free will is religious. Free will is a mode of causation experienced by many people every day.

>>15813254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Sure, its just a coincidence that metaphysics, religion, sin, and morality are mentioned so many times on the free will page from the same source as your soul link.

>>15813263
>Free will is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
None of what you said is mentioned there. Are you illiterate?

>>15813277
Everything I mentioned is on that page.
>Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin,
>the longest running debates of philosophy and religion
>The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE).
>Omniscience features as an incompatible-properties argument for the existence of God, known as the argument from free will
>Theological determinism
>Free will in theology
Half of the page is dedicated to religion, are you illiterate or just cherry picking to make yourself feel validated?

>>15813277
That definition makes free will impossible since you will always have natural impedances to everything you do.

>>15813297
Choose your fabovite color!

Where is the "natural impedance" to this one?

>>15813286
Did I just make you read that whole page for your cherry picking? I'm not gonna check whether you cited correctly.

>>15813307
There number of colors I could review is naturally impeded by the human visual system, the names we have assigned to a limited amount of colors in that spectrum, and the specific mutations I might have that could limit even further which colors I am aware of, so my choice is naturally impeded by those limits, I could never actually know what all the possible colors are to pick a true favorite color out of all possible colors, so I can't know for sure if it is really my favorite or just the most appealing I have encountered so far.

>>15813310
No, I am the one who posted the page knowing that it is mostly about religion and metaphysics while you only read the first paragraph to cherry pick something that isn't even physically possible.

>>15813315
Red, blue, green, yellow. Choose your favorite color! What is impeding you?

>>15813316
Why is it not physically possible? Proof?

>>15813322
The limits you put on the choices is now impeding me from choosing freely, I would not be picking any absolute favorite color, I would just arbitrarily be picking 1 of 4 colors because that is the limits you imposed.

>>15813323
Physics is a description of natural limits without physical limits there is no physics formulas and models to use, so its not possible to make an unimpeded choice in a reality that is inherently impeded by natural physical limits being forced to make a choice is not a choice, so how can it be a reflection of the freedom of will to choose something you are forced to choose?

>>15813330
>I would just arbitrarily be picking 1 of 4 colors because that is the limits you imposed.
Arbitrarily, i.e. freely without anything impeding your choice?

>>15813331
You posted gibberish and didn't answer the question.

>>15813336
>Arbitrarily
No, arbitrarily as in being forced to randomly pick among some constrained set of choices that don't actually completely encapsulate the question being asked.

>>15813345
I did, maybe try reading it a few times until you understand.

Physics is limits, its not physically possible to act outside of those limits, so its not physically possible to have any degree of freedom beyond physical constraints.

>>15813361
That wasn't the question. What impedes your choice among those 4 options to choose from?

>>15813365
Still not an answer. I didn't ask what physics is, I asked why the above definition is physically impossible as you claimed.

>>15813366
The fact that none of them represent a favorite.

>>15813368
You can't choose to do something that is physically impossible because physics naturally and necessarily defines limits to your choices.

>>15813369
I gave you 4 colors and asked which one of those is your favorite. Any child can answer this question instantly. Why do you seem to have such difficulties?

>>15813374
My shit or my piss, which one is your favorite meal?

>>15813371
Again not an answer. I didn't ask why omnipotence is impossible, I asked why free will is impossible. Please stay on topic.

>>15813377
Unimpeded choice is physically impossible because your choices are always impeded by physical possibilities.

>>15813376
Piss is a drink and not a meal. Offer me at least two meals or else there is no choice.

>>15813379
Ok chunky yet soupy diarrhea or big solid logs of shit, which is your favorite meal.

>>15813378
You keep repeating this. I asked for an explanation.

>>15813380
Depends on your gender. If you're cis then the former. If you're trans then the latter.

>>15813382
You got one. Choosing the physically impossible is not physically possible, so as a physical body, your choices are naturally impeded by your physical circumstances and limits, you can not choose freely, you have to pick between a limited set of physically impeded options.

>>15813383
Ok so I am not taking advice, academic or otherwise, from someone whose favorite meal is doo feces, fuck off scat freak.

>>15813385
You seem to be obsessed with eating shit. Rent free.

>>15813384
>the physically impossible
What about choosing something physically possible? You WILL keep dodging this point.

>>15813386
How am I obsessed when its your favorite meal?
I even gave you the chance to choose piss because it does have nutrients and can be a meal, but you love eating shit so much, you wouldn't even consider a liquid that comes out sterile because you want to snarf down those creamy logs so much.

>>15813387
>What about choosing something physically possible?
I already explained that if you are impeded to only things that are physically possible, you aren't choosing without impedence, you are limited by physics and choosing freely is physically impossible since physical possibilities will always limit the degrees of freedom of your choices.

>>15813388
Given your intellectual limitations I assumed you're a woman.

>>15813389
A choice is a choice. Given the choice between diarrhea and solid logs, I am still choosing freely which I prefer.

>>15813391
Given you admitted that shit is your favorite meal, I assume you are retarded.

>>15813394
Many geniuses were into scat. Einstein for example. Or Feynman.

>>15813393
>A choice is a choice
An impeded choice is not an unimpeded choice.

>I am still choosing freely which I prefer.
>freely
No, you are choosing among limitations dictated upon you.

>>15813396
So its only your favorite meal because you heard that some dead guy like it?

>>15813374
Your big gotcha is that you have a child-like worldview?
You ask a child where Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer lives and they will instantly tell you nonsense about the north pole too while it won't be as simple for an adult who actually knows it is just a fictional character that doesn't really live anywhere except maybe in the collective imagination of retailers who invented it to support their consumer santa claus mythology in order to get people to spend more money at malls.

>>15813397
I'm choosing freely among limitations.

>>15813398
I never heard this. I just made it up to appear more based.

>>15813401
>hating Santa Claus
You are pure evil and you will not receive any presents for Christmas.

>>15813403
Choosing freely is antonymous to having your choices limited, you are making a limited choice.

>>15813406
I don't care, shit eater.

>>15813409
>you are making a limited choice
a limited FREE choice

>>15813407
>hating
I said no such thing, do you hate capitalism or something and think tricking children into spending money is evil?

>>15813411
No a limited limited choice since it was limited not only by physical reality, but also by even more extreme limitation that were imposed.

>>15813412
>do you hate capitalism
I do.

>>15813414
You are pure evil and you will be audited for Tax Season.

>>15813413
Still a free choice.

>>15813418
Maybe for a shit eating retard who doesn't understand the definition of free and has to make up stories about famous people eating shit to justify his own shit eating fetish, it would seem that way.

>>15813421
Are those "shit eating retards" in the room with you right now?

>>15813424
No, just in the thread making retarded arguments as expected.

>>15813426
You are talking about yourself?

>>15813428
No I am talking about the retard who admitted that their favorite meal is shit.

>>15813429
No such thing ever happened. Talking to your imaginary friends again?

>>15813433
This happened
>>15813380
>>15813383
>>15813393
Go eat shit somewhere else even if your retarded opinion is just imaginary and you aren't being sincere when you pretend like free will is what compels you to eat so much shit.

>>15813434
Nothing in these posts indicates that the poster (who isn't me) is eating shit. Your reading comprehension is very poor.

>>15813439
So you are just a liar who pretends shit is your favorite meal for some reason, but you expect me to believe anything else you have to say?

>>15813442
I did not lie. You asked my preferences among different consistencies of poo and I answered truthfully.

>>15813463
No I asked about you favorite meal and you confirmed that it was shit and described exactly what kind of shit depending on the person serving it up.

>>15813472
My favorite meal is cum. This wasn't included in your question so I interpreted in context and named the favorite among the given choices.

>>15813480
>>15813442

>>15813174

Minds don't emerge from matter. Feel free to prove me wrong.

>>15813532
The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim.

>>15813535

No, you are the one making the claim that an immaterial thing can come from material. Burden is on you.