/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16000186
Here: physically there isn't an arbitrary limit of dimensions. Each higher dimension is orthogonal to set of lower dimensions, by definition. So 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, 5d, ad infinitum. Let's consider the 5th dimension: it is orthogonal to spacetime. So it contains different timelines. Now in order for you to perceive one timeline you need, by definition, distinguish from its negation. Since both x timeline and its negation ~x for a given event exist, then for every timeline where you die there is another timeline where you live. And since from your perspective you can only exist in a timeline where you are alive, then the conclusion is: you will live forever.

>>16000186
>Avoid philosphy, I want to hear from a scientific perspective.

There is no scientific perspective, at least not yet. Either we don't have the empirical data and logical frameworks needed to scientifically describe consciousness, or (my pet theory) science as a method of inquiry is incapable of meaningfully handling consciousness, at least in a way that would be satisfying to people. We might some day be able to answer questions like "what neurons fire in the brain when we feel like we are conscious," but I think "is consciousness fundamental" and "does consciousness survive death" are likely unscientific questions. They might be answerable, but maybe not by what people today would recognize as the scientific method.

Consciousness is literally just a secular-sounding term for the human soul, the ability to think and feel. It's got a bit to do with inner monologue, a bit with the imagination, a bit with abstract concept-based thinking, a bit with remembing stuff, and a lot with the ability to plan stuff out. Consciousness is what makes people say "Damn, this shirt's too big for me". Whenever people think about society, they are making use of their consciousness. Whenever they recognize themselves in the mirror, or think about how pretty/ugly/uncomfortable/smart/gay/worthless they are, they are exercising self-consciousness. The mind is the source of thoughts. It does not matter to philosophers of mind where the ultimate source of thoughts is, be it from the interaction of parts of the human flesh, from electrical pulses in the body, or from some immaterial ghost-like controller of the puppet of flesh, for the "mind" as a mind is purely conceptual. All that matters is that consciousness is the ability to be aware and reflect on that which is.
Consciousness is not a topic of study for scientists. At most, it might be a topic of interest for psychologists, but not one of actual research for biologists or neurologists.

>>16000186
>Avoid philosophy
Lol.

>>16000186
He could have said he was HEAVILY inspired by the Andy Weir Story "The Egg," but then mathematical jargon wouldn't hit as hard and mystique would disappear.
>Markovian Dynamics might do it
Doubt this will work, as there is the existence of non-markovian dynamics.

>What exactly is it?
Leibniz's approach is enjoyable
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind
You could learn Godel's proof, or more generally math methods. It'll show you how the mind can grapple with another side of reality.

Who cares? It just matters that there *is* an external reality. We can never truly know it or interact with it outside of the medium of our mind (Kant), but we can nevertheless form models of it. These models are not truly accurate, but they work for us. These models are also informed by value judgment prior to fact creation. Therefore, you partially create the world you live in. This is why people with different fundamental values live in different subjective worlds. This highlights the need for God in order to have a stable value judgment and thus a stable world.

>>16000515
>This highlights the need for God in order to have a stable value judgment and thus a stable world.

this is glossing over a lot given how unstable the concept of "God" is

do you guys understand the implications of this?
if potentiality is infinite it means that the worst of hells exists.
the real question is if we could bend it to our will.

>>16000520

It is the most stable concept we can have. It assures that people are at least *trying* to do something good beyond their own selfish desires.

Is it perfect? Not at all. But it is the best thing we cam aim at (perfection).

>>16000526
I mean I agree that aiming for the Ultimate Good is a good thing to do even before we've worked out all the details yet, but getting attached to any one idea of whatever it is can lead people astray. It's kind of just a mess, and unfortunately I think that's just the way things are. I don't think stability is in reach (or at least, not *correct* stability)

>>16000531

good thing God exists and came to as a human to show us the way

but we are inherently sinful anyways and even with Jesus we screw up his message.

hence, we are imperfect and in need of divine mercy because we are so messed up.

>>16000546
Case in point, there are a lot of people who disagree with that characterization of God.

>>16000186
It doesn't matter, but the answer is yes. In either scenario, we will only know immediately after we die or when we respawn in a gorillion years when just so circumstances arise again, which will be immediately from our perspective.
Also, Occam's razor tells us that the world isn't real and only I exist. No point simulating a bunch of bullshit between respawns.

>>16000740
>we will know
Not necessarily, if you have a memory of dying it is dubious like a dream

>>16000908
how do you know you arent dreaming right now?

>>16000340
>There is no scientific perspective, at least not yet.
>yet
>implying there will be

>>16000961
I think you are getting distracted

>>16000740
Does Occams Razor really in idk are solipsism as being the most likely truth?

>>16001007
Does Occam's Razor really indicate solipsism as being the most likely truth?

>>16000961
A lack of schizophrenia makes it impossible to understand this argument. The experience of a dream for a not-mentally ill person lacks so much consistency, agency and subjective duration that a dream is over when it begins. It is that unconvincing.

>>16000356
The notion of consciousness aka the mental faculties of a person came into human concept in Buddhism, 2500 years ago. So its definitely not secularization of it. For the west, our mental understanding revolved around notions like primordial souls capturing all essences of a person, thus was the domain of religious landscape. But since Descarte, Hume, Husserl, etc we now reach similar levels to religious models of the east. The secular/atheist version is behaviorism, which is defunct science.

>>16001016
>The secular/atheist version is behaviorism, which is defunct science.
Strawman. You're stretching the definition of behaviorism from studying the outside (stimulus / response with no consideration of what happens in between) to a broader definition that includes cognition: the study of physiology in correlation with models of representation, decision-making and what-it's-like narratives without imbuing what-it's-like with magical substance.

NTA.

>>16000515
God isn't special. It's more carrot-and-stick crap. Be a good boy, go to heaven, forever. Bed bad, go the hell, forever. Don't forget to pay you tithe.
What we need is philosophy. Philosophy is how one controls the self. Look at the state of the world. Do public schools in America teach philosophical thought. No. Why do you suppose that is, when philosophy is so fundamental to thinking?

>>16001062
Ignore typos I got 5 hours of sleep last night. Someone next door lacked philosophy and played music very loud at 2am.

>>16001062
>>16001064
>Be a good boy, go to heaven
That's not how it works. As always, the scoffing armchair expert never knows what he's talking about.

>What we need is philosophy.
lol, lmao even
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQpQgYICIAc

>>16001071
The ten commandments have some good philosophy. Unfortunately the entire thing is bullshit propaganda for the Christians. It's right there in the first commandment:
>"It's my way or the highway, chump." -God
I'm paraphrasing but you can look it up yourself. The antics of the Catholic church since have only confirmed they are interested in control, not good living.

>>16001071
>DO THIS
>DONT DO THIS
>HE FUCKED UP
>thumbnail frame apparently has no relation to the video content
lol thinking I would waste my time on youtube clickbait. Precious really.

>>16000969
how do you know you arent 10 years old right now and havent dreamt the last decade or more (or however old you are). It is a simple question, answer it

>>16001011
if you are gonna post 80 drivel please dont bother (you)ing me

>>16001010
No, that guy is just a brainlet.

>>16001081
Why are you conflating Christianity with Roman Catholicism? Perhaps you should study things you criticize because to do otherwise is ignorance and folly, and you'll only win over others as ignorant as you. The number of Christians tortured and murdered by that pretender cult... With your knowledge of history, I bet you think the American Revolutionary War had more to do with tea or taxation than banking and monetary policies. I wonder if you even know what happened in 1913.

>>16001151
Who are you quoting, schizo? You can look at pic related if your brain and attention span is really so fried from mommy and daddy giving you a smartphone and tablet from a young age since they didn't love you enough to want to raise you themselves. :-)

>>16000186
>Where is consciousness?
It is everywhere.
>What exactly is it?
It is the thing in you that is aware of something
>Avoid philosphy, I want to hear from a scientific perspective.
If by scientific you mean reproducible, plenty of resources on >>>/x/.
If by scientific you mean explainable through current materialistic models, that won't be possible. There is a reason the slogan "there is no consciousness/free-will" is so prevalent with the autists here.
>video
He's got the fundamentals but he's still trying to jam materialism models into the equation. Physicalism and Idealism are not compatible, period. One side declares the observable reality is made up of independently divisible things interacting with each other while the other side states reality is a single indivisible whole displaying different modalities, every infinitesimal moment a cosmic video frame so to speak. One side believes there are eternal external natural laws while the otherside believe all limitations are temporary illusions.
There is simply no reconciling between the two.

>>16000186
Your thoughts of suicide is not my problem.

>>16001291
That was deep as hell.

>>16000186
It do.

>>16000356
>Consciousness is literally just a secular-sounding term for the human soul, the ability to think and feel
Yeah, pretty much this but absolutely every living creature does these things. It's not a spectrum. Things are purely deterministic. Anything else is cope though atheists believing in consciousness is cope beyond belief.

>>16000186
Your "soul" is carried by your microbes. Your experience and expression of your "soul" is enabled by your nervous system. The phenomenon of "reincarnation" and accurate memories of "past lives" come from microbes from dead people making their way into other living people, or particular communications occurring between those microbes and the microbes of a living person

>>16002583
There are other catalysts of intelligence than brain, such as the psyche.

>>16000186
Why am I nailed to this body? What happens when this body crumbles apart? And yet the matter is immortal? And other beings inherit the torch of consciousness, but still I crumble? Good thing I hate this place, otherwise I'd be the one who is damned.