/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

>>4456841
They don't, or just call it an illusion.

Implying that just because we don't exactly see things how they are, they don't do their functions?

>>4456860
I'm pretty sure most people don't even understand the problem.

>>4456862
you are one of these people

>>4456865
Have you read about Implicate Order theory?

tldr
op is a faggot

That is; if direct realism is true (which science holds it is) then the body you see is just miniature copy inside a miniature world which exists throughout brain processes in your true physical skull.
So put your fingers on your forehead. Science tells us that the experience of touch is actually located inside your head (not the one you are touching) but the one which all of your existence is located inside of.

>>4456876
I mean if *indirect* realism is true

I think you are misinterpreting this, matter itself exists, but the way we see things is a little bit different than how they are. We use our sense to perceive things in the actual universe i.e. if I see an apple, I am aware of the apple in front of me, which is just a collection of molecules that have a (let's assume) red pigment reflection and a certain shape and area that they cover. This apple is still located in a grid that is using me as the point of origin, placing it in front of me. The apple still does apple stuff. I don't even think I know what you are asking though, reiterate please.

>>4456879
This is basic science man.
We cannot directly see the apple because our retinas can only process information from those photons which interact with the retina.
As all scientific evidence points to---> the apple is a construction of brain processes. We don't see external to ourselves, seeing is physically located throughout process in our brains which leads to----->
>>4456876

O.K. perhaps I wasn't clear in the OP.
What I'm saying is this;
If we adopt an indirect realist position (as all scientific evidence points to) we have to realize that all that we experience is physically located throughout our true physical brains.
That is, when you look at your feet, you aren't seeing your feet 'out there', the seeing of your feet exists throughout brain processes in your brain.
Now we say that the brain is located inside the head but if direct realism is true my own head is just a miniature copy which exists throughout brain processes of my true head. Feeling the existential vertigo yet?
So here is the crux of it; Where is my true head located????

>>4456892
Maybe there isnt a location.

This is like the time I got drunk and browsed Goat Worship.

>>4456902
then all physics is wrong.
Do you really want to say that?

bump

It has no direct influence on how the world works, and that's all I'm interested in. In other words, another useless thing to think about. I'd rather do something more productive in the meanwhile.

>>4456930
>It has no direct influence on how the world works
And how does the world work?
>stupid fucking pragmatist

The first mistake is thinking you are the brain. You are a spiritual being animating a physical body. You can think of it like a sliver in a thumb; the thumb being the spirit, and the sliver being the body. You are not the effect of the apple, you are cause over it. When you look at it while you are in the body, you are looking through the jelly eyes. Outside the body you're looking at it directly. You are seeing it through the past somewhat though, depending on how many attention units you have in present time.

Take away the somatosensory cortex and you won't be able to feel anything at all. There's the evidence that sensory experience is mediated by the brain.

>>4456957
Doesn't even come close to addressing the OP.
>>4456954
stupid poetic nonsense

>>4456957
Doesn't prove anything. It just means you've structurally damaged the body.

>>4456962
>Doesn't even come close to addressing the OP.
Yet you can't refute it? I'm taking a hard-lined materialist view here, to test your argument.

>>4456963
Damaging the body directly results in an inability to perceive tactile information. Therefore, the somatosensory cortex is necessary for tactile experience. Stimulate the somatosensory cortex, and you will experience touch. Therefore, the somatosensory cortex is both neccesary and sufficient to give rise to tactile experience, and hey presto, we've established a causal relationship.

>>4456964
I'm not trying to refute it all. In fact there is nothing to refute, it's a scientific fact which I completely agree with.
But as I pointed out earlier, it's completely irrelevant to the OP.

>>4456969
So then what are you saying? That the brain is neccesary for subjective experience, but it doesn't happen in the brain? Right?

>>4456972
Did you read the thread??
Here read this;
If we adopt an indirect realist position (as all scientific evidence points to) we have to realize that all that we experience is physically located throughout our true physical brains.
That is, when you look at your feet, you aren't seeing your feet 'out there', the seeing of your feet exists throughout brain processes in your brain.
Now we say that the brain is located inside the head but if direct realism is true my own head is just a miniature copy which exists throughout brain processes of my true head. Feeling the existential vertigo yet?
So here is the crux of it; Where is my true head located????

>>4456967
This is true but it doesn't prove that YOU are the brain.

>>4456977
if indirect* realism is true

>>4456977
In space.
Do you have an alternate theory with more substantial supporting evidence?

>>4456977
I honestly do not see the problem. Can you give an example of something we could not explain from the materialist framework?

>>4456977
Your 'true head', which I guess means 'your veiwpiont' is in your skull. When you look at your feet, you are seeing them directly of course, but you are also aware of the sensations of the body.

It is possible to see your body from an exterior vewpoint. People do it all the time but they just don't talk about it because they know they will be invalidated by people like you.

>>4456990
Relative location
>>4456988
Ok, where in space?
This is the crux of it, where am I in relation to you?
In front? Behind? 300 miles away?
Indirect realism means it's impossible to tell.

>>4456999
>Your 'true head', which I guess means 'your veiwpiont'
No.
>When you look at your feet, you are seeing them directly of course
No.

Alright is there a single intelligent person on /sci/?

>>4457003
How do you know I exist it all? If you disregard our perception of reality, as you have done, then you disregard any certainty in the existence of everything that isn't you. "I think, therefore I am", and all that jazz.
I mean, you're asking me to prove something to you without relying on your senses for evidence, so you are basically asking me to prove something without the use of any evidence that you are able to perceive. It's literally impossible.

>>4457019
>How do you know I exist it all?
I'm talking to you.
>If you disregard our perception of reality, as you have done, then you disregard any certainty in the existence of everything that isn't you.
No. It appears you too are a babby step naive realist. Look up naive realism then come back.
>I mean, you're asking me to prove something to you without relying on your senses for evidence,
No. What are you even talking about?

>>4457019
>exist at all?*

>>4456841
>/sci/ is safe for work

>>4457018
Yes, but they are busy not posting in your sophistic circle jerk.

Also reported for NSFW

>>4457026
Point out where the argument is sophistic.

>>4457003
Physical experiance is located all through your body. Again, the confusion lies in thinking YOU are the just the brain. Think it through for a second...when you look at something in your mind...say, a mental picture of a cat, ask yourself "who's looking at it?" The answer is YOU. The brain can't look at itself. There is a seperation there. When you decide to move your hand, YOU'RE the one who's making the decisions. The brain is'nt self-swiching.

>>4457033
The trouble is the notion of Cartesian theater in the brain has been thoroughly discredited by decades of scientific evidence.

>>4456841
>The Matrix is plausible
Talk to me when your model gives different falsifiable predictions than the one in use. Until that point in time, it's a matter of convention and linguistic ease.

>>4457024
What are you talking about?
>Experience (the act of perceiving the world through the senses) is located within the brain, but we locate the brain through our experiences
>How do we find the location of our experiences (and the brains they exist throughout), without relying on the experiences themselves?
Isn't this the problem? Where am I misinterpreting your question?
And I don't regular /sci/, so don't judge the entire board based on my mental incompetence.

>>4457041
At no point did I suggest something even remotely similar to
>the matrix is plausible
How about you first read the thread, and then reply?

>>4457044
No, that's more or less your problem. You're talking about models which give equivalent falsifiable predictions. If you do have some different falsifiable predictions, then I apologize, and I politely please ask for one such example.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

>>4457048
Wrong Matrix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

if we are living in a matrix, then what is its determinant? What is the product of the universe and the transpose of the universe?

>>4457042
>>Experience (the act of perceiving the world through the senses) is located within the brain, but we locate the brain through our experiences
Yes you are getting it.
The head you touch (according to the scientific view) is actually a miniature copy head in a miniature copy world which is actually physically located throughout brain processes in your real true physical skull.
This is the exact problem though, where is the true physical skull? We have to just outright assume that the copy world we live in is ismorphic to the true world on the outside, but I see no reason to say this. Why should the miniature world be isomorphic to the 'true' world?
That is why should we assume (because thats all we can do) that the true world has the same spatial-temporality as the copy world?
Absolute notions of space have long been abolished by general relativity but it appears there is nothing to even ground a relative location, othr than of course superficial linguistic terms (ie; you are in front if me).
This isn't just some hypothetical matrix shit either, this is the accepted scientific view.

>>4457054
while true, this presents a slippery slope in that there is also no reason to trust sensory input at all.

solipsism is the expected extrapolation.

>>4457059
>while true, this presents a slippery slope in that there is also no reason to trust sensory input at all.
No it doesn't. What would it mean 'I don't trust my senses'?
Nobody can actually doubt 'I have two hands in front of my face'.
Solipsism can go fuck itself.

>>4457064
Again, I must ask. I've read the thread, and I am unclear as to whether you're questioning whether the falsifiable predictions of the conventional scientific worldview are true or false. Are you talking about observable and testable claims? Or are you wasting everyone's time here?

>>4457064
I've read you're threads here twice now, and all I see is solipsism.

call it science if you like, but it's looking a hell of a lot like weak philosophy.

or perhaps the words you type don't mean what we think they mean because you're super smart and we're dumb and you'll never be understood.

>>4457068
>and I am unclear as to whether you're questioning whether the falsifiable predictions of the conventional scientific worldview are true or false.
Physics is founded on bad metaphysics. This is not to say that physics doesn't make accurate predictions, I'm saying these predictions may have nothing to do with external objective reality.

with your feet in the air and your head on the ground...

>>4457072
>and all I see is solipsism.
Why? Where do I imply solipsism at all?
Point out the words you have trouble on.

>>4457078
>I'm saying these predictions may have nothing to do with external objective reality.
Ah, the "wasting our time" category.

Let us know when you discover a way to learn about "external objective reality". Until then, I'm going to do science.

Thread's over.

>>4457082
all of it.

if sensory data aren't isomorphic with an objective reality then we can be sure only of our own existence.

this is solipsism.
it is the only rationally defensable position, thus it fits your claims.
it's also boring as fuck.

>>4457054
>>4457054
>This is the exact problem though, where is the true physical skull? We have to just outright assume that the copy world we live in is ismorphic to the true world on the outside, but I see no reason to say this.
Well, then my original post does indeed apply to this debate.
>We have to just outright assume that the copy world we live in is ismorphic to the true world on the outside, but I see no reason to say this.
So, what you're basically saying is, "What if how we perceive our world (or the "copy world") isn't how the world really is? What if where I perceive my head to be isn't where my real head is? How do I locate my real head without relying on the possibly false information relayed to me by my senses (how do I find my real brain when I can not assume my copy world brains location to be isomorphic)?"

So, it basically boils down to "How can I find the location of my brain without any evidence from any sensory input?"
That, is of course, impossible. This is why people where bring up the matrix. If you do not have faith in how you perceive the world through your senses, then the only thing you can be sure of is that you yourself exist. That is why I brought up the "I think, therefore I am" quote.
Without trusting your perception of the universe it is impossible to be sure that anything else exists, let alone where it is located relative to you.

>>4457091
fuck commas

>>4457084
>Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments.
Forget I used the word 'objective'. Above where it says 'outside world' is completely incompatible with what the evidence garnered using the *scientific method*. It's undermined it's own basis.
>>4457087
>if sensory data aren't isomorphic with an objective reality then we can be sure only of our own existence.
Non-sequitir.
I'm sure you exist btw.

>>4457091
also fuck the English language

>>4457095
>I'm sure you exist btw

you're a fool, even I don't claim any certainty on the matter.

>>4457091
Again this isn't some hypothetical shit I'm talking about.
The accepted scientific view is that we live in a miniature copy reality inside our true physical brains.
Now it is simply impossible to know that the reality outside my true brain (if it even is a brain) is any way similiar to the copy world we live in.
But all science does is make predictions which apply to the copy world. I think it's completely missing the point.

>I think it's completely missing the point.
I think everyone in this thread is missing the point by persisting to discuss with you. It's evident that you're questioning enough of our collective shared reality that we cannot have a constructive conversation with you. I want to use the term nihilist. Sophist is good too.

>>4457099
Who are you talking to? Where did you learn to use those words?
Quit playing silly games.
>"I think, therefore I am
This is absurd as well. It presupposes an 'i' which thinks to affirm that same 'i's existence.

>>4457107
> It's evident that you're questioning enough of our collective shared reality
I'm pointing out that our reality is just a little copy world, we are missing the bigger picture (if indirect realism is true).

>>4457113
>I'm pointing out that our reality is just a little copy world, we are missing the bigger picture (if indirect realism is true).
This bigger picture will always be unobservable, and thus entirely irrelevant. Why bother? Why is anyone even continuing with this thread? Are you same-fagging it? Or are some people in sci this bored and/or stupid?

>>4457113
that is, science only makes predictions which apply to the copy reality.
We need something else to investigate the true reality.

>>4457116
>This bigger picture will always be unobservable,
Why?
>Why bother?
So you aren't interested in the foundation of reality? Why don't you just leave the thread?

>>4457121
You say science isn't good enough because it deals with only the observable. Thus you want to talk about the unobservable. What the hell methods could there be to learn about it? It's unobservable. Almost by definition it's irrelevant.

>>4457123
Yes irrelevant. Now we get to the interesting part.
Does the unobservable exist?

>>4457136
>Does the unobservable exist?
Unknown, and always will be unknown. The only way to learn about factual claims is science, and thus unobservable claims will always be unknowable. Thus this conversation is useless beyond trying to convince you of this simple rational truth.