/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do you want to write this?

>>4566006
Because it's fun.

Because the universe is deterministic.

/thread

>>4566009
I don't think so. Philosophy threads on /sci/ are never fun.

>>4566011
>neuroscience
>philosophy

Pick one.

>>4566013
Free will is philosophy.

>>4566009
Wrong answer. You don't do it because it's fun, you do it because you were predetermined to do it. Remember, there is no free will.

>>4566010
This. Neuroscience has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you're asking here shows you have no idea what you're doing. Ask your neuroscience professor, or look for papers/books that discuss this subject.

As I've done so in the past, I will direct you to Brain Science Podcast, a neuroscience-oriented podcast that examines the brain in the context of real world issues without straying far from the science behind it.

Here are some good podcasts to start with:

http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/did-my-neurons-make-me-do-it-with-warren-brown-bsp-62.html

http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/how-mind-emerges-from-brain-bsp-82.html

>>4566002
Philosophy isn't about arguing shit. Philosophy is really about choosing definitions.

Define free will, and consider determinism, and the answer falls in place.

Afterwards, argue whether the definition of free will is correct. Ta-da!

>>4566010
Fixed:
The PHYSICAL universe is deterministic.

Note how this doesn't say anything about free will.

There's an experiment out there in which you are able to determine whether or not someone is going to raise their hand, prior to them consciously making the decision, all by just looking at their brain.

>>4566034
How do they know when the person consciously makes the decision?

>>4566038
>>4566034
You're referring to the Libet exercise. I need something more solid than that, but I'll be including this in my paper as well.

>>4566032

Nothing non-physical exists, religiousfag.

>>4566043
Prove it, pseudo-intellectual.

>>4566023
Thanks for this, hearing how the mind emerges from brain. Would love a summarization on the source material, though. The book looks interesting.

>>4566044

Everything directly or indirectly observable is physical in nature. That means that if some delusional retard wants to claim magic exists, he has to prove it.

>>4566050
>how the mind emerges from brain

So we are outside of science now.

>>4566054
>everything directly or indirectly observable

How do you "observe" free will?

I don't see how anyone can deny free will.
Look at your hand, then move it somewhere. BOOM you have free will.

>>4566022
Buddhists were there first and half of them are atheists. Just rehash japanese culture in pseudo-scientific terms.

>>4566055
Neurosciences implies that the brain generates the mind, though. How is that not science?

Why the fuck are people who are dumb enough to think their mind is some kind of magical fairy dust essence called a soul on /sci/? Don't you have some kind of witchcraft ritual to be doing or something?

>>4566050
Those episodes I linked are good summaries of the source material. If you have an hour trip in the car, they're a great way to fill the time. If you just want to read it quickly, there's a PDF transcript available on those pages.

Here's another I think is quite relevant.
http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/david-eagleman-on-the-secret-lives-of-the-brain-bsp-75.html

>The analogy I used was that the conscious mind—which is the part of you that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning: that bit of you—it’s like a stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, that’s taking credit for the journey, without acknowledging all the engineering underfoot.

>>4566072
>Neurosciences implies that the brain generates the mind

This is wrong. Neuroscience examines the brain. That's all it does. Talking about the mind is philosophy.

>>4566074
Why are people who are dumb enough to think they can disprove unfalsifiable philosophical claims on /sci/?

>>4566055
Mind and brain are two perspectives on the same thing. You can think of it like this, though the analogy is completely wrong from a technical perspective:

The mind is software, and the brain is hardware.

>>4566094
This analogy is not scientific and its truth value is very doubtful.

>>4566092

No one said anything about disproving anything you fucking simp. I said that if you believe in a soul, you have downs. That's it.

>>4566099
>if you disagree with my belief, then you are retarded

Looks like your debating skillz are stuck in kindergarten.

>>4566097

Doubtful to whom? Keep in mind that people who think they can communicate telepathically with the creator of the universe don't have a say in this, and really shouldn't legally count as human beings if we're being fair.

>>4566105
How is that babble about a "creator of the universe" related?

>>4566103

Actually I wasn't ambiguous at all. I was very specific. I said that if you believe in a soul you have downs. That has nothing to do with my belief that peanut butter tastes good or that basketball is fun.

After years and years of religious people embarrassing themselves with this same exact desperate attempt to distract from how retarded their nonsense beliefs are, you'd think they'd have learned by now.

>>4566112
Cry harder. There are people who have other beliefs than you. And geuss what: They are just as valid.

So can we talk about neuroscience and how it refutes free will again?

>>4566070

That's not an example of that most deplorable and Christian concept of the "freedom of will".

That's someone who has enough neurotransmitters and habituation to respond to the provocation of a routine automatic action as intentionally willed. This "freedom of the will" would be nulled in any number of depressive states in which the person would be physically unable to respond to even that simple provocation. It'd also be nulled in any number of hallucinogenic states in which various mechanisms of normality, judgment, desire, and others would be modified in addition to the visual warping. It'd also be nulled in any number of obsessive-compulsive states where the instance of provocation, the presence of words, or whatever provokes an auto reaction.

The "freedom of the will" is just the STRENGTH OF PERCEPTION OF A PARTICULAR MECHANISM OR SYSTEM OF MECHANISMS OVER OTHERS. And this strength, as with all others, is dependent on chains of uninterrupted physical causations that can be disrupted or overridden.

>>4566002


The ultimate refutation is that "free will" is non-nonsensical other than as a shorthand for a social judgment of the responsible subject and not as anything that describes an actual mechanism of decision making as it occurs in the brain.

>>4566112
You weren't ambigous at all. That's right. You were just immature. And now you are being immature again. If insulting others is all you can contribute, you should better stay away from discussions.

>>4566111

it's a fact that mind and brain are one in the same. there's no need to tip-toe around the real issue, which is the question of why you can't get past the mental abuse your parents laid on you as a child and accept that magic and unicorns aren't real.

>>4566117
Well it doesn't. Neuroscience is a physical science, free will is a philosophical concept and unfalsifiable.

>>4566115

Of course we have these subhuman faggots who don't realize that the relativity of beliefs WORKS AGAINST THEIR FUCKING ATTEMPTS TO DROWN OUT ANY SEMBLANCE OF "TASTE" OR "DEFENSE" AGAINST INFERIOR BELIEFS.

That DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN BELIEFS isn't something they can protest unless they want to drown in their own fucking hypocrisy.

>>4566121
How is that related?

>>4566122
Maybe I should be more concise in my words, what I meant to say was, does neuroscience refute that we are in complete control of our 100% of the time, always?

>>4566123
Your post is incoherent and unrelated.

Unfortunately for soulfags, brain injuries affecting every aspect of the human mind have been experienced and subsequently studied and documented. Every single aspect of human consciousness is known to be affected by brain trauma.

>>4566122

Free will is a nonsensical concept and is as falsifiable as invisible rape demons who rape you so fast from extra-dimensional nooks that your asshole isn't even harmed by the instants of time they spend raping you.

Hiding behind the verbiage of "philosophical concept" doesn't help its case.

>>4566127
Again: Neuroscience is a physical science. It only makes the observations it can make. Unfalsifiable philosophy is not subject of neuroscience.

>>4566130
Only the interaction of consciousness with the physical world is impaired through brain trauma. This indicates that the brain has an important function as interface.

>>4566115

No, the validity of a belief is determined by its supporting evidence. You are stupid. My beliefs are grounded in science. Any beliefs which aren't are not only less valid, but invalid.

>>4566132
>and is as falsifiable as invisible rape demons
That's the point. Discussing free will is pointless.

>>4566141
>>4566141

which leaves what?

>>4566118
All this shows is that you don't understand how we use the words 'free-will'.
>>4566121
>it's a fact that mind and brain are one in the same.
So this isn't an accepted 'fact' at all.
It's a theory.

>>4566142
Your beliefs are not grounded in science but in an immature misunderstanding of science. Learn the difference.

>>4566128

"They are just as valid"

Is something only a puke with no evaluative standards could say. Someone whose head cannot even defend and select the higher and the inferior ideas and beliefs.

It displays the highest naivety in the idea that beliefs are churned in forges of "ideality" rather than from PSYCHOLOGIES, a majority of which are inferior to a superior minority, which consciously and subconsciously try to shape the world (and other psychologies) to their solipsisms.

>>4566145
Which leaves us with the only knowledge that we can't make a scientific statement about unfalsifiable philosophical hypotheses.

>>4566130
What proof do you have that the brain is 'physical'.
All you have is seeing and touching etc
The 'physical world' is a theory.

fuck, religionfags are so pathetic. now they've backed up from actually trying to argue facts with people more intelligent than them to just blindly insisting that

YOUCANTKNOW
YOUCANTKNOW
YOUCANTKNOW

time to grow up

>>4566149
Stay mad. Your post is unrelated once again. Keep raging. You are amusing, although you probably don't even understand what the discussion is about.

>>4566154
The only one bringing up religion are you. The thread is not about religion and no one was talking about religion.

>that feel when it is literally impossible to tell the difference between actual religious people and trolls pretending to have severe mental handicaps so you just slowly back out of the thread fearing for humanity

when a pipe or a gunshot wound through the head or a stroke can alter a person's personality, memory, circadian rhythm, you know for a fact that the mind and brain are one in the same. just deal with the scientific fact that there is no free will. your life will be exactly the same and you retain your dignity and your fundamental worth as a human being who is capable of acknowledging simple truths.

>>4566147
>All this shows is that you don't understand how we use the words 'free-will'.

I don't see how it makes SENSE then.

Either it implies a special mechanism that has some freedom from PREVIOUS CASUAL EFFECTS and CURRENT CASUAL EFFECTS, which is really an absurdity.

or it's a concept that is used to assign social "guilt" and "responsibility" onto individuals in a society for actions they do. So that a person who commits a crime and is caught or who attempts to be bold and falls into misfortune is no longer "the ape that has encountered misfortune" but is now "the ape subject to the whim of social powers it has angered and is no subject to the fiat of punishment".

>So this isn't an accepted 'fact' at all.
>It's a theory.

It can't even be a theory because "mind", like "ideas" or "thoughts", are misrepresentations of far more complex mechanisms. They are useful on the level of communicating the experience of the mechanisms and the personal meaning one finds in them but as for explaining the complexity of the mechanisms, they are misrepresentations.

One encounters, at the very least, the problem of the model trying to simulate a much larger "modeled".

>>4566127
Either the brain is in control or ________ (some undefinable supernatural entity we have no evidence of existing and no reason to suppose exists other than folk psychology) is in control. So you tell me, is there a separate 'you' somewhere that thinks and behaves in a way that is inconsistent with your inclinations?

>>4566165
Non sequitur. All we can see is that there is a correlation between impaired physical expression of consciousness and brain injuries. Jumping to unjustified conclusions is unscientific and only further shows your immaturity and your lack of understanding. Just like your screaming "religion", whenever you are proven wrong. No one here wants to discuss religion.

>>4566157

>implying the giant fucking elephant in the room in these debates isn't that dualismfags aren't scared of dying and want their god to send them to the magical cloud level

come on son

>>4566170
The only evidence of a consciousness we have is our self awareness and our experience of qualia. I don't know though if you are in possession of these.

>>4566173

when you can point out an aspect of consciousness that has not been affected by brain trauma your point can have some legitimacy.

>>4566175
No, this is wrong. People are misunderstanding science and need to be corrected.

>>4566155

No you stay mad at the idea that people dare to discriminate against beliefs they already sense are developed by decadent psychologies.

That there is no "they just are as valid" but that one sees the obsessive-compulsive, and the psychotic trying to impose degenerate and less powerful models of reality. Such as the ideas of the freedom of will and of God and of a primary "Reality" and of any innumerable impositions that are born from failed megalomaniacs who succeeded to do in the realm of propositions what they failed to do in a more complex and intense reality.

And yes I realize this is a side-track from the topic at hand you daft douche.

>>4566180
Your question is wrong. We can't observe consciousness physically. All we can see are the physical results of consciousness, which seem to depend on brain function.

>>4566185
Whatever you are talking about, it has nothing to do with the thread or with my posts. Maybe you are intentionally posting nonsense or maybe you are replying to the wrong thread. Maybe you are psychotic. We will never know and actually I don't really care.

>>4566173

It's not an "unjustified conclusion" you fucking douche.

GEE HAVEN'T FELT GREAT AFTER EATING A MEAL? DIDN'T THAT AFFECT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS?

GEE HAVEN'T YOU FELT BRAIN DEAD AFTER NOT GETTING SLEEP?

GEE HAVEN'T YOU TAKEN ANY NUMBER OF DRUGS? DID THEY NOT ALTER YOUR PERSONALITY FROM A MEAN?

OH NO I GUESS THERE IS NO FUCKING JUSTIFICATION TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME LINK BETWEEN PHYSICAL MECHANISMS AND THE MAINTENANCE AND CREATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

>>4566190

sounds like you just *want* to believe the mind and the brain aren't the same. everything in the universe is made up of the same elementary particles. you're suggesting that the human mind is made up of something else based on what?

the point isn't whether you can prove it entirely, but what the evidence strongly suggests.

>>4566192
>with my posts

HORY SHIT

"Cry harder. There are people who have other beliefs than you. And geuss what: They are just as valid."

That was your fucking post. You fucking douche.

>>4566196
Physical perceptions can induce qualia. Great news. And fully unrelated to the unjustified conclusion of hurr durr everything must be physical.

>>4566165
what the hell does this have to do with free will?
>>4566166
>Either it implies a special mechanism that has some freedom from PREVIOUS CASUAL EFFECTS and CURRENT CASUAL EFFECTS, which is really an absurdity.
What are you on about?
Do you even understand how we use the term 'free', as in you are 'free' to go.
Feel free to leave the thread.
>>4566178
Fuck off solipsistfag

>>4566199
There is evidence for both sides, depending on how you interpret the evidence. Both make sense and are plausible. In addition they are unfalsifiable. Ergo we are talking about something non-scientific here.

>>4566190
no all we can observe uses consciousness.
We then hypothesize a 'physical world' beyond this.

>>4566200
You seem to be mad. I don't understand why. I don't even care. As long as your spam stays amusing ...

>>4566210
We can hypothesize a lot, when we enter philosophy. Just it has nothing to do with science anymore.

>>4566206

no, dualism is completely implausible and has zero evidence.

If free-will isn't real, how come I can do whatever I want?

Checkmate.

>>4566217
Dualism is highly plausible. It's main evidence are qualia and self awareness, which are inherently not explicable by physical science.

>>4566206

>depending on how you interpret the evidence

i love this little addition. you can almost always find it when some religionfag is trying to make his bumfuck retarded point sound legitimate.

science is concrete. it's not open to interpretation from people who think they can cast spells like harry potter. fuck off.

>>4566221
BAZINGA

>>4566217
>p-zombies
>marys room

>>4566226
what does religion have to do with any of this???
Your the only one talking about religion.

>>4566226
We are not talking about science anymore. We are not talking about religion either. The subject is called "philosophy". Geussing from the lack of education expressed in your posts you might never have heard of it. I suggest to search on the following pages in ordert to read more:

http://www.google.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/

>>4566223
>>4566223

>hurr durr god of the gaps

"because soul" is not an explanation for anything. are you retarded?

exactly the same as if i say

>we don't know where the universe came from so it came from a turtle fart. since science hasn't definitively explained it yet my explanation is completely plausible.

dualism is nonsense. nothing about the universe suggests magic is real.

>>4566201

HOLY SHIT. DID YOU JUST USE "QUALIA"? I FUCKING HATE YOU.

WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU RETREAT TO "QUALIA" WHEN THE FAR MORE POWERFUL CONCEPT OF THE SIMULATION BEING UNABLE TO COMPLETELY MODEL ITS SIMULATOR EXISTS?

I mean holy shit Qualia is just some jackoff word that doesn't EXPLAIN SHIT. It's on the same level of "mind", "ideas", "thoughts", and other outdated (in the scientific/mechanical sense) for prescribing anything. Do you realize how OUT FUCKIN DATED you will be in fifty or a hundred years when neuroscience continues the exponential modeling and data collection of ACTUAL EXPLANATIONS FOR BRAIN FUNCTIONING AND THE FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?

As I said before, fucking MEGALOMANIAC JACKOFFS who attempt to dominate reality by a PATHETIC SUPER FUCKING WORDS ("Qualia", "Mind", "Ideal") rather than attempting to actually understand it.

>>4566238
Dualism is not magic. It is a plausible philosophical concept. And insults are not arguments.

>>4566237

>implying dualism/soul bullshit isn't directly tied to religion.

go ahead and make up a new elementary particle you fags. i'm waiting to hear your explanation for how magic exists other than goddidit. genuinely i'm interested in whatever new age bullshit you come up with.

>>4566241
Of course qualia don't explain anything. They merely describe a phenomenon of our experience. The big philosophical problem is that it is impossible to find a sufficient explanation for qualia.

>>4566243

dualism is just the idea that the brain and mind are separate entities. you still have to define what the entity that constitutes the mind is.

which is magic.

>>4566245
Again you unnecessarily bring up religion. We are talking about non-religious philosophy here.

>>4566238
this isn't even an argument.
Your just saying dualism is false, in a really immature way.
>>4566241
?

>>4566250
By this way of thinking you might call everything magic. What is the physical world? It's motherfucking magic. All around us.

>>4566249

>sufficient explanation

the insufficiency is borne of limited human understanding. 99.999999999% chance that when such a thing is explicable, the explanation will have to do with electrical impulses in the brain.

why? because life really isn't that complicated. people just want to believe it is.

>>4566250
> you still have to define what the entity that constitutes the mind is.
This question makes no sense

>>4566257
>99.999999999%

How do you make up this number? What's your probability variable? What's its distribution? Where are the statistics?

>>4566257
so how do you get the look of blue or the taste of wine or the feeling of itchiness from 'electrical impulses'?

>>4566228

p-zombies has the fatal flaw that ONE COULD ALSO BE A PROPOSITIONAL ZOMBIE. In fact one could say that THE SELF THAT REPRESENTS TO THE CONSCIOUSNESS AS PROPOSITIONAL THOUGHT COULD BE A PARASITE/ZOMBIE TO THE FLOW OF SENSORY INFORMATION.

and Mary's room is FUCKING RETARDED. If Mary knew everything about color, she'd BE ABLE TO SIMULATE THE PHYSICAL MECHANISMS THAT GIVE THE EMOTIONAL SENSES INHERENT IN ANY PERCEPTION OF COLOR BY APES AND AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF CONFIGURATIONS OF EMOTIONAL AND NERVOUS SYSTEM PROCESSING.

Jesus the imagination of these "philosophers" is fucking offensive in the mendacity of their limited scope and manipulative scenarios that fail to explore the full range of propositions that would need to be considered.

>>4566257
>life really isn't that complicated
Define "complicated". How would dualism make life more complicated?

>>4566258

it makes perfect fucking sense. dualism posits that the mind is SOMETHING ELSE. you have to define what that SOMETHING ELSE is. what the fuck is it made of? how did evolution give rise to it? what the fuck is it you nigger? if you're going to disregard the perfectly rational explanation that the mind and brain are the same thing, you better have SOMETHING to say about wtf your magical mind shit is.

>>4566267
It is something else. What more explanation do you need? We can describe physical things in detail. Describing non-physical things in terms of physical things fails. And dualism is more rational than physicalism, because the latter cannot explain qualia and self awareness.

>>4566261

someone help me with this faggot because i don't know the philosophical terms to refute this bullshit, i just know it's bullshit.

it's circular. we see blue because we see fucking blue. if we didn't see blue you wouldn't be able to ask why we see blue. fuck you, seriously. your questions are stupid and meaningless and they in no way whatsofuckingever suggest that the simplest and most rational explanation, that the mind comes from the brain, is invalid.

>>4566268

fucking lol, and how does dualism explain quali and selfawareness you dipshit? you claim you aren't religious and yet this is EXACTLY THE SAME as

>hurr durr god made the universe because we don't know how the universe was made

>>4566271
Is your blue the same as my blue? How do you know that your blue doesn't look yellow to me? I don't mean the light frequencies, but the intepretation.
And please don't argue on basis of emotions only. If you lack arguments, calm down first and think rationally about it.

>>4566272
Dualism leaves qualia and self awareness in the realm of the non-physical, which is plausible, because that's what they inherently are.

>>4566268

so the human mind is made of different substance than that of animals which aren't self-aware? you're a religiousfag, admit it.

physicalism can explain that shit. sufficient complexity gives rise to it.

>>4566267
What the fuck are you on?
All dualism posits is that the mind is non-physical.
Conscioussness cannot be reduced to neurobiology and physics.

>Conscioussness cannot be reduced to neurobiology and physics

yes it can. that's why when someone has parts of their brain damaged their mind gets damaged too you fucking idiot.

hey guys, i'm not even from /sci/ and this is one amazing thread

keep it up

What does any of this have to do with neuroscience?

>>4566278
We can't know if animals have self awareness or consciousness. They can't express it in a manner we are able to understand. "It arises from complexity" is a very vague statement. You might as well replace it by "magic", because it's just as unscientific.

>stroke victim loses brain matter
>also loses their memory, their personality, possibly subconscious processes, etc, etc
>with enough damage they even lose their self-awareness
>somehow this is not proof that the mind and brain are the same

dualism faggots really are fucking retarded.

>>4566282
Nothing. Only some uneducated posters assume neuroscience can replace all of philosophy.

>>4566292
But neuroscience =/= philosophy, so what's all this nonsense about free will in the philosophical sense and not in the deterministic neurological sense that this thread was intended to be about?

>>4566284
Read the posts above. All we can conclude from our observations of brain injuries is that the brain is somehow correlated to consciousness. It might only be an interface to the non-physical mind.

>>4566291
Then please prove that he really lost all of these functions and not just the ability to physically express them.

>>4566271
>that the mind comes from the brain, is invalid.
I never denied this, why are you so mad?
The feeling of blue or the taste of wine is not redicuble to physical brain states. Prove me wrong.
>>4566284
>that's why when someone has parts of their brain damaged their mind gets damaged too you fucking idiot.
When did I deny this? What is wrong with you?
Again, the taste of wine or the feeling of blue cannot be reduced to 'electrical impulses'. Prove me wrong.

>>4566002
It's incredibly difficult to falsify a notion that is badly defined. What's free will?


My argument would be 1) Nature is probabilistic
2) Brains are born of nature therefore subject to nature's limitations
3) Therefore Brains are probabilistic

>>4566295
Free will is a purely philosophical problem. Whatever you refer to as "in the deterministic neurological sense" is not really related to free will.

>>4566013
Free will is definitely philosophy. This is a philosophical problem approached from a psychological perspective.

>>4566302
>Nature is probabilistic

Stopped reading right there.

>>4566303
Define your free will and I'll define my free will with how it relates to neurology and science.

>>4566302
Brains seem to be more deterministic than probabilistic. But that's unrelated to free will, because we can't say that free will is to be explained by the brain only.

>>4566292

LOL

This fucking idiot thinks that "philosophy" still has a gold currency amongst actual intelligent minds.

Rather than having been exposed as a set of limited scientific explanation AT BEST and at worst unrestricted megalomania that attempted to construe reality as a set of super words ("Being", "Reality" with a capital, "Mind", "God", etc) that faced the problem of extracting "generalities" from "particulars" and "particulars" from "generalities" which was DOOMED TO FUCKING FAILURE FROM THE START.

This canonization of the very word "philosophy" is something that subhumans seem compelled to ape as a repetition of social indoctrination as opposed to any actual consideration of "philosophical works", their value, and the psychologies, times, and societies which produced them.

>>4566311
Go ahead. Give a definition of free will that is purely physical.

>>4566316
You first.

>>4566305
Why? Macroscopically speaking everything is effectively deterministic, but on the quantum scale it's very much a matter of probability.

>>4566313
>because we can't say that free will is to be explained by the brain only.

So you want an argument for naturalism?

>>4566059
lol another physics fag owned.

>>4566314
Hello RedCream. Sadly your post is below your average quality, since it is unrelated or at least doesn't contradict mine. I never denied that philosophy is unscientific nonsense. In fact that's what I am teaching the less educated posters ITT all the time.

>>4566299

Please prove that it's your fingers on your keyboard which are causing letters to appear on your screen and not an invisible force that sees what it is you want to say and instantly puts the letters there.

>>4566317
Why should I? The unusual definition is held by you. So it would be more important to see how far your conception of free will differs from what we commonly consider free will to be.

>>4566314
Why do you talk like that?
Please explain how you get the taste of jack daniels from electrical impulses

>>4566323

>retard asks how you can observe a concept
>lolowned

religious people really need to be euthanized at this point. worthwhile human beings want to see advancement this century instead of getting held back by these worthless "human beings."

>>4566319
>>4566302
The brain is a physical system on the classical level, therefore it's deterministic.

>>4566319
I don't want any arguments at all. I just want you to acknowledge that the topic of the discussion is not scientific and thus especially not in the realm of neuroscience anymore.

>>4566336
You still haven't given me your definition of free will.

>>4566330

the particles of jack daniels interact with the taste buds on your tongue and the smell receptors in your nose which send signals to your brain. your brain then interprets the signal in the cerebral cortex.

the fuck is wrong with you?

>>4566327
I can't prove that. But science makes the fundamental assumption that the physical world is objectively observable. So in the framework of science it would be safe to say that my fingers are typing on my keyboard, as long as it can be observed by others as well.

>>4566330
You don't get the taste of jack daniels FROM electrical impulses.
The taste of jack danials IS electrical impulses.

>>4566330
>Please explain how you get the taste of jack daniels from electrical impulses

You're asking for a precise chain of complex mechanisms from a science that is A LITTLE OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND LESS THAN A HUNDRED IN THE EXAMINATION OF ITS BIOCHEMICAL COMPONENTS.

What makes you think that embracing the temptations of a self-mystication somehow makes more sense than examining all the other science and concluding that maybe YOU WILL HAVE A FUCKING ANSWER SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE OF THE ACCUMULATION OF KNOWLEDGE?

jesus christ.

Again, how can anyone deny we have free will?
See your index finger on your right hand? Now move it to the letter a on your keyboard.
BOOOOOOM Free will.

>>4566331
Again you bring up religion. It seems that you are the only one interested in religion ITT. Btw you just acknowledged free will and consciousness to be non-physical concepts and thus contradict everything you aggressively posted previously.

>>4566333
>The brain is a physical system on the classical level
Synapses are less than 1 μm, while its operation isn't wholly probabilistic it certainly isn't on a large enough scale to be called classical

Actually, I agree with you and it is. But it doesn't matter that I agree with you, it matters that the argument is an airtight as possible, which requires ceding that the brain isn't necessarily entirely deterministic.

>>4566343
Does it taste the same to everyone? Can you prove it?

>>4566346
>The taste of jack danials IS electrical impulses.
So the computer in front of you experiences the letter 'a' when you type it.
This is tantamount to panpsychism.

>>4566346
This is the perception, not the taste. Taste is the interpretation of physical perception.

>>4566349
see
>>4566118

It only "seems" to be "free" because the strength of your conscious decision-making components is higher than other mechanisms which would prevent you from responding to such a simple prompt.

Furthermore your scenario is a distortion of actual typing since we mostly do it automatically as habituation and learned reflexes.

>>4566345

Whatever kid. Keep convincing yourself you aren't creating a double standard. Denying that brain trauma provides obvious and irrefutable evidence that brain=mind is exactly the same as the ridiculous situation I gave you.

When people think certain things and feel certain ways, certain parts of the brain light up on brain scans. If every aspect of human consciousness is observable in such a way, where does your mysterious mind exist? What purpose does it serve?

>>4566343
>>4566343
>the particles of jack daniels interact with the taste buds on your tongue and the smell receptors in your nose which send signals to your brain. your brain then interprets the signal in the cerebral cortex.
O.k. and where is the actual taste in all of this?
The smoky burning tennessee goodness

>>4566336
I think you have me confused with someone else. Adopting name now

My posts:

>>4566302
>>4566304
>>4566319
>>4566353

>>4566351

free will isn't real in any form. consciousness is the word we use to describe how we perceive the world. concepts don't actually exist. udumb.

>>4566355
I'll give you an analogy. Maybe you understand it this way. Let's say you have a house with exactly one door to the outside. As long as the door is open, you can talk to someone standing outside. Now someone closes the door and you can't talk to him anymore. In your logic we can conclude that you ARE the door. To make it fully clear, the brain is the door, you are the consciousness and the guy outside is the physical world.

>>4566347
>You're asking for a precise chain of complex mechanisms from a science that is ..
No I'm asking how you could possible reduce qualia to electrical impulses.
How is it that the feeling of red and the taste of steak could ever be reduced to electrical impulses?

>>4566364

taste is just a word. then question you are asking is exactly the same as a person asking

"why"

and expecting an answer. i'm sure there's a word for what you're doing, i just don't know it. either way it's stupid.

>>4566364
>O.k. and where is the actual taste in all of this?
You need first to establish that there's something other than that electrical pulse's interpretation going on.

>>4566369
Concepts don't exist? Well then nothing exists. We might as well delete the word "existence". Oh wait, we can't, because we don't exist either.

>>4566361
>decision-making components

>>4566357
>So the computer in front of you experiences the letter 'a' when you type it.
No. But that's only because the computer in front of me does not have the complex architecture required to perceive qualia.

>>4566373
>taste is just a word.
That refers to the feeling.
The world is not made of words.

>>4566372
Because you mistake "experience" as something that is not physically caused because you don't know about what causes it or how it becomes expressed in your stream of consciousness therefore you know that it has no physical causes therefore there is another substance that must be causing it even though that just ADDS ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM.

Or you could WAKE THE FUCK UP and realize that maybe the exponential amount of scientists added to the pool of researchers will come up with a sensible and clear model of consciousness creation in your lifetime.

>>4566386
Saying "qualia arise from complexity" means admitting that you don't know how they arise. It is a euphemism for magic.

>>4566372
We don't know how. We just know that it does. A piece of steak touches a taste receptor, which causes a neuron to fire, which causes other neurons to fire and so on and so forth, and there is nothing else going on in the brain. There is no homunculus pulling on levers who does the actual tasting. It's a brain.

>How is it that the feeling of red and the taste of steak could ever be reduced to electrical impulses?

pointless. meaningless. fucking. question. some philosophyfag PLEASE come in here with a word or term to describe this bullshit. i need to know.

>>4566383

Yes, biochemistry affects, and/or is, our decision making. This is obvious to anyone who has ingested alcohol, drugs, felt the pump of dopamine, or oxycotin, or any number of substances that alter decision making.

>>4566375
you don't get it.
We can describe whats going on when you taste jack daniels (electrical impulses, other such neuroscience shit)
But your never going to capture the actual taste, the actual smoky burning delicious tennesse sensation

>>4566392
Qualia cannot be physically observed. This is inherently impossible, because per definition they are subjective experience as opposed to objective aspects.

>>4566400
It would be pointless and meaningless if we wanted to remain in science. Because science doesn't give a fuck about qualia and leaves them to philosophy.

>>4566401
What is decision making? Can you give a universal algorithm?

>>4566400
He's begging the question/wrongly assuming that the null hypothesis is something it is not.

Got you some words up on this bitch

>>4566400
>pointless. meaningless. fucking. question.
So in other words you don't know the answer.
>>4566398
>A piece of steak touches a taste receptor, which causes a neuron to fire, which causes other neurons to fire and so on and so forth, and there is nothing else going on in the brain. There is no homunculus pulling on levers who does the actual tasting. It's a brain.
Again your just decribing the process. Where is the taste in all of this? Where have you captured the actual feeling of juicy delicious steak?

>>4566404

Of course you can't capture THE EXPERIENCE OF taste WITH PROPOSITIONAL MODELS YOU FUCKING JACKASS.

That's as FUCKING ABSURD as complaining against someone trying to describe a guy climbing a mountain and then saying "BULLSHIT YOU DON'T KNOW THE EXPERIENCE OF THAT GUY CLIMBING A MOUNTAIN WHY ARE WE EVEN LISTENING TO YOU" even though it's fucking obvious that experience needs a system analogous to CNS processing to approach what we mean when we say "experience".

>>4566426
>it's fucking obvious

Yeah sure. About as obvious as the existence of unicorns.

>>4566426

Now you can describe how EXPERIENCE ARISES but actual experience is something that requires an appropriate body of inputs/outputs beyond propositional modeling.

Just how we can describe ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE OBSERVE IN REALITY without describing the experience of those things as they experience to themselves.

>>4566392
Calm down man. You just don't get it.
You can know all the physical facts about jack daniels tasting but your never going to capture the actual taste, the what-it-is-like to taste jack daniels.

>>4566424
>>4566424

the cerebral cortex. how mad are you going to be when science actually does explain this shit? are you going to feel like there's no mystery left in the world?

some of us started feeling taht way a long time ago :(

>>4566434
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diceros_bicornis.jpg

>>4566426
>Of course you can't capture THE EXPERIENCE OF taste WITH PROPOSITIONAL MODELS YOU FUCKING JACKASS.
Therefore qualia are non-physical

>>4566434

It's obvious because you'll PROBABLY stop experiencing once I FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR BRAIN or FUCK UP YOUR BIOCHEMISTRY.

Emphasis on "probably" because anything beyond that leads into an INFINITY OF POSSIBLE PROPOSITIONS and FUCK THAT SHIT.

>>4566441
How disappointed will you be when you have to acknowledge that science has limits, that there are things science can't explain? Every scientist knows this. And that's why some people need philosophy.

>>4566443
Nice panda.

>>4566445
>probably

What probability distribution do you assume and why?

>>4566448

science has limits because technology has limits. if you really think we won't fully understand everything within our universe some day you delusional son.

>>4566444

No YOU FUCKING JACKASS.

It means that attempting to COMMUNICATE EXPERIENCES IN PROPOSITIONS doesn't actually communicate THE FULLNESS OF CNS IMMERSION OF THE "EXPERIENCE".

There's nothing METAPHYSICAL OR DUALISTIC about that you fucking ingrate.

>>4566461
this is fucking hilarious

>>4566460
Science has inherent limits that can't be extended by philosophy. Science can only examine the physical world. Unfalsifiable hypotheses will never be amenable to science.

>>4566441
>the cerebral cortex.
Still, you are not getting it.
Lets say I have all the physical knowledge of colour (light waves, how light waves enter the retina how the brain processes the signal etc etc)
I'm never going to account for the actual subjective sensation of brilliant orange or violet, I can't account for what it is like to experience looking at orange

>>4566461
>dat fucking irony

>>4566459

The probability distribution that once you solely rely on linguistic recursion to generate meaningful propositions, you can create an infinity of propositions that make sense in your langauge without being useful for manipulating or understanding any actual state of things.

Which is the fate of any idiot who attempts to generate USEFUL propositions from linguistic recursion.

>>4566461
>It means that attempting to COMMUNICATE EXPERIENCES IN PROPOSITIONS
What does communication have to do with it?
We can scientifically study everything about colour but we can never capture the subjective sensation of orange.

I love how free will causes so much butt hurt in /sci/. Says a lot.

>>4566466

>physical world

which is everything.

>>4566467

you're misunderstanding the significance of that subjective experience. sorry. even if you weren't, the existence of a purely subjective experience in no way discredits physicalism or lends credibility to dualism.

>>4566473
Good argument to support dualism.

>Free Will

>>4566467
The inability to communicate the fullness in linguistic propositions DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPERIENCES ARE DOMINATED BY A SUPERNATURAL/METAPHYSICAL/DUALISTIC SET OF MECHANICS YOU SKHFKSHF:LKFH;laskhfl;akhsf


>>4566471

There's no fucking irony. You're confusing propositional thought with actual physical mechanics. Propositions can be a way of communicating mechanics but they don't NEED PROPOSITIONS TO EXIST.

The sun isn't going to stop emitting radiation without a society of humans to communicate the emission of radiation.

The mechanics of consciousness aren't non-existent because a society of apes hasn't advanced far enough in the accumulation of knowledge and modeling to create a propositional model that adequately explains it.

>>4566481
The physical world is not everything. Try to find things like the concept of justice in the physical world. You will fail epically.

>>4566489
There is a lot of unintentional irony in your post. Keep it going. I find it amusing how everything you say is supporting the exact opposite of what you want to say.

>>4566491

Justice is a configuration of particles in your brain that implies a VERY LIMITED SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

Of course you in your idiocy probably misrepresent to yourself that you have a "universal" idea of justice

>>4566505
Show me that configuration of particles. If justice was only a configuration of particles, then justice would indeed be universal. Ironically you have been arguing against yourself in your post.

>>4566481
>the existence of a purely subjective experience in no way discredits physicalism or lends credibility to dualism.
Is much the same as saying 'all the world is physical, yet there are some physical things which we can't describe or study, or can be capture in physical terms--but they are physical I simply know it'.

>>4566491

why the fuck do you think concepts exist.

>>4566489
>The inability to communicate the fullness in linguistic propositions
What does this have to with anything?
Science is based on words, the world is not made of words jesus

>>4566501

There's no irony because the imposition of a mystery and PROHIBITION OF UNDERSTANDING OF A CERTAIN SUBJECT INTO THE ENTIRE FUTURE OF HUMAN AND POST-HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING is unjustified on the basis that a CURRENT SOCIETY IS UNABLE TO COMPLETELY EXPLAIN SAID SUBJECT.

It's just fucking retarded. Do you know much "current scientific knowledge" was prohibited against as being understandable in past ages?

>>4566514
Why the fuck do you define existence as the restriction of existence in the physical world?

>>4566505
>Justice is a configuration of particles in your brain
This is absurd

>>4566516
If something like qualia is already by definition not amenable to science, I can safely say that it will never be amenable to science. Although saying so is just tautologically stating the obvious and I only have to do so because you seem to not understand it.

>>4566511

people who claim it is physical have credibility though, whereas you do not. everything we know of is physical. you're the one changing the rules for one isolated phenomenon when there's no reason or justification for doing so.

ideas exist in the brain. brains reconfigure constantly to accommodate ideas. these ideas can be relayed to other people through language. that's how we have concepts and the like.

i don't get what's so hard to understand about this.

>>4566514
because they do are you retarded?
Do you not think that numbers exist?

>>4566525
>everything we know of is physical

Then I have to assume you are a zombie. Because you never experienced self awareness.

>>4566525
> you're the one changing the rules for one isolated phenomenon
Were talking about the entirety of your existence.
All you've got is your experience/qualia.

>>4566534
that's really cool and all but your an faggot

>>4566515

"Lets say I have all the physical knowledge of colour (light waves, how light waves enter the retina how the brain processes the signal etc etc)"

When you say you have all physical knowledge, you imply a mere PROPOSITIONAL UNDERSTANDING.

As opposed to something like a CNS SIMULATION which would give you a "more full" understanding in conjunction with the propositional understanding. You could ACTUALLY ACCOUNT FOR IT if you were able to conjoin your propositional model with the experience.

Even more realistically, you'd probably get a mapping of your entire CNS and then get fed a set of impulses that is predicted to cause you to experience a certain experience and VIOLA, YOU'D FEEL THE EXPERIENCE.

>>4566525
also I'd just like to point out that if qualia exist 'in the brain' that is if they are physically located as brain processing
then the head you touch is actually a miniature head which exists inside your true physical head.

>>4566544
Don't force me to use my other trip ^^

>>4566518

It's not absurd. There's probably a particular mapping of neurons in the brain where I could LITERALLY REMOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF "JUSTICE". or any other "concepts".

Unless you believe consciousness is formed in MAGIC.

this has been a 2v2 for a while, i know there's some fucking lurkers out there with some input.

come on you faggots.

>>4566546
Then your so called "CNS SIMULATION" is nothing but a euphemism for magic. You are admitting in your post that you don't have the slightest idea of how qualia work.

>>4566562
>LITERALLY REMOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF "JUSTICE".
And?
What does this have to do with whether justice exists or not?
Are you saying if all the humans die then math doesn't exist anymore?
The laws of the universe don't exist anymore?

>>4566518

lel but it's not absurd. your brain forms new synaptic connections for things like this. an idea is an electrical pathway. you mad brah?

>>4566562
Funnily even if you could "LITERALLY REMOVE" my expression of justice by removing a part of my brain, you could say for certain whether my concept of justice does still exist in my consciousness and just can't be communicated physically anymore.

>>4566572

math exists as an idea. now you're just being silly, implying that anything humans create in their minds then exists objectively.

>>4566582
Is "objectively" == "physically"? Then how can math be objective?

>>4566562

It's a placeholder for something that could duplicate and interface with the vast array of mechanisms that make up our central nervous system and the constant input/output of "senses" that we have.

It's certainly not "magic" in the same sense that the imposition of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE OF MECHANICS is.

OH NO I ASSUME THAT WE REQUIRE A NERVOUS SYSTEM TO EXPERIENCE THINGS.

WHAT A TERRIBLE FUCKING HUMAN BEING I AM

BOO HOO

go fuck yourself.

>>4566546
>VIOLA, YOU'D FEEL THE EXPERIENCE.
And?
How does the experience arise from the electrical impulses?

>free will

>>4566573
>your brain forms new synaptic connections for things like this. an idea is an electrical pathway. you mad brah?
And for concepts such as 1 and 2 and math and pi
Does pythagorus therorem cease to exist when all humans die?
Does 1+1 stop equalling two when all humans die?

>>4566589
Are you replying to yourself? Your post makes no point btw. We have evidence to assume that a CNS is necessary for the physical communication of the consciousness. Pure physicalism nonetheless doesn't follow. That would be a non sequitur.

>>4566582
> implying that anything humans create in their minds
Humans didn't create the laws of the physical unvers with their minds.

>>4566586

the principles which make math a valid discipline are objectively true. those principles are objectively true because they represent PHYSICAL phenomenon that always occur in the same way. the laws of the universe are objectively true and that is based on physical reality.

This thread is rife with pseudointellectualism.

>>>/reddit/

>>4566572
"What does this have to do with whether justice exists or not?"

Justice is a socially communicated term. There is no objective "justice" since a single word can't adequately, WITHOUT THE UNDERSTANDING OF COMMUNICATION AND LEARNING IN A SOCIETY, address an infinite range of situations. At the very best it's a shorthand for a multitude of definitions and concepts that exist as evaluative tools.


>Are you saying if all the humans die then math doesn't exist anymore?

Math is literally the application of arbitrary axiomatic systems, a vast number of which produce patterns ENOUGH TO MODEL PHENOMENA TO A USEFUL EXTENT. You can literally create an infinite amount of consistent arbitrary axiomatic systems

>The laws of the universe don't exist anymore?

"laws of the universe" aren't laws in the human sense. They are summaries of unbroken observations made in a small slice of human history in what could be a much larger timeline of exploration and understanding.

>>4566601
This is what highschoolers think of math. Pure math is based on axioms only and they don't need to be correlated to physical phenomena.

>>4566609
Have you asked yourself why there are subjective views of justice? That's right, it's because qualia. You disprove your own position all the time. If you assume physicalism, then there has to be an objective and thus universal definition of justice, which you just ruled out.

>>4566609
>Math is literally the application of arbitrary axiomatic systems,
Then why is it when I put one orange with another orange I don't get three oranges.

>>4566614
>This is what highschoolers think of math.

>pure math
>implying pure math is the same as regular numerical math used in engineering

go back to reddit, pretentious tripcancer

>>4566621
This is irrelevant to mathematics. Mathematics deals with abstract concepts, not with oranges. Applications are a byproduct.

>>4566632
Numerical math in engineering is mindless symbolic manipulation and has nothing to do with rigorous proofs.

>>4566621

Because physical reality doesn't operate according to arithmetic symbolic operators on incredibly vague operative rules as you're trying to idiotically imply.

That has nothing to do with math and more to do with the fact that you don't multiply oranges by putting them together. You multiply oranges by planting seeds, growing trees, and farming them.

Try modeling that as a maths you fucking jackass.

>>4566636
you don't belong here

>>4566638
That was VIP quality. I lol'd hard.

>>4566640
Let's see. This is the science and math board. I am posting science and math. What's the reason again, why I don't belong here?

>>4566638
>Because physical reality doesn't operate according to arithmetic symbolic operators on incredibly vague operative rules as you're trying to idiotically imply.
SO we cannot reduce qualia to physical brain states

>>4566618
>If you assume physicalism, then there has to be an objective and thus universal definition of justice, which you just ruled out.

This is so stupid.

>>4566670
Physicalism is stupid. That's what you wanted to say, right? I agree.

>>4566673

No, saying this:

>If you assume physicalism, then there has to be an objective and thus universal definition of justice, which you just ruled out.

is stupid.

>>4566649
take off the tripcode, nigger

>>4566680
Saying the truth is stupid? Well okay, that's your opinion. Maybe an explanation will change that. If you assume physicalism like the poster above, justice can be objectively defined as a certain physical pattern, e.g. a pattern of electrical currents in your brain. Since it can be objectively defined as that pattern, we could objectively recognize in other peoples brains whether they know justice or not and whether they experience it according to the definition. Everyting that doesn't fit the definition would be dismissed. Thus the definition would be universal. We had universal justice. I hope that is enough ad absurdum to show you how insufficient physicalism is.

>>4566649
You still don't belong here.

>>4566689
Why?

>>4566696
Why?

>>4566693

>>4566703
I am not african american.

>>4566697
>>4566700

>>4566718
That's not an argument.

>>4566711

>>4566720

>>4566721
Your picture makes no sense, as it is unrelated to my posts and the thread.

>>4566724
Of course I am serious. Why should I be non-serious? And what's there to laugh about?

>>4566725

>>4566727
See >>4566725

This thread has become too long to read the entire thing, but, has anyone read any Sam Harris or someone like him, that basically argues that "free will" is just an illusion?

It's an interesting argument.

>>4566726
>>4566733

>>4566739
What is his argument?

>>4566743

>>4566747
I'm pretty sure it does. Feel free to post your view, so I can show you where your misunderstanding originates from.

>>4566743

I won't try to articulate it entirely, but it basically states that because of the way the brain works (e.g. some neuroscience, determininsm, etc.), the idea of free will is essentially an illusion; it "feels" like we have free will. The concept as it applies philosophically, meaning that we have conscious choice over all of our actions, is most likely false. However, since it "feels" like we have free will, we might as well go about our daily lives as if we did. Thinking one way or another will not really affect the way we make decisions.

>>4566758

>>4566693
>justice can be objectively defined as a certain physical pattern, e.g. a pattern of electrical currents in your brain.
>justice
>electrical currents
>justice

Now you're going to say "that was my point", amirite?

>>4566765
>>4566765
>>4566765

Forgot to post my link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dodTNPp12rg

It's an excerpt from "The Moral Landscape," which I would highly suggest reading if you have an interest in this subject.

>>4566765
Then you should have read the thread before posting, because all the 250 posts we have disproved arguments that rely on "the brain".

>>4566781

>>4566768
I stated explicitly how it was to be read. In case you missed it: It was a reduction ad absurdum. I showed the absurd consequences of pure physicalism in order to show you its insufficiencies.

>>4566781

I refuse to read through 250 posts of people stating one or two sentences and then calling someone else a faggot. Sorry.

>>4566791

>>4566795
Then read my posts exclusively. I don't call anyone a faggot.

>>4566781
You should compile a concise summary of this and put it up on the web.

>>4566804

>>4566808
It's all archived on installgentoo.net. But you're right, maybe I should make an info graphic some day. On the other hand people would just say tl;dr.

>>4566791

I went back and read that post of yours. I hope that isn't what you're saying somehow excludes the brain argument. If brains were that simple (they aren't) we could actually define justice in this manner. However, considering the redundancy and multi-tasking that many areas of the brain take on, a concept such as "justice" could have a near infinite number of different brain structures attributed to it. Not to mention the fact that people use the word "justice" in many different ways, which is likely reflected in their brain in some way or another.

>>4566816

I always thought the Libet experiment was full retard, because obviously we semi-consciously (i.e. the part of the mind were we decide "i'm hungry" after experiencing this empty stomach sensation) decide to move a body part before the message arrives in the fully conscious (i.e. the part of the mind where I am typing this). This doesn't mean that the decision to do it was purely deterministic.

>>4566819
The brain has finitely many neurons. Those have finitely many synapses. In conclusion "infinite brain structures" are impossible.

>>4566827

>>4566816

I read your post using the color analogy and decided it wasn't worth reading all of your posts. Pretty sure I know what argument you're using. From an evolutionary perspective, there's really not any reason that our "blues" wouldn't be the same. Of course it's not completely provable, but then again neither is gravity.

>>4566827

How many different arrangements of those nearly countless neurons can there be? Of course it's not actually infinite, but it's damn sure practically infinite.

>>4566837
How does that follow from evolution? How does evolution make any statement on qualia? I see that you implicitly assume that qualia are physical, since evolution is a theory of physical science and of course couldn't be used to explain non-physical phenomena like qualia.

>>4566845

>>4566843
There is no such thing as "practically infinite". Infinity means exceeding any upper boundary.

>>4566824

Well then you should design an experiment to disprove it.

>>4566852

>>4566855
We can't design an experiment, because we are not within science anymore. Free will and consciousness are pure philosophy. Science can only deal with the physical and the falsifiable.

>>4566872

>>4566852
>exceeding boundry

i'm surprised to hear such words from you.
you must be tired. go to bed

>>4566845
So what exactly makes qualia explicitly non-physical, other than it's human-given definition?

>>4566852
We're gonna have to disagree on this one. I know the definition of infinite. By practically infinite I mean that the number is so indefinably large that it might as well be treated as infinite. This concept can be used in statistics, mathematics, etc..

>>4566883
You don't seem to know much about math. What I posted is a common definition of infinity. I posted it informally (non-rigorous), because this is not a math thread.

>>4566890

>>4566872

You do realize that at one point in time nearly every branch in science was considered "philosophy." As our knowledge of the world expanded, "philosophy" came to mean something different. Sooner or later you'll have to realize that science is just philosophy that is almost without a doubt true. According to your type of logic, all science might as well be bullshit.

>>4566890
i thought you were always rigid, all the time

i've never actually seen you be rigorous though

>>4566884
Qualia are inherently not objectively observable or measurable. They therefore cannot be accessed by science.
And "practically infinite" is still incorrect in the given context. We were not talking about practical aspects, but about the abstract hypothesis of physicalism, or why it is wrong.

>>4566906
In mathematics I am always rigorous. This is not a math thread though.

>>4566900
Some people consider science a subfield of philosophy. Nonetheless even in that view dualism and free will are subjects of philosophy outside of science.

>>4566907

>>4566914

>>4566907

Then I would argue that qualia do not exist.

It seems to me like you're using the definition of a word to argue for its existence.

>>4566916
You don't need to sage anymore. We hit the bump limit.

>>4566917
I experience qualia everyday. So I can rightfully say they exist. I don't know about your experience though. Maybe you are a zombie.

>>4566920

>>4566925

>>4566909

I'm one of those people. However my current view is that free will and dualism are becoming so well defined that they should be considered to be mostly scientific subjects rather than philosophical ones...just as physics once became such.

>>4566855
>experiments
>psychology
>worth a shit
Got lost on the way to reddit?

>>4566925

I experience (insert word here) every day. So I can rightfully say they exist.

Not a real argument.

>>4566933
So far I haven't seen a good definition of free will. Also definition is not enough to make something scientific. The main problem is that free will and dualism are unfalsifiable.

>>4566939
Well it is an argument. The only evidence for qualia can lie in our experience of them.

>>4566952

But, like I said, "our experience of them" is part of the definition of qualia. You're using the definition of a word to try to argue for it. Your logic seems to me to be flawed in this sense.

"Qualia," to me, is a word that doesn't (and cannot) have any actual definition.

>>4566969
If it doesn't have a definition, then it is even more unscientific.

>>4566993

If it doesn't have a definition, then what use is it?

I'd be interested to see if philosophers thinking of the idea of "qualia" or other non-epistemological ideas activate the same areas of the brain that religious people use when dealing with the concept of God/faith. Just a thought.

>>4567016
>activate the same area of the brain

Once again you implicitly assume qualia to be physical. Also I don't think that qualia are related to religion at all. Qualia themselves are experienced at least by me (and allegedly by all non-zombie humans). This and the logical reasoning that arises from their experience are entirely different from blind faith.

>>4567040

I never meant to argue against their non-physicality with that statement. I simply meant that you're certainly using some part of your brain when you think about the concept of "qualia." I would not be surprised if it's the same area of the brain that is used when religious people think about "faith" or "religious experiences/revelations."

>Religious experiences/revelations themselves are experienced at least by many religious people (and allegedly by all non-blind faithful). This and the "logical reasoning" that arises from their experience are entirely the same as qualia.

>>4567084
Religious experiences might be a special case of qualia, no doubt. But there is more to qualia. Especially thinking of qualia in a logical sense is not the same as experiencing the qualia one is thinking of (while of course having its own qualia).

>>4567106

But is there really?

Thinking of a religious experience in retrospect is also quite different from experiencing it at the moment, I would imagine. And each rememberance of the experience likely could have it's own "religious experience-ness" to it.

I don't think admitting that qualia and religious experience could essentially be the same thing would necessarily weaken your argument for qualia, either.

We're not going to agree on this. I think that qualia don't actually exist, especially considering the self-justifying definition of the word...just as I don't think God or the supernatural exists because of the self-justifying definitions that every religious person gives for their beliefs.

I know they are not exactly the same, but in my mind they have the same logical issues. You likely disagree because the idea of qualia seems to be a bit more broad than the idea of religious experience/faith. I argue that it actually isn't more broad.

Hopefully, one day, some experiments will (possibly by accident, like many scientific advancements) shed a little bit more light on the subject.

define free will, then see if the thing you just defined it as exists. if it means choosing between alternatives, of course we have it. if it means *not being part of causality,* then of course we don't.