/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5603132

>>>/x/

http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

oh shit.

http://gizmodo.com/5107377/new-technology-could-display-your-dreams-on-screen


>A research team at the ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Japan has successfully displayed simple images produced in the human brain on a computer screen

But ya, the "filtering" or intepretation of data will always be skewed in some way.

>>5603138

go there and enjoy your stay. We're talkin about science here

>>5603156
>qualia
>science
Choose exactly one. If your choice is qualia, >>>/x/ is the right board for you.

>>5603160

>http://gizmodo.com/5107377/new-technology-could-display-your-dreams-on-screen

check mate.

search for cognitive brain imaging where computer shows what someones visual cortex is interpreting. its pretty impressive

>>5603163
>dec 11, 2008
lel

Also this has nothing to do with OP's qualia nonsense.

>>5603132

go back to watching superjail you fuck

>>5603160
Don't be stupid.

Any dreaming experience has a corresponding brain state. Making a dream observation machine is simply a matter of making a machine that can read any given brain state and translate it into a form an observer can understand. (Easier said than done obviously, but totally within the realm of possibility.)

To answer your question, OP, yes it's possible. But it might be that brain states are far too complex and variable to ever translate close to 1:1.

>>5603132
Everything that exists and happens is product of a material change... you tell me OP...

>>5603179
>qualia
>measurable
Choose one.

>>5603179

^
This is what I think, basically..

But brain states and dreams aren't necessarily the same.

>>5603191
>But brain states and dreams aren't necessarily the same.

yep, in fact everyone has a different brain and thus different brain states, yet we can share similar functions and experiences

so different brain states can produce the same phenomena-- and perhaps the same brain state in two people can produce two different phenomena

>>5603187
Just because you took a high school philosophy class and think you know what you're talking about, doesn't mean you can dismiss things on the basis of a catchphrase. How about you explain what's actually wrong with what I said, if you think you can?

Yes, inter-subjective qualia is in principle unknowable. In PRINCIPLE. But you can make pretty fucking good guesses on the basis of outside evidence. If I tie you down and start pulling out your teeth, you'll scream and beg me to stop What should I do? Stop, because I know you're in pain, or continue because, hey, who can know what another's subjective qualia is? Perhaps pulling out teeth in your case puts you into a state of immense pleasure! Perhaps you express pleasure via whimpering and begging me to stop pulling your teeth out! How could I ever know?

We make informed inferences about each others qualia ALL THE TIME, and you'd be in a mental asylum if you DIDN'T. The only difference is that we are talking about a hypothetical situation where we'd have a hell of a lot more data and much better technology.

How can we “see” in our dreams when our eyes are closed?

>>5603201
That wouldn't make it impossible in principle, though, just astronomically impractical.

>>5603215
Pain is a physiological response to warn us of imminent damage. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Please take a biology class.

>>5603222
So? Sure, I can tell that your body is responding in a physiological way to avoid damage, but how can I possibly know that that physical state corresponds to the qualia of feeling pain? How could I know your qualia is unpleasant, rather than pleasant? Why, are you trying to suggest... that we can make inferences about qualia with physical observations?! Heresy.

>>5603222

we can't know pain unless we are conscious/aware of it

^_^

>>5603222
Dreaming is the process of perception without sensory input during REM sleep. Stop being a faggot and learn2neuroscience.

>>5603239
>we can't know pain unless we are conscious/aware of it

I get a print out telling me when I'm in pain.

>>5603247


I think he's either a frustrated reductionist/engineer type who can't handle abstract ideas

or he's just being ironic

>>5603233
>but how can I possibly know that that physical state corresponds to the qualia
You cannot and there's no reason to believe that qualia exist at all.

>How could I know your qualia is unpleasant, rather than pleasant?
My qualia don't. exist. I do not have any metaphysical magic. I'm a human, i.e. a biological machine, and obey the laws of physics. Just like you and any other person.

>Why, are you trying to suggest...
YOU are trying to suggest. I am explaining why you're wrong.

>that we can make inferences about qualia with physical observations?
We cannot. Stop believing in magic or go back to >>>/x/

>>5603239
Pain is defined as a physiological response. It can be observed behaviourally and can be located in the brain.

>>5603243
Obviously not for OP. He was talking about a "subjective conscious experience" aka qualia.

>>5603250
Irrational magic beliefs without evidence are not "abstract ideas", they are just pure nonsense.

>>5603179
>>5603215
>>5603233
Based anon. I am intrigued by your skills of cutting through the bullshit and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

>>5603251
>It can be observed behaviourally

>observed

sounds like an appeal to consciousness

>>5603251
>Obviously not for OP. He was talking about a "subjective conscious experience" aka qualia.
Notice the word "and" in his post. That implies a dichotomy between dreams and subjective conscious experience.

>>5603251
>It can be observed behaviourally and can be located in the brain.

So in order for you to tell if you are in pain you have to examine your brain, or wait for it to manifest in behavioral changes?

So if you stubbed your toe on a corner, you wouldn't realize you were in pain unless what? You took a brain scan and correlated it to you moving your foot in a certain way?

>>5603256
Observation is a physical act of measurement and doesn't involve magic.

>>5603258
A dichotomy that involves magic is still wrong and doesn't belong on a science board.

>>5603261
What are you talking about? Pain deterministically results in observable behaviour, e.g. attempting to remove yourself from the source of potential damage.

without knowing the sensation of pain itself, you can look at all the behavior and brain scans you want, it still won't mean what we mean by "pain"

>>5603265

>Observation is a physical act of measurement

Humans don't measure anything when they become aware of the feeling of pain in their bodies

They aren't robots that have pain meters to refer to

>>5603265
>hat are you talking about? Pain deterministically results in observable behaviour, e.g. attempting to remove yourself from the source of potential damage.

The pain is felt before you move your body.
Pain can also be felt without any observable behavioral changes in your body.

You are getting time sequences confused. First you feel pain, then you react, and reacting isn't always necessary.

>>5603251
>>5603251
Oh... okay.

You seem to be dropping responses as though I've argued at any point that qualia is metaphysical and unknowable, yet my position is EXACTLY that qualia CAN be quantified and understood in a physical way.

As for qualia not existing... well, I suppose its really a semantics issue and you're free to say that if you want, but it strikes me as rather pedantic. I mean, my conscious experiences exist. They can be grouped and labelled.

You can say "well it's really all part of a larger physical system" if you want, but you can say that about anything. You could say, for example, that animals and plants don't exist; it's just an elaborate interplay of matter and energy that is constantly moving, changing and reforming, and we arbitrarily choose certain patterns and semantically clump them together and call them individual organisms. You COULD do that, but it would make conversation pretty difficult.

>>5603271
Humans are biological robots and our bodies and all parts of our bodies work exclusively on the basis of physics. Magical souls do not exist. Please go back to >>>/x/

>>5603274
The neuronal processing happens before it resuts in behavioural actions. Is that what you mean?

>>5603277
>Humans are biological robots and our bodies and all parts of our bodies work exclusively on the basis of physics.

THANK YOU, Fuck... why do i see so many people think this is not true? Fcking retards...
>HURR I BELIEV THEIRE IS SOMTING MORE TO LIEF

>>5603276
>qualia is metaphysical and unknowable
That's what qualia is -- by definition. And that's why it can be dismissed.

>yet my position is EXACTLY that qualia CAN be quantified and understood in a physical way.
Name one testable effect. Or show me a qualia. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

> I mean, my conscious experiences exist
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5603284
It's not my fault that you prefer to be surrounded by religiontards. But please keep it out of the science board.

>>5603277
>The neuronal processing happens before it resuts in behavioural actions. Is that what you mean?

Sure.
And humans become aware of this fact via the sensation of pain, an awareness of their bodies, they don't check their neurons to become aware of pain.

They don't look at behavior to be aware they are in pain.

You can exhibit all the right "pain" behavior and feel no pain. You can experience pain without any external behavioral changes.

>>5603286
>Name one testable effect. Or show me a qualia.

Language.
Without qualia we wouldn't be able to refer to the same sensations and have coherent languages.

Yet we can all refer to pain, happiness, and dreams very easily, even though they aren't observable externally, by scientists.

>>5603291
thing is, it would make sense if they were religious, but there are many non religious people i know that believe "we aer so mch more".... What in the actual fuck humanity?

>>5603286
>>qualia is metaphysical and unknowable
>That's what qualia is -- by definition. And that's why it can be dismissed.
Perhaps you should switch to definitions that the rest of the world also uses. That would make conversation a whole lot easier.

>>5603286
You... don't think your conscious experiences exist?

Observation and measurements depend on consciousness.

Unconscious entities don't take measurements and don't make observations.

>>5603292
"Awareness" is untestable.

>>5603296
>Language
I have no magical qualia, yet I am using language right now. Your bullshit has been disproved. Language is algorithmically processed. No need for magic.

>>5603298
>Perhaps you should switch to definitions that the rest of the world also uses
I am using the commonly accepted definition. Maybe you should read up on the topic before spouting ignorant garbage. You failed understanding the concept at the most fundamental level.

>>5603299
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5603300
Observation and measurement are physical processes and require no metaphysical magic.

Iunno about that, but: if you measured a lucid dreamer's eye movements, and had some kind of low/high beepy system in their ears, you could have a conversation with her in morse code

>>5603315
seriously, stop ruining all the threads remotely related to neuroscience.
am I the only one who thinks this guy should be banned?

>>5603328
Bans don't work on trolls.

Sorry, guys.

>>5603335
You just made an old lurker cry.

>>5603345
>she
Call it "it" why don't you

>>5603328
Everyone thinks she should be banned. It's the same trolling everyday. Stop responding to her and just report her first post.

>>5603345
I tried reporting the other day. Got banned for two fucking days because of supposedly waisting the mods time. I think we should all just send moot an email about this cunt or something, because the mods don't seem to give a shit.

>>5603335
>>5603341
>>5603345
>>5603346
>>5603353

2/10
Try samefagging less obviously next time.

>>5603353
Imagine IT is a mod.
I'd lol.

>>5603328
I am not ruining anything. I am not responsible for the shitposting being done by soul/consciousness dualism retards. I dislike these posters just as much as you do and I wish they would stay out of /sci/.

>>5603329
>lucid dream
Take that shit to >>>/x/. We want to discuss science here.

>>5603345
False reporting will get you banned. Please only report actua rule violations.

>>5603381
Bitch, lucid dream has been scientifically proven, reproduced and explained. Control over your own dreams is not something magical, it's a brain hack.

>>5603456
The so called "lucid" dreaming is pseudoscience and belongs on >>>/x/. "Dream" means certain patterns of neuronal activation during sleep. "Lucid" dreaming is a spiritualist and dualist hogwash without scientific basis, an untestable claim that serves no other purpose than asserting soul/consciousness nonsense.

>>5603353
There's a strong chance this post is made by the qualia troll. Bans for reporting do not happen very often.

>>5603461
>Untestable.
Wrong. It is has been tested by neurologists and not only they proved it to be true, but also discovered that it doesn't affect your rest.
In fact, it is so simple you could prove it yourself in less than a month. It's not /x/ shit, it's a testable glitch of the brain.

>>5603477
It is not testable. Stop lying. Stop trolling.

>>5603477
>What can be asserted without evi...
NOPE! Do the test yourself, write down the experiment and then come back.
Until then, stop bugging.

>>5603468
That wasn't him, because it was me. Consciousness and dreaming are real and testable (inb4 it replies to my post). That faggot has earned his 10/10 by now for making people doubt which posts are his and having people reply to his idiotic garbage.

>Bans for reporting do not happen very often.
Yeah, that's what I thought as well. How would you know anyway, unless you're a mod (in which case you should ban that faggot for trolling).

Ban this idiot who trolls all neurosci threads with his stupid philosophy

>>5603485
How about you faggots stop arguing and feeding the troll, and just reply to neuroscience content. There were two neuroscience threads on the front page half an hour ago.

>>5603483
>Consciousness and dreaming are real and testable
"Dreaming" as defined by neuronal activity during sleep is of course testable. A soul/consciousness is purely metaphysical and has no testable effects, is therefore outside the scope of science and can be dismissed. Please educate yourself. Read up on the topic and learn some basic neuroscience or at least learn how the scientific method works.

>>5603490
Die in a fire.

>>5603490
>"Dreaming" as defined by neuronal activity during sleep
That's not how we define dreaming you moron. There is plenty of neuronal activity during periods of sleep when people don't dream. You're the one who should educate yourself and read up on the topic and learn basic neuroscience.

>>5603485
Are you talking about OP? I'm not sure if his shitposting is reportable. He is clearly talking about qualia, which is philosophy trolling, but he disguised it as a neuroscience question.

>>5603490
Again, the only thing you have to offer is your deterministic dogma bullshit. I quit, but not before telling you that you should stop misleading people.

>>5603495
>That's not how we define dreaming
It is. How else do you define it? By magical qualia? No, please not. Take your dualism pseudoscience garbage back to >>>/x/. We want to discuss neuroscience ITT, not pseudophilosophy.

>>5603496
Science isn't dogma. Dismissing claims without evidence is just rational. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5603497
>It is.
No it isn't you festering thundercunt.

>How else do you define it?
>Dreaming is the process of perception without sensory input during REM sleep.

>>5603501
>Dreaming is the process of perception without sensory input during REM sleep.
How do you think perception without sensory input works? It works by patterns of neuronal activity. Do you even neuroscience?

>>5603483
>How would you know anyway
Because I report posts all the time and don't get banned for it.

>>5603504
Do you report his posts though? I report posts all the time as well, but I can see how his would come across as regular posts. No single post of his, out of context, is obvious trolling. It's his relentlessness, persistence, misinformation and outright refusal of logic that makes him a troll, not his lololol I troll u ;_; attitude.

>>5603502
In fact, I neuroscience more than you. Perception is neuronal activity, but neuronal activity isn't necessarily perception. Do you even logic?

>>5603479
AHAHAHAHAHA
>>5603477
I've been wanting to get this reaction out of it for a long time now, thank you.

>>5603509
>relentlessness, persistence
That's a good thing, isn't it? I'm relentless in fighting troll shit and misinformation. I'm persistent in helping people on /sci/ getting educated.

>misinformation
Show me one post where I said anything incorrect. If I ever did so, I will apologize and correct myself.

>outright refusal of logic
Logic is the most important thing to me. As someone who has gained insight in several aspects of formal logic, I apply it whenever possible.

>>5603519
>Show me one post where I said anything incorrect.
The example where you said that dreaming is defined as neural activity. That's wrong, and you should feel bad. I await your apology.

>>5603511
>Perception is neuronal activity, but neuronal activity isn't necessarily perception
That's why in >>5603461 I said "certain patterns".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/certain
>Named but not known or previously mentioned
>An indefinite but limited number

Do you not into reading comprehension?

>>5603523
You still have to show why it was wrong. In >>5603501 you defined it by "perception without sensory input" which as I explained in >>5603502 is still neuronal activity. I never said that dreaming was _all_ neuronal activity happening in sleep. I said "certain patterns". Please work on your reading skills. They are sub-par.

>>5603526
>That's why in >>5603461 I said "certain patterns".
Which you omitted in your first post. Shifting goal posts is what we call that.

>>5603519
>helping people on /sci/ getting educated
But no one on /sci/ needs your education. None of us believe in 'magical souls,' that is an /x/ thing. We believe in the physical definition of consciousness in neuroscience. /x/ would confuse consciousness and souls, but we don't; why don't you go educate them. You're just preaching to the choir.

>>5603531
>I said "certain patterns"
You only included that in your third post regarding that particular argument. The definition of dreaming as:
>"Dreaming" as defined by neuronal activity during sleep
implies any and all neuronal activity during sleep is dreaming. You have, since then, corrected it. You do however still owe me an apology. I look forward to it.

>>5603519
Pretty funny that by acknowledging the post you're citing is about you, you inadvertently acknowledge you're a troll.

Lucid dreaming is an accepted technique. Hypnosis is real and used by psychologists in some cases.
Lucid dreaming is also used by SOME psychologists to overcome trauma related nightmares.

>>5603381
>ruin every thread
>Implying lucid dreaming isn't real
>Implying shitposting isn't against the rules
>Implying trolling isn't against the rules

>>5603533
>Which you omitted in your first post.
Which one was my first post? >>5603461 was the first post where I said anything about "dreams".

>>5603535
>But no one on /sci/ needs your education.
Alot of people here could need an education on my level.

>None of us believe in 'magical souls,' that is an /x/ thing.
Exactly. That's what saying all the time.

>physical definition of consciousness
A physical definition of something that has no physically testable effects? 0/10 troll is 0/10

>>5603546
>Which one was my first post?
Your first post of that particular argument (which would be >>5603490)

>>5603546
>2012
>confusing souls and consciousness
>>>/x/

>>5603540
>You only included that in your third post
No, in my first post on that issue (>>5603461). Read the thread and pay attention to the order of posts.

>implies any and all
No, it doesn't. Please learn reading. I didn't say "all". I said it was defined by neuronal activity, not by _all_ neuronal activity. I will not apologize for your failure at reading comprehension.

>>5603523
>arguing with a troll in an attempt to prove to the troll that she is a troll
At least use sage if your post doesn't contribute to the board.

>>5603556
Let's try this one more time. You defined dreams as "neuronal activity during sleep". Then it follows that "dreams" equals "neuronal activity during sleep". Therefore, if we observe neuronal activity during sleep, we necessarily observe dreaming. Which is false, and which is why you owe me an apology.

>>5603541
If you insist in posting lucid dreaming hogwash on /sci/, then you are a troll. It clearly belongs on >>>/x/

>>5603543
Techniques of spiritualism can have beneficial effects sometimes, no doubt. For example meditation. However the spiritual techniques themselves and the spiritual believes behind these techniques do belong on >>>/x/ and not on /sci/.

>>5603552
Incorrect.

>>5603555
They are synonyms, both describe a metaphysical entity/phenomenon without physical effects.

>>5603558
>implying the thread hasn't gone to shit anyway.

>>5603565
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090728184831.htm
I'll just leave this here.

>>5603132
Trying to explain this has been a hard task.... Why would two objects an infinite distance away from each other be somehow tethered together? And if this is the case - aren't we all "Tethered" together if the big bang theory is true? The materials that make up you are the exact materials that make up me right? We are all stardust... and these materials all originated simulteously, just as the photons did in our bell's theorem experiments. And after trying to attack this problem from many different angles, some weird implications are coming to the surface - such as maybe the reason this cannot be explained away is because contemporary science is trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter - as in, what is consciousness made of, how can consciousness be quantified in the terms that we use to quantify matter, what is so special about consciousness that causes the very act of observing something to cause the outcome, which plays a role in quantum entanglement also. Maybe instead of explaining consciousness in terms of matter, maybe we should really be explaining matter in terms of consciousness. If this is done things start to make logical sense, however the implications here aren't necessarily what physicists want to hear - that Matter/Space/Time is an illusion of consciousness - That quantum entanglement occurs because there is no such thing as space, as separation - that consciousness is nonlocal. And if this is so, then not only are we all entangled (we are all stardust that originated simultaneously), but we are all the same nonlocal consciousness - I am you, you are me. So much so that there is no point to kill, or decieve, because you are only killing hurting and decieving yourself. And in the same reguards, there is no point in asking for forgiveness from people, because your toe does not ask for forgiveness from your hand after it gets stubbed.

>>5603562
>Then it follows
It doesn't. If I define apples to be fruit, that doesn't mean that all fruit are apples. Is your reading comprehension really that bad? Try to read a book.

>>5603565
>Incorrect.
You are wrong. That post was the first post you addressed to me, and therefore is the first post in the argument with me. Please pay attention to the order of posts.

>>5603565
>soul
>magical mystical spirit thing that lives in your head
>consciousness
>description of consistent neural activity
Don't look like synonyms to me. lrn2 english or gb2 >>>/x/

>>5603575
My statement is still correct, irregardless of whether you are too illiterate to read and understand it.

>>5603569
Psychiatrists,
Psychologists,
Neurologists.
Tell me they are wrong? TELL ME THEY ARE WRONG? I dare ya, I double dare you muthafucka!

>>5603577
>description of consistent neural activity
Neural activity is physical and has nothing to do with metaphysical soul/conciousness/qualia magic. Try harder, troll. Your dualism nonsense has no basis in reality.

>>5603581
Serious researchers in these fields know how to separate actual research from metaphysical or spiritual beliefs. Mixing them up would be pseudoscience. Do you not into scientific rigor?

>>5603355
Whoa don't delude yourself too much now

>>5603587
Serious researches my ass. They use the term lucid dream and they acknowledge it as real.
It is being used and measured (triggers certain brain areas that regular dreams don't) therefore it can not be dismissed without evidence. Have a nice day.

>>5603580
I concede that your definition was correct, however, you just admitted that you were wrong regarding what your first post in that particular argument was. You now owe me an apology for that.

>>5603583
No no no, you clearly misunderstand me. I'm pretty sure we're agreed that magical bullshit doesn't belong on /sci/, but we're scientists here and need to use clearly defined terms. I'm just trying to educate you, but you keep childishly mixing up the two terms.

>>5603595
>you were wrong regarding what your first post
I was going by the temporal order of posts in this thread. Maybe I expected too much intellectual effort from you, but I assumed you read the thread before posting.

>>5603598
>Serious researches my ass.
You're wrong on the science board. Pseudoscience has no place here.

>It is being used and measured
What is being measured? Qualia? No, definitely not. lrn2neuroscience

>>5603603
Scientists avoid dualist vocabulary and don't mix up metaphysics with actual research.

>>5603608
>I was going by the temporal order of posts in this thread. Maybe I expected too much intellectual effort from you, but I assumed you read the thread before posting.
That's not an apology. Do it right and say you're sorry.

Why the fuck does /sci/ HAS to have that single fucking pseudo-intellectual who ALWAYS blurts out bullshit redirecting people to /x/ when consciousness or qualia is mentioned?

YOU are the one interpreting them as metaphysical concepts. I don't know why, perhaps you're too fucking autistic to grasp the concept of subjectivism. Seriously, fuck you. Whenever a thread even remotely sounds like anything remotely related to qualia you're here, blurting the same goddamn bullshit everytime. Don't you have anything better to do?

>>5603612
>redirecting people to /x/ when consciousness or qualia is mentioned?
Because /sci/ is a science board. Untestable claims, metaphysics, dualism and spiritualism belong on >>>/x/.

>>5603613
I apologize for overestimating your intellectual capacities.

>>5603608
>Neuronal activity is being measured
>Different patterns discovered in LD.
>Fact acknowledged by neurologists, psychologists and psychiatrists.
Aren't you now dismissing without evidence PLENTY of evidence, experiments and researchs? enough.

>>5603619
Say you're sorry for making a mistake about what your first post was. Say it.

>>5603608
>Scientists avoid dualist vocabulary and don't mix up metaphysics with actual research.
Which is exactly what you are doing. Just because non-scientist plebs confuse the terms doesn't mean we have to, too. It is a common mistake to use "could care less" rather than "couldn't care less" in English, but that doesn't mean it is correct. We should agree to use the proper, scientific definitions of words.

>>5603622
Differences in neuronal activity are an observation. This observation does not justify the conclusion that spiritualist claims are true. Try again, /x/tard.

>>5603624
It has no proper scientific definition and there's no need to rename existing scientific words just to make a pseudoscience term usable.

>>5603632
>It
I'm confused, which term are you referring to, and which term is it replacing?

>>5603637
>which term are you referring to
Whatever term you want to redefine, soul/consciousness/qualia, I don't really care.

>and which term is it replacing?
Whatever you want to fallaciously replace. The point is that it won't replace anything. You are not in the position to change scientific terminology.

>>5603640
Since I haven't changed any terms' meanings, your point is?

>>5603643
In >>5603577 you wanted to change the meaning of a word.

>>5603632
I lol'd.
People like you is what make creationism possible. Bravo.

That act of observation itself is not observable but science depends on it, on our consciousness

>>5603659
Why do you post about religion on /sci/? Your claim is ridiculous. Science is not what makes creationism possible. On the contrary science is what makes creationism improbable.

>>5603666
Observation is a physical act of measurement and does neither require nor imply metaphysical magic.

>>5603675
How can we observe someone's observation?

>>5603659
I don't understand your reasoning. Would you mind to explain? How does _not_ believing in claims without evidence "make creationism possible"?

>>5603679
By observing the physical process of measurement. There is nothing more to observation than physics.

>>5603675
>Observation is a physical act of measurement and does neither require nor imply metaphysical magic.
yet you deny a confirmed experiment about LD which uses observation and testing.
Is your head going to explode with that paradox?

>>5603689
How? Simple:
By not acknowledging a serious research, applications of it, the advances it implies in neuroscience and the number of professionals involved which have put their efforts on it and succeeded.
Captcha: Thus, spowled.

>>5603704
Forgot to mention: creationists deny evolution in the same way you do.

>>5603695
LD is not a testable claim. It's a conclusion that isn't justified by the observations. You could make up the same idiotic fallacy with any other bulshit claim, e.g. "People who claim to see ghosts in their dreams show different neuronal patterns than people who don't claim to see ghosts in their dreams. Therfore ghosts are real. Hurr durr durr". It's an obvious fallacy. Stop trolling.

>>5603704
>not acknowledging a serious research
Pseudoscience is not serious reserach. People who claim to prove souls, spirits and non-interacting ghosts are definitely not scientists.

>>5603705
I do not deny evolution. Evolution is the most plausible explanation and is backed up by loads of evidence.

>>5603694
>>5603694.

You didn't Show how that works. Looking at somones eye is not the same as looking at their observation lol

>>5603705
Did you just seriously compare dualism to evolution? You're full of shit. Unlike dualism evolution has physical evidence, is testable and has explanatory power.

>>5603710
How do u explain our ability to imagine things that aren't other? Imagination is a soul and magic right?

>>5603716
Initially based on the observation of fossils.
the possibility of lucid dreaming is based on the observation of different patterns in brain activity.

Your denial is absurd and you are the only one who lacks of evidence here.

>>5603711
What do you mean? The different angle? We know enough about physics to reconstruct the path of light.

>>5603720
I do not understand your question.

>>5603722
I am not "denying" anything, I'm asking for evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An appeal to possibility is a fallacy.

>>5603654
I still don't see it, maybe you're missing something?

>>5603762
So is your claim that determinism is the only possibility we have.
It is still being investigated right now. Discoveries have been made in both perspectives and what is more:
that study in lucid dreaming allowed scientist to determine that the cortex has a great importance in the choice selection processes.

What would you call 1000 years ago to tiny living beings that inhabit our blood and are able to perform many tasks inside ourselves such as regenerating wounds? Today we call them platelets.

The so-called magic of today may be the science of tomorrow and it must be studied.

>>5603828
>So is your claim that
I didn't claim anything ITT. Don't shift the burden of proof.

>that study in lucid dreaming
lol, pseudoscience

>determine that the cortex has a great importance in the choice selection processes.
Okay. But what does this have to do with the aforementioned LD pseudoscience hogwash? Nothing.

>to tiny living beings
Platelets are cell fragments. They are not living organisms by themselves. Lrn2biology

>The so-called magic of today may be the science of tomorrow and it must be studied.
Come back when your claims have evidence. Irrational beliefs are not science.

>>5603828
Which is this in reference to?

>>5603762
What happens in your brain that allows you to observe a flower?

>>5603834
>that study in lucid dreaming
>lol, pseudoscience
HOW THE FUCK DOES PSEUDO SCIENCE EXIST? THERE IS NO SUCH THING
Science is done to a quality and standard of body of knowledge, if you're not in possession of such you're outside the loop and will say either things like A: What you just said, or B: Malformed improperly based things- like what you just said; that doesnt make them wrong, that just makes them dissolvable or not fully applicable

Seriously fucking go play in traffic pleb

>>5603851
Google it by yourself. I'm not here to teach you things you can learn in any neuroscience course or book.

>>5603855
What a pointless post. /sci/ is not the place to act out your emotional instability, /sci/ is for the discussion of science and math. If you want to spout edgy insults, go to >>>/v/.

>>5603834
>Come back when your claims have evidence
He gave the evidence in his post are you illiterate?

It's not going to happen, Paprika taught us why

>>5603870
I asked you a simple question so you're able to back up your statements without evidence. Tell me exactly what happens. From the biochemical level. Tell me every neuron that is involved. If you can't do that, it might as well be magic.

>>5603834
>I didn't claim anything
Then what do you think consciousness is? If it doesn't exist what makes us choose and reason?
>lol, pseudoscience
Why? Because you say so? Are you even a scientist?
>Platelets are cell fragments. They are not living organisms by themselves. Lrn2biology
My mistake, but hopefully you still got my point.
>Come back when your claims have evidence.
You didn't read the article did you?

>>5603872
He didn't. He made assertions and even stated something incorrect.

>>5603870
It doesnt exist! On the same basis of what is tech today is is the magic of yesterday that we can say that base 10, although simple, is not the way the universe works- and before you go no, the only reason you would ever say that is philosophy.

It's just degenerates like yourself that keep the establishment from finding better principles of deriving the contexts of our existence that pisses me off

>>5603879
He did, he made assertions on our perspective towards science and he was incorrect in the way we wouldnt be living beings without oxygen.

>>5603834

>Come back when your claims have evidence.

Have you considered that the gathering of evidence requires the collaboration of scientists? And that some of those scientists might be collaborating on the /sci/ board?

>>5603881
>argument from ignorance
Just because we don't know yet every single detail, that doesn't mean neuroscience is wrong and in particular it doesn't mean that suddenly a magical soul/consciousness and supernatural intervention become more plausible. Stay mad, dualist.

>>5603883
>Then what do you think consciousness is?
An untestable phenomenon proposed by dualists. Can be dismissed for lack of evidence and lack of explanatory power.

>If it doesn't exist what makes us choose and reason?
Every behavioural response is result of deterministic processes in the brain. Our bodies are physical. Our brains are physical. Perception is physical input. On the biological scale, i.e. above quantum level, the laws of nature are deterministic.

>Why? Because you say so? Are you even a scientist?
I am a scientist and I explained it several times ITT: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>You didn't read the article did you?
What article? In >>5603828 you didn't post an article. If you're referring to another article being posted earlier ITT, then I read it.

>>5603889
Either edgy kid or fail troll. I don't even care.

>>5603893
We were talking about evidence. Which evidence did he post?

>>5603910
That's why I'm on /sci/. To discuss science and math.

>>5603915
>Just because we don't know yet every single detail, that doesn't mean neuroscience is wrong and in particular it doesn't mean that suddenly a magical soul/consciousness and supernatural intervention become more plausible. Stay mad, dualist.
>>5603615
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

You are making an argument from silence. Please provide biochemical evidence that the observation of a flower is a purely physical mechanism or there is no reason to believe that it is.

>>5603917

>That's why I'm on /sci/. To discuss science and math.

Then discuss with me your solution for superstitious thinking. You dismiss scientific exploration of consciousness, yet I'm curious to your alternative to deal with anti-scientific behavior.

>>5603915
>Every behavioural response is result of deterministic processes in the brain
Yet when I said you believed in determinism you said I was making assumptions. The sweet smell of contradiction.
Did I not mention many cases which deterministic processes can not explain? Did I not mention alternative explanations for it?
>Why? Because you say so?
You still did not explain the "why these studies are not to be taken seriously". I should have asked instead: are you even a good scientist?
> If you're referring to another article being posted earlier ITT, then I read it.
Then why didn't you read about the relation between making decisions and cortex? There was even an extra article about the cortex if you wanted to know more.

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S5603132#p5603138
http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S5603132#p5603156
Makes me wonder just how much of this thread is ban-evading samefag.

>>5603929

>Please provide biochemical evidence that the observation of a flower is a purely physical mechanism or there is no reason to believe that it is.

I'll try my best. The light that reflects off of the flower enters your eyes... The light that just reflected off of the flower has information. So then the light enters your eyes, goes to your brain. The light is converted into electro-chemical impulses. The electro-chemical impulses have are interpreted by the brain, which becomes information. The information is stored inside the brain, you can call it memory. This is all stuff you can find out about on Google Search.

>>5603929
What else do you think it is? Magic?

>>5603938
>Then discuss with me your solution for superstitious thinking.
Superstitiousl thinking belongs on >>>/x/

>dismiss scientific exploration of consciousness
Something that has no testable or observable effects cannot be researched by science and can be dismissed.

>yet I'm curious to your alternative to deal with anti-scientific behavior.
Uneducated people need more education. Trolls need to leave /sci/. Problem solved.

Just thought I'd remind everyone that this guy already confessed that he has a PhD purely devoted to mathematics and triple integrals and is not even remotely qualified to speak of matters of consciousness and neuroscience.

>>5603762
According to your logic the imagination is an impossible faculty...since its not testable measurable...its only observed by the subjects mind
....

>>5603944
>Did I not mention many cases which deterministic processes can not explain?
No, you didn't. And even if there were examples of non-determinism, in the case we're talking about ITT we're clearly dealing with a deterministic system.

>Did I not mention alternative explanations for it?
Magic is not an alternative for anything.

>You still did not explain the "why these studies are not to be taken seriously".
Because pseudoscience is hogwash. That's why. Appeals to "muh belief" are not scientific evidence. Conclusions have to be justified by observational data.

>Then why didn't you read about the relation between making decisions and cortex?
What does this have to do with your pseudoscience claims? Why do you refer to unrelated neuroscience results?

>>5603956
>The red delicious apple is the only kind of fruit I have ever seen. Therefore all fruit must be red!
I didn't ask you to leap to a conclusion. I asked for objectively verifiable evidence of that phenomena. This includes all neuronal mechanisms involved in me making the statement "I have qualia of seeing this flower", even though I clearly don't under this description.

>>5603958
Argumentum ad lapidem. It only makes your position weaker.

>>5603959
>PhD in triple integrals
top lel

>>5603963
I do not understand what you're talking about. Please explain.

>>5603968
>"I have qualia of seeing this flower",
No, qualia don't exist. They have no evidence and are not testable, can therefore be dismissed.

>>5603963
It is. Imagination is an abstraction of a logical process of self-referencing knowledge. All actions taken are noted against the possible consequences and once taken the results are compared to what was hypothesized. The mere fact that you cognate decisions and reference the past shows it's an entire logical process rather than things magically populating into the realm of understanding for no reason at all.

>>5603968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

Read the first paragraph. And for god's sake go back to fifth grade. This stuff is already established fact.

>>5603973
>No, qualia don't exist. They have no evidence and are not testable, can therefore be dismissed.
I never said that. I asked you to explain the neuronal mechanisms involved in making the statement "I have qualia of a flower".

Subjective experiences are impossible because my ideology can't account for them.
People can't experience qualia like an orgasm directly because I can't quantify an orgasm

>>5603978
The computer keyboard has nothing to do with the computer.

Oh look, I can post Wikipedia links too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience
>What is the neuronal basis of subjective experience, cognition, wakefulness, alertness, arousal, and attention? How is the "hard problem of consciousness" solved? What is its function?[1]
Please go back to fifth grade. You obviously belong there.

>>5603958

>Superstitiousl thinking belongs on >>>/x/
I hear you. But what of analyzing such thinking and behavior? Would you not find it fascinating and/or worthwhile to stick a few religious people in a test tube? See what makes them tick?

>Something that has no testable or observable effects cannot be researched by science and can be dismissed.
I hear you. But the residual behaviors of a false belief system are certainly observable, and possess vast human populations. Think of all the resources that they are tying up that could otherwise be used for science.

>>5603975
Show me proof that the imagination doesn't exist and its impossible for humans to imagine

>>5603968
>Argumentum ad lapidem

That was not an Argumentum ad lapidem, in this case anon said nothing about it being ridiculous or absurd.

>>5603981
We can study the nature and phenomenon that leads to the orgasm and is a result. What you experience subjectively isn't important when we can keep things objective.

>>5603986
He said
>What else do you think it is? Magic?
That's an argumentum ad lapidem, Please learn to read.

>>5603986

Did he say it was absurd or ridiculous? Please learn to read.

>>5603988

>The computer keyboard has nothing to do with the computer.

Did I say that? Please learn to read.

Please go back to fifth grade. You obviously belong there.

>>5603981
>because my ideology can't account for them.
That ideology is called "science".

>>5603989
All my decision are based on my current knowledge and all my creation is merely a mutation of it. Now show me how you can create something that doesn't exist in anyway possible.

>>5603994
You linked me to an irrelevant Wikipedia article in >>5603978 that has nothing to do with what I asked:
>I didn't ask you to leap to a conclusion. I asked for objectively verifiable evidence of that phenomena. This includes all neuronal mechanisms involved in me making the statement "I have qualia of seeing this flower", even though I clearly don't under this description.

>>5603990
>>5603990
'Importance' has no objective criteria

>>5603965
>No, you didn't.
-Clinical death experiences in which the patient remembers reasoning and thinking, and even can recall some of the words or gestures the doctor made during clinical death.
I'm not going to mention the rest, climb up this thread and you will sure find them. If not, google them and find them yourself, I'm tired of you ignoring my links.
>Because pseudoscience is hogwash.
Solid argument. BECAUSE I SAY SO.
>Why do you refer to unrelated neuroscience results?
You didn't read the article. Note that this time is not a question.

>>5603994
>Did he say it was absurd or ridiculous? Please learn to read.
Did you mean to quote >>5603991?

>>5603988
Oh no, pseudoscience on wikipedia. What a surprise. Nobody would ever have expected that. It's not like everyone can edit wikipedia. It's not like crackpots and pseudoscientists have lots of time for spreading their garbage on the internet while real scientists don't have time to correct any garbage because they are too busy doing actual research.

>>5603989
>shifting the burden of proof

>>5604002
Okay then, we keep collecting data on measurable phenomena. We also note down on the subjective experience of the one experiencing the event for future reference. At this point we do not have the tools, or understanding to do anything of utility with this data. It's study can be omitted until it pertinence to our understanding can be measured correctly.

>>5604003
>Clinical death experiences in which the patient remembers reasoning and thinking
Do you mean made up fictional stories people faked _after_ their death experience?

>Solid argument. BECAUSE I SAY SO.
What more solid than a definition do you need?

>You didn't read the article. Note that this time is not a question.
Alright, this time you just made a wrong statement.

>>5603999

I'm sorry to say this but you lack a huge understanding in science if you don't understand how the eye and sight works.

http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b110.html

>>5604005

Yes. Excuse me for the mistake.

Going to get some lunch, brb.

>>5604006
I know Wikipedia contains pseudoscience, under your descriptions. I was responding to that poster with a Wikipedia article because he did the same to me.

I also know that most neuroscience journals contain pseudoscience, under your descriptions. You still cannot deny to me that I can vocalize "I experience qualia".

>>5603997
That doesn't negate imagination. People imagine all sorts of things that don't exist, like magic ghosts and consciousness according to you... these things exist only in the mind as subjective observations...

Untestable directly, yet they have consequences and effects...sorry this totally destroys your dogma

>>5604008
>I'm sorry to say this but you lack a huge understanding in science if you don't understand how the eye and sight works.
That article doesn't answer my question. If you cannot understand my question, please cease from trying to answer it with irrelevant insults and links you found on Google. You are just trying to move the goalposts.

>Yes. Excuse me for the mistake.
You must be new here. "Magic", "ghosts", "consciousness" under his description are all considered identically ridiculous. It follows that he is making an argumentum ad lapidem.

>>5603132
No. :)

>>5604012
Abstraction leads to more abstraction. Qualia is a result of a long process of abstraction that is a logic process that did not follow an objective goal. Qualia is still a result of self-referencing knowledge. No one said decision have to be right to continue to propagate.

Hurr Durr!!!

I'm am teh Master of Science! Subjective Experience am Metaphysical Magic!

>>5604012
Test:
Subjects, skeptic A and believer B
Procedure:
A and B are told that they are going to participate in a psychokinesis experiment in which they will lift a glass with the power of their minds. The test will be done twice.
The first time, the glass did not move even though B still claimed it did.
The second time the glass was moved artificially. A still claimed it didn't.

And that is what we are facing now, gentlemen.

>>5604019
The word "qualia" is plural. The singular form is "quale".

>>5604017

>You must be new here. "Magic", "ghosts", "consciousness" under his description are all considered identically ridiculous. It follows that he is making an argumentum ad lapidem.

That's not the point, the point is that anon said nothing about it being ridiculous. I rest my case.

What objectively verifiable evidence do you want of what phenomena? Seeing?

>>5604024

we used to can them 'sense data'

>>5604024
Can't the plural form be used to describe the entirety of Qualia, because it's a continuing event?

Sorry, I'm not the best in English.

>>5604027
Skeptic A agreed that the glass moved but disagreed that this was the result of psychokinesis. He wishes for more objective data that could be studied to better understand the phenomenon.

So the trolls logic is: if science can't explain/ detect a phenomenon now then it doesn't exist and is magic...

This is what you guys are arguing against for the past 200+ replies lol

>>5604035
Do you really believe in phenomena that cannot be detected by science? Well, ghosts belong on >>>/x/

plantes ishodud

>>5604031
>That's not the point, the point is that anon said nothing about it being ridiculous. I rest my case.
Your point forgets something called "deductive reasoning". By definition "magic" is ridiculous. Are you 10?

>What objectively verifiable evidence do you want of what phenomena? Seeing?
See
>>5603929
and
>>5603968

>>5604042

"ghosts" give off EM

everybody knows this

>>5604011
>>Do you mean made up fictional stories people faked _after_ their death experience?
No, I meant the experiments made AFTER that. Again, I was here yesterday and posted the proper links after some searching. If you didn't bother to read them back then then I doubt you will bother now.

>>What more solid than a definition do you need?
I'm not going to fall for this again, go troll somebody else. An experiment is an experiment if it's properly done. If it's right or wrong, only further experimentation will tell and not some lunatic yelling "lel pseudoscience"
>>Alright, this time you just made a wrong statement.
Is that so? You didn't understand the article? You didn't read ALL the article? You did read the article but you are trolling?

>>5604047
>deductive reasoning
You clearly don't know what that means. Please take a class on logic.

>By definition "magic" is ridiculous
Not by definition, but because of the fact that it has no evidence, i.e. it is an irrational belief, just like soul/consciousness or ghosts or unicorns.

>>5604044
Qualia.

>>5603980

Making the statement "I have a qualia of a flower." Requires memory, which is from the brain.
Requires sound, which is basically generated by your tongue, or throat. Basically your mouth area.
All the letters in that statement are symbols, symbols that have information and will not be able to be interpreted by the brain unless you have memory.

>>5604054
>You clearly don't know what that means. Please take a class on logic.
Premise: Everything magical is ridiculous.
Premise: Qualia are magic.
Conclusion: Qualia are ridiculous.

>Not by definition, but because of the fact that it has no evidence, i.e. it is an irrational belief, just like soul/consciousness or ghosts or unicorns.
Including that would make it too hard for him if he is unable to understand a basic implication.

>>5604066
Looks like a sound and valid inference.

>>5604069
That's insufficient evidence to make the leap of faith that "I have a qualia of a flower" is a purely neural mechanism. What are the exact neural networks involved in this process?

>>5604047

What is ridiculous is your opinion and is therefore unprovable.

>>5604081

Neural? The nervous system.

Did you say before that light is information?

>>5604069

'Information' is metaphysical magic.

Show me evidence that 'information' exists.

>>5604087

>'Information' is metaphysical magic.

This sentence is information. Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system.

If information did not exist, the paragraph above would not exist.

>>5604092
>metaphysical magic.
I'm started to hate this term so much that I will punch in the face next guy who speaks about this IRL.

>>5604071
But it's not inference. It's deduction. You already know in the premise that everything in magic is also in ridiculous.

>>5604077
It's not my opinion.

>>5604084
Moving the goalposts.

>>5604111

Show me the 'information' All I see are pixels on a screen.

>>5604115

You have my permission and approval.

>>5604066

>Premise: Everything magical is ridiculous.

You can't prove that. The word 'ridiculous' is a subjective term.

>>5604123
>But it's not inference. It's deduction.

>>5604129
You can.
>Not by definition, but because of the fact that it has no evidence, i.e. it is an irrational belief, just like soul/consciousness or ghosts or unicorns.

>>5604132
What pixels? I'm being bombarded by neutrinos constantly. My rods and cones are completely saturated in pure information. Oh god I'm drowning in it.

>>5604130
Some people find clowns ridiculous, some of them scary.
Personally, clowns like you make me depressed.

>>5604143
How do you prove evidence?

>>5604130

How was I moving the goalposts? There are no goalposts in this thread.

>>5604132

You want some information? Here is some: Born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian Rhineland, Marx studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin, where he became interested in the philosophical ideas of the Young Hegelians. In 1836 he became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, whom he married in 1843. After his studies, he wrote for a radical newspaper in Cologne, and began to work out his theory of dialectical materialism. After moving to Paris in 1843, he began writing for other radical newspapers. He met Engels in Paris, and the two men worked together on a series of books. Exiled to Brussels, he became a leading figure of the Communist League, before moving back to Cologne and founding his own newspaper. In 1849 he was exiled again and moved to London together with his wife and children. In London, where the family was reduced to poverty, Marx continued writing and formulating his theories about the nature of society and how he believed it could be improved. He also campaigned for socialism and became a significant figure in the International Workingmen's Association.

>>5604143

That is not proof. Show me proof.

>>5604144
>theories based on consciousness being the information on these neutrinos and the brain being merely a processor of it, like a radio device processing radio waves.
AND SCORE!

>>5604123
Are you 10?

>>5604148
>That is not proof. Show me proof.
>>5604146
Not the guy you were talking to, but I love this, please guys, continue.

>>5604148
>How was I moving the goalposts? There are no goalposts in this thread.
I asked for the exact neural networks involved in observing a flower and making a statement "I have qualia of a flower". I never asked anything about the word neural.

>>5604037
> >>5604027
Subject A {wasnt wearing his glasses and couldnt determine there was glass there} & the whole premise is flawed by the nature of an incomplete observer or observation- which is what we are ALWAYS facing in science, under your premise there is not even reason to further study the phenomenon as our grasps of deduction are simply flawed and anything of scientific reasoning is flawed entirely by this objectification.

Pick one:
Incomplete evidence or Qualia
There is of equal weight to the value of each by their discrediting

>>5604142
inference: deriving logical conclusions from specific premises to general conclusions
deduction: inescapable conclusions reached by reasoning from the general to the specific.

>>5604168
of eachother *

>>5604170
Deduction is a special case of inference.

>>5604164

>I asked for the exact neural networks involved in observing a flower and making a statement "I have qualia of a flower".
>I never asked anything about the word neural.

Nervous system and Respiratory system.

>>5604176
So now you're going to post completely irrelevant crap because you can't answer my question? I think we're done.

>>5604168
>Subject A {wasnt wearing his glasses and couldnt determine there was glass there
Subject A was such a faggot for saying this after the experiment based on moving a glass. lololol.
The point is that deniers and believers are all believers, only that they believe what they want to.

Just like that experiment with normal milk. They said it may provoke allergies if the subjects drank it. Most people found it less tasty than regular milk even though they were drinking regular milk) and some of them even had allergic reactions. Funny creatures ai't we?

>>5604180

I just told you the networks that are involved with it. I don't see what your problem is. If you don't know then you can ask the question on yahoo if you're so anxious.

>>5604186
You never gave me any neural networks. Do you even know what a neural network is? Of course not.

>>5604181
No man the point is that there is always equal reason to put yourself one way or the other so just be with the nature of it and position yourself with both or neither

>>5604168
A flawed premise does not impede the collection of objective data. No matter the experiment referable material can always be collected. The continued study of data is more important than biased abstraction.

>>5604190

Ask the question somewhere else then.

>>5604198
Why? It was a question for you. You have no objectively verifiable evidence to show that the process of observing a flower and claiming to experience qualia is completely physical. This assertion can therefore be dismissed for lack of evidence and explanatory power.

>>5604195
That's another way to say it. If we become aware that we are delusional fools the logical thing is to do what you say, lolz.

>>5604209

From the information you've given, just the ones connected to speech and eyesight. We don't know if this person is holding or smelling the flower.

Neuroscience is not that developed (and no science is "exact"). We can give general functional patterns only.

>>5604152

>>5604174
Nope. Generalizations aren't specific cases.

>>5604216
That's far too general to reach any conclusion. Read what I wrote in >>5603968. What are the specific networks known as? Where is your evidence that only these portions of the brain are involved? Have you simulated them?

>>5604235

neural network is kind of an outdated term. Modern scientists usually refer instead to the individual sections of the brain.

Like I said, neuroscience isn't that developed and I'm not that much of a neuroscientist, but this is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca's_area

Maybe I'll find the section for observing.

>>5604236
This has nothing to do with "special" or "general" cases. Deduction is the application of valid inference rules in a logical calculus.

>>5604252
>>5604235

Found it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cortex

Neuroscientists have simulated them on computers.

>>5604268
Are dreams really connected to the visual cortex alone? Because I thought the visual cortex was more for processing optical input, not.....creating it....

>>5604252
It's not outdated at all. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Linking to a Wikipedia article is meaningless, as discussed in >>5603988 and >>5604006. I'm asking for objectively verifiable evidence that this is the only region of the brain involved in observing a flower and making the statement "I have qualia of a flower".

>>5604268
A cortex isn't a neural network. The visual cortex contains many, many neural networks.

>Neuroscientists have simulated them on computers.
Where is your evidence? Where is your evidence this simulation is capable of saying "I experience qualia? Do you even know what qualia are?

>>5604144

I think I love you.

>>5604268
>Simulation= Reality
>Realistic dreams are a simulation of reality
>Dreams= Reality
>Reality= I MADE IT WITH NATALIE PORTMAN, FUCK YEAH!

>>5603187
>ignorance

>the world is flat, if you think otherwise you're stupid

>>5604195
But that's wrong because there's too much finality and decision in this experiment. What is being voiced here is that the outcome isn't as important as the data collected. As long as we can collect data the experiment is valid.

I suggest everyone in this thread reads Ray Kurzweil's books.
Specifically, The Singularity is Near, and How to Create a Mind.

>>5604263
I'm talking about inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning. I can start with a deductive system and add rewrite rules to do inductive reasoning. Your distinctions are meaningless.

>>5604278

Neuroscientists hardly use the term neural network anymore. That's why I said regions of the brain. And like I said earlier, neuroscience isn't that developed. Every time I show you something you ask for evidence, it's getting annoying.

the difference between /sci/ and real scientists is that scientists understand their experiments...mostly. Lol, so many weird people in this thread.

This entire thread is why I hate the intellectual community. The majority of people are arrogant elitists.
Groundbreaking paradigms in science require a bit of innovation- You have to be willing to think outside the box.

What makes all your /sci/dols so different than any other guy with a PHD? Einstein, Feynman, DaVinci, they were create as well as intelligent. They weren't afraid to say "Okay lets bend the rules a little bit and see what happens". Thought experiments such as these can lead to innovation.

>inb4 flame comments

>>5604313
>I can start with a deductive system and add rewrite rules to do inductive reasoning.

Can you write this down in mathematical formalism?

>>5604320
Search "neural network" in a journal. You don't even know what a neural network is so it would be difficult to explain to you how it's used. You have no evidence that what I mentioned previously is a purely neuronal mechanism. You take a leap of faith to believe in this. Your claim can therefore be dismissed.

>>5604303
Yeah but the data is totally subjective to our interpretation of it, just as the subject A said "I will not take that as my final answer", even though being led within all reason as an unbiased observer that the results were of the dictation of the scenario, that subject A still decided against the scenario, the data collected was still not enough, to anticipate treachery would put the observer at a bias and would be a discrediting, we're using the scenario simply as it's presented with the most direct answer being the simplest and still is it subject to what is interpreting it. The experiments data -and those creating it(hue)- can not be valid for these reasons.

>>5604338
THIS
THIS
THIS
THISTHISTHISMOTHERFUCKINGTHIS!!!
No matter if it's /lit/ or /sci/ or /crap/ it's always the same shit. Why can't these guys let just think a bit outside their tiny little world?

>>5604341

It is not a leap a faith. I posted evidence and you simply say that the source isn't reliable or something like that. *sigh*

>>5604352
>The experiments data -and those creating it(hue)- can not be valid for these reasons.
Following that logic, we should stop doing science. Both determifags and consciousfags expect one result or the other.

>>5604363
What evidence? You posted a pseudoscientific Wikipedia article.

>>5604383
>Call for evidence
>Label as pseudoscientific any evidence
>???
>Profit!

>>5604383

>You posted a pseudoscientific Wikipedia article.

Where is your evidence for this? If you have no evidence I can dismiss it as nothing.

>>5604391
>>5604392
See >>5604006

>>5604352
That's why the entire experiment is flawed. The premise, the subjects, the hypothesis. The only result that is still valid is the pure data collected from it. To say it answers anything would be exploitation. This is what science is, we aren't supposed to say that there is a qualia or isn't. We are supposed to record phenomenons and patterns and reference them objectively. The issue presented in this thread is that people who believe in abstraction base their decision on abstraction saying that since something has data that it deserves to be studied directly and passed with judgement.

We do not have the tools available and must exclude abstract concepts because their presence muddles pure information. No one is saying we're refusing to note concepts of qualia, we are just informing you that there is not enough evidence to even make any sort of argument viable so we must simply ignore it.

>>5604402
The point still holds.

>>5604396

That article is different from the one I posted.

>>5604404

Nope. Different article is different. Since you cannot provide evidence I can dismiss your claim.

The collision of a lava sun and an ice sun.

>>5604408
That post wasn't talking about one article. It was referring to all of Wikipedia.

>>5604398
>there is not enough evidence to even make any sort of argument viable so we must simply ignore it.
Instead of investigating it?
How is this called, ostrich strategy?
Science and intuition are sometimes best friends. Deal with it.

>>5604426

It is true that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but there are still articles on Wikipedia that are supported by many sources.

>>5603148
>>5603153

The article is misleading. The images are created from the visual system parts of the brain. That means this is more about recording what the brain 'saw'. Dreams happen in other parts of the brain, and only stimulate in the visual system very seldom and very little. Pictures aren't really generated when we dream, but the sensation of seeing is.

There is no inner theatre of the mind. So getting pictures from dreams would be impossible.

>>5604435
Then don't link me to Wikipedia, show me trusted sources that support your claim.

>>5604443
>there are still articles on Wikipedia that are supported by many sources.
Look at the sources ya dimwit
captcha: ervirso psychical

>>5604443

About those neural networks you were speaking of, it seems that there aren't specific names for all the neural networks. Therefore I cannot say what EXACT neural networks are involved when I observe a flower and make a statement about it.

>>5604456
None of the sources support your claim that the observation of a flower is a purely neuronal process. None of those sources support your claim that someone who makes the statement "I experience qualia of a flower" is a purely neuronal process.

>>5604427
Rather than focusing on more immediate research you would focus on a tangent concept with no real measure of results? Sure brute forcing a concept to see it's application and pliability is a method but it would be better to have solidify a base.

Also I'm not saying we are completely ignoring it. We just don't have the means of objectifying into referable information because there is no base and all related sciences are in it's infancy. Let's wait until there is a measure and talk about it then.

>>5604457
>it seems that there aren't specific names for all the neural networks
Then I guess you really do have no idea what you're talking about. You're a hypocrite.

Why can't we have constructive and friendly discussions on /sci/? Why are debates so frequently mired in hostility and egotism?

>>5604368
Thats exactly what was being said in the original scope of things
>>5604168

>>5604398
>
Indeed, if the means are not there than there is absolutely no reason it should be attempted- that being said it's a matter of anticipating what are the true variety of needs there that would lead to the innovation of the creation of such a thing; Human foolery is ever fantastical eh?

>
If that is so are we not concluding that the information is based towards ignorance more than actuality? Even as that could be so, that our means do not give out need immediate max potential, that why are they not acknowledged more thoroughly as simply a part as to give means for more intelligent minds to spread their wings in their fields(?), instead just saying this is the main mainframe of these utilities that we can work by- as is insinuated by the term theory- but, again, not given the idealism of practice that can be used by knowing, and properly acknowledging that these are only parts? Why is that? That we must dismiss every, for now existential, aspect of reality as a bootleged social thought? I mean we've got telepathic mice! Fuck the 'superiority' of human, MICE!

>>5604464
>Sure brute forcing a concept to see it's application and pliability is a method but it would be better to have solidify a base.
That's science, matey. Some people make wonderful theories improved over the years... and then some crazy dude comes up with something different that screws it all.

>>5604467

>You're a hypocrite.

I do know what I'm talking about. It's just that I'm doing all the researching while you are just sitting on your fat ass the whole time asking "Where is your evidence?" We refer to the networks as "The neural networks in the Visual Cortex." And such. There are no specific names for them, unless you can provide evidence.

>>5604473
But it's still referable with the general base of understanding right? And because of that base we have a measure to refer it against correct?

>>5604482
You made a claim. It is your burden of proof to provide evidence of such phenomena. If you don't have any, it can be dismissed with Hitchens' razor. You haven't provided any evidence that observation of a flower and the processing of motor skills required to vocalize "I experience qualia of a flower" is only done in the visual cortex.

It's also not my fault you don't know basic neuroscience terminology, again you're the one who made the claim.

Since you're so keen on linking to Wikipedia I suggest you read this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

>>5604496
I think one of his replies was here, he must have been in the wrong tab
>>5604462

not sure though, cheers

>>5604489
Flat earth was stupid, but was the scientific model even in Greece. Until it was proven that it was wrong.
>Inb4 flat earth comes from the Bible
>NO

>>5604504
lel delete

>>5604511
The flat earth was never proven wrong.

If stupidity was flammable, this thread alone would burn the entire galaxy

>>5604368
Thats exactly what was being said in the original scope of things
>>5604168

>>5604398
>
Indeed, if the means are not there than there is absolutely no reason it should be attempted- that being said it's a matter of anticipating what are the true variety of needs there that would lead to the innovation of the creation of such a thing; Human foolery is ever fantastical eh?

>
If that is so are we not concluding that the information is based towards ignorance more than actuality? Even as that could be so, that our means do not give out the need for immediate max potential(this is my personal theory on any existing alien race- to clarify what I was intending by it), that why are they not acknowledged more thoroughly as simply a part, as to give means for more intelligent minds to spread their wings in their fields? Instead just saying this is the main mainframe of these utilities that we can work by- as is insinuated by the term theory- but, again, not given the idealism of practice that can be used by knowing, and properly acknowledging, that these are only parts? Why is that? That we must dismiss every, for now existential, aspect of reality as a bootleged social thought? I mean we've got telepathic mice! Fuck the 'superiority' of human, MICE!

>>5604496

I did not say only the visual cortex, but Broca's area too. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with what I said. Hypocrisy is the state of promoting or trying to enforce standards, attitudes, lifestyles, virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually hold.

>>5604513

You can view the earth from space as a sphere.

>>5603132

Why not? Our brain is a machine, mind you an organic one but a machine nonetheless. If it possesses the capability to read and interpret these images and sensations then it is entirely possible to create another similarly functioning machine (albeit, not entirely within our capabilities just yet).

>>5604546
Bullshit. NASA can use photoshop.

>>5604551

Does this look photoshopped to you?

>>5604552

The brain is a computer, not a machine. Not a minor distinction to make.

>>5604546
Not true. Earth is flat and will always be.
A picture from space can be easily edited and can not be asserted as evidence.

>>5604555
>>5604551

Wrong pic

>>5604557

A computer is a machine. A machine by definition is an entity of one or more parts that operates on energy.

>>5604555
lol, wrong image?

>>5604528
You ever read the book 'The Last Theorem', it's got a species slightly like that, they used a reverse vacuum or something like it for energy, not electricity, and well, yeah, it was about some modernly irrelevant proof but was a nice quick read and the formula was quite charming

>>5604551

Does this look photo-shopped to you?

efelkfme;lkfew

had to do that because shitty spam system on 4chan

>>5604577
Lol it has letters all around.
Go somewhere else with your pseudoscience and your fake pictures.

>>5604584

Where is your evidence that it is pseudoscience?

OP, consider this:
there is nothing predictable about the ways stimuli are stored between people
therefore, there is nothing to calibrate between different people that reveals ANY specific stimulus.
Particularly something as subtle as visuals.

Now, I have no doubt that we could observe when someone was dreaming about the topics of movement versus visuals versus doing something.
But the experiment named was looking for a specific image; and that's what they found. They did NOT discover they can see an original, unexpected image in the way that a dreamer sees it. Such a thing would potentially include any kind of visual at all, which is a drastic difference from looking for a specific pattern.

>>5604584
chill out

>>5604577
Looks flat to me.

>>5604587
First, you post a clearly edited picture, which greatly damages your credibility.
Second, you don't provide any reliable sources.
Third, you didn't provide any solid argument about the earth not being flat.

>>5604595

Where is your evidence that it looks flat to you?

>>5604599

First, I did not say that the earth was not flat.
Second, reliability has nothing do to with pseudoscience.
Thirdly, you still do not have evidence that is is pseudoscience.

>>5604577
If that's a sphere then why is it flat when you print it?

>>5604604

Because pictures aren't perfect.

>>5604595
>>5604598
>>5604599
>>5604603
>>5604604

what are you guys doing seriously
how is this even an efficient use of your time you don't even know eachother

>>5604603
Shifting burden of proof also damages your credibility.
It is you who must prove that the earth is not flat.

>>5604595

Do you not see mountains?

>>5604606
Then why post a picture in the first place?
Seriously...

>>5604612

I am not shifting the burden of proof. I did not claim that the earth was not flat. You made the claim that it was pseudoscience. You have made the claim, now prove it.

>>5604617
I'm not the one who must provide evidence, you are.

>>5604618

Then why exist in the first place?
Seriously...

>>5604617
simple: a fake picture is not science. you can not pretend to convince with that shit.

>>5604623

Nope. I didn't make a claim, you did.

>>5604628

Where is your evidence that it is fake?

>>5604635
>No stars
>White letters in English
dude...

>>5604638

So far you have provided no evidence.

>A real picture of Earth with no captions near it, HD for your enjoyment

Ok, I stop trolling. Now we see that the game can continue with almost any-fucking-thing I hope we'll be a bit more civilised in the future conversations. Thank you for your time.

>>5604611
We're having fun, everything is in jest.

>>5604614
I see lines and shading.

Consciousness has no evidence for it, the mind has no evidence for it. Therefore we can dismiss them as nothing.

>>5604648

There are lines on my hand, does that disprove that I have no hand?

>>5604577
Your picture sucks and is ugly.
http://designreviver.com/inspiration/31-breathtaking-planet-space-tutorials-for-photoshop/

>>5604641

>>5604661

>Your picture sucks and is ugly.

Where is your evidence for this?

>>5604667
My qualia.

>>5604663

That is not a flat earth. A flat earth would have only one dimension, that earth clearly has three.

>>5604654
Maybe your hand is flat.

>>5604672
derailing the main topic, are we?

>>5604671

If my hand was flat, I would not be able to use my mouse. Therefore, my hand is not flat, otherwise I wouldn't be able to type this.

>>5604671

Where is your evidence of your qualia? Where is your evidence that qualia exists?

>>5604676

What main topic? Aren't we just trolling each other?

>>5604679

>
Maybe your mouse is flat.

>What evidence do you have to prove my qualia doesn't exist because I sure am experiencing it right now in feeling how much that picture sucks.

>>5604688

If my mouse was flat, It would not be able to survive. Your move.

/Sci/
/b/
sometimes I can't tell the difference

is there a difference between my experience of an orgasm, versus neurons firing in my body?

can we reduce an orgasm to just it's causes and ignore the sensation itself?

I think it wouuld lose most of its meaning.

>>5603300
how do you know?

Because I am conscious of it.

>>5606053

Was meant to be directed at>>5605286
p

>>5606057

How do you know that you're conscious?

>>5606061

Because if I didn't have consciousness I wouldn't be able to know.

>>5606067

Computers can know things and they don't have a human brain.