/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5719932

He could teleport. Like Nightcrawler.

Possibly the most common thread I've seen on /sci/. I'm never sure if it's a troll thread or not.

>>5719940

So Schrodinger is trying to make me find the idea absurd?

It's a thought experiment put forward to describe the apparent absurdity of particles being in a superposition of states when not observable.

>>5719935

No I mean the concept.

>>5719939

I'm not here all the time, my intention is not to troll.

>>5719944

It is absurd! Have you ever seen a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time?

>>5719949

Not in real life, no.

>>5719949

(not OP) : we had a cat that could seemingly appear inside closed boxes. But it was probably just really crafty.

>>5719932
It's a German cat, stupid. Go get a dictionary.

>>5719954
Or you had a quantum cat

>According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.

The cat is already observing, the atoms can no longer be in an uncertain state. It doesn't matter if you can see the box; if your supervisor didn't look, you still got definite states when measuring the photons.

Schrodinger was attempting to disprove quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics consciousness collapses the wave function. If Schrodinger's cat experiment turns out to be true, cats don't have consciousness. This would prove creation because it shows that a soul, a consciousness, is only found in humans and not in animals.

>>5719932
It's an attempt to highlight the utter lack of clarity in the term "wave function collapse" in the orthodox (Copenhagen) "interpretation" of QM.

At the point at which an "observer" performs a "measurement", a superposed quantum state apparently instantaneously (across its entire extent in the universe) collapses, randomly, into one of its constituent states.

The whole thing is bollocks of course because "measurements" are not formally considered as a physical process in and of themselfes. You can get away with loose language like that for classical mechanics, but in QM you can't perform "measurements" without significantly affecting the thing you're measuring.

Pretty fucking hard to not affect a single electron by chucking photons at it.

So we have this paradox of forcing the classical concept of "measurement" onto the quantum scale, and then misattributing the nonsensical results as something "fundamentally beyond our understanding", and so science stupidly threw away realism (an objective reality exisiting independently of measurement) without noticing the mistake it had made.

Other QM interpretations (e.g. pilot-wave theory) have a lot to say, qualitatively and quantitatively about how measurement and uncertainty can come about while attempting to avoid reaching ridiculous conclusions like "reality doesn't exist until we observe it", or "nature is fundamentally random".

Cambridge course: tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html (add a www. at the start)

>>5719979
sage

>>5719979

My cat is awake some of the time.
But I have no idea if it has an immortal component.
I do know it thinks it is better than me.

>>5719979
>According to quantum mechanics consciousness collapses the wave function.
Jesus Christ what is this, fucking Spirit Science?

Different interpretations have different things to say about Consciousness; but <span class="math">hopefully[/spoiler] it should be obvious that any interpretations that <span class="math">require[/spoiler] conscious beings to cause collapse range from sketchy to outright insanity given that the Universe has been around a damn sight longer than conscious beings...

>>5719987

inb4 Boltzmann's Brain.

>>5719990
Is that something where a deliberately ambiguous "definition" of consciousness is given saying
>hurr the Universe is conscious so it collapses itself
cause if it fucking is I'm outta here.

>>5719987
If there was no consciousness, then who collapsed the first wave function and made the universe exist? Are you implying the necessity of an omniscient being?

>>5719992

I don't know. I consider the whole Boltzmann's Brain argument very fishy myself. But someone keeps posting about it.

>>5719992
What is your definition of consciousness and how is it scientifically testable?

>>5720007

My cat is awake at least part of the day.

I already said that.

But I like to repeat myslef.

>>5720003
Consciousness isn't the thing that causes collapse, you muppet. If it is, then it requires consciousness to be somehow "external" to reality; and if you require consciousness (which as best as we can tell is an emergent, physical phenomenon <span class="math">of some kind[/spoiler]) as part of your axioms for a fundamental physical law, then you've made a nice big logical circle.

>>5720007
I can't give a "testable" definition right now, and I wouldn't claim to be able to; but I don't have to in order to talk about a Boltzmann brain "consciousness" having nothing to do with whatever we <span class="math">do[/spoiler] mean when we talk about consciousness.

>>5720010
What does this have to do with consciousness? Of course your cat is awake when it doesn't sleep. But is it conscious?

>>5720011
>emergent, physical

Nice contradiction. "Emergent" implies the impossibility of naming a mechanism, i.e. it is basically synonymous with "magic".

>>5720012
>emergent implies the impossibility of naming a mechanism
That's not what emergent means at all.

>>5720011
>Consciousness isn't the thing that causes collapse, you muppet
Yes, it is. Do you not into quantum physics? Take a babby QM intro course please. This is a commonly accpeted fact and has been experimentally verified several times.

>>5720011
>physical laws and logic
>consciousness
top lel

Why aren't you on /x/?

>>5720015
0/10

>>5720011
>I can't give a "testable" definition right now, and I wouldn't claim to be able to

In other words you're making untestable bullshit claims and are talking out of your ass. >>>/x/ is the right board for you.

>>5720017
"Emergent" is a useless buzzword. It adds no information and only serves to cover up your complete ignorance when talking to uneducated people. Maybe you can fool school children with such empty talk, but here on a /sci/ence board you only make yourself look stupid.

>>5720018
>saying "top lel" in response to the perfectly sane claim that consciousness is not "fundamental" (magic)
>believing that consciousness is extraphysical, i.e. not a result <span class="math">of[/spoiler] physics, but has a direct effect <span class="math">on[/spoiler] physics
I think you should be going to >>>/x/

>>5720022
>the perfectly sane claim
>consciousness

Metaphysical magic without testable effects definitely isn't "perfectly sane". Take your meds.

>>5720024
You are the one who believes in it. How about you show me a soul/consciousenss?

>>5720020
>>5720021
>>5720023
>consciousness is magic
Quite good trolling, making me pretty frustrated.
6/10 at least

>>5720022
>if I claim my magical soul to be physical, it suddenly exists even though I have no evidence

Do you even Hitchens' razor?

>>5720019

That's a glorious .gif.

>>5720024
>talking about consciousness
>on a science board

Can /x/ please stop raiding us?

>>5720029
It's pretty boring actually.

>>5720024
>believes in consciousness
>refuses to provide evidence or even a testable definition
>accuses scientists of trolling

Oh, I see. Any reference to consciousness AT ALL results in redirections to >>>/x/

How about you focus on these fags first who believe that consciousness actually <span class="math">does[/spoiler] anything:
>>5719979
>>5720003
before you go full autismal-nitpicking on the people who are trying to argue ON YOUR SIDE.

JUST BECAUSE THE WORD CONSCIOUSNESS HAS BEEN MENTIONED

DOES NOT MEAN /X/ IS RAIDING YOU

WE KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS DOESNT ACTUALLY FUCKING EXIST

THAT'S THE WHOLE BASIS FOR ARGUING THAT IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THE CAUSE OF COLLAPSE

YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS

>>5720032
>hurr I'm a scientist
>the definition of "conscious" can't be pinned down or tested
>therefore I'm apparently not conscious
>I'll take this contrarian position just to be a douchebag on an anonymous imageboard

>>5720042
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you want to believe in fairy tales and mystical metaphysical spiritualism without observable effects, please do so on >>>/x/

>>5720042

People who say that consciousness >>>/x/ are mouthbreathing retards...ignore them.

>>5720048
Cool non-argument, /x/tard. We are "retards" because we ask for evidence for your extraordinary claims of magic and dualism? Troll harder, idiot.

>>5720048
>dualist
>calling others mouthbreathing retards

oh the irony

>>5720049
>>5720051
samefag

>>5720042
What contrarian position? This is a science board. You come here and scream "magic is real lol". Of course we'll ask for evidence.

>>5720048

No True Scotsman would ever say such a thing.

>>5720053
no

>>5720058
>but the experience (whatever it is)

What the fuck are you talking about?

>>5720054
>strawman

What part of
>consciousness isn't actually real, so can't cause wavefunction collapse, but the experience (whatever it is) must have some basis in physical reality
can't penetrate your thick skull?

>>5720054

who is 'we'? Do you have a frog in your pocket?

>>5720062
The scientific community. I know it sounds weird to an /x/tard like you, but in science we have that thing called "pear review".

>>5720049
>>5720051

See wake/sleep EEG for physiological evidence of consciousness.

Medical doctors could perform surgery by using magic to anesthetize you. Luckily, no surgeon thinks that dualism is required for consciousness.

>>5719979
>>5720003
>>5720007
>>5720012
>>5720015
>>5720018
>>5720020
>>5720021
>>5720022
>>5720023
>>5720025
>>5720026
>>5720030
>>5720032
>>5720046
>>5720049
>>5720051
>>5720054
Global Rule #3: Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames...

>>5720066
What does this have to do with a soul/consciousness? You still haven't named its observable effects. An anesthesiologist is not a philosopher. He doesn't give a shit about soul/consciousness drivel. His job is to turn the state of being awake into a state of being asleep. Work on your straw men, troll.

>>5720065

>pear review

>>5720065

We could search Peer Reviewed Journals for articles about consciousness. But that would be too easy. I'm just trying to find out how bad your delusion of significance is.

>>5720072
>We could search Peer Reviewed Journals

Go ahead and do it.

inb4 you post a philosophy or pseudoscience publication and claim it's science

>>5720071

>soul/consciousness
>Work on your straw men, troll.

NO U

>>5720074

dat reading comprehension....

now back to the subject at hand

Why should I believe you have a graduate degree in anything?

>>5720077
How cute, an ad hominem. Are you already out of more subtle fallacies? How is my person relevant to the truth of my scientific posts? Address the arguments and admit that they are right.

>>5720082

Actually, that is called "impeaching the witness.

You answer my question.

>>5720089
Science is true independently of who is presenting its truths.

>>5720074

no idea, what side you're on. but consciousness is real as a subjective phenomenon, i.e., phenomenal consciousness. this can and is researched actively in, for example, neuroscience. you can make a behavioural distinction of conscious behaviour/response vs unconscious and then see what differences are there while recording fmr images or eeg etc. very few problems there.

consciousness, however, is most definitely not magic. no need to postulate it as something non-physical. we haven't worked out the way subjective experience works, but there is practically no reason to think that it must be something 'extra-physical', 'fundamental' or other form of magic, other than delusional wishful thinking of some.

>>5719980

also, /thread.

>>5720103
>as a subjective phenomenon

Show me a qualia. Without evidence or observable effects it is jsut another spiritualist hogwash claim that belongs on >>>/x/

>>5720103
>it is real because u have 2 beleive
No, that's not how science works. Evidence or GTFO.

>but there is practically no reason to think that it must be something 'extra-physical'
There is no reason to believe in it at all because it has no effects, no evidence and no explanatory value.

>>5720111

Clearly, as we have moved on to the topic of consciousness...

>>5720103

^^^^this

If consciousness didn't correspond to a physical thing then this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zh-bS5SDpw)) wouldn't work. It's not synonymous with soul and hasn't been for the past fifty years. Maybe, this use to be true in the past but we know how the brain works (well, more or less) and so there is a distinction between the two.

>>5720121
>If consciousness didn't correspond to a physical thing then this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zh-bS5SDpw)) wouldn't work.

Troll harder, idiot. Information processing and algorithmic interpretation has nothing to do with metaphysical or spiritual dualist bullshit. Whether you like it or not, humans are biological machines. We evolved and our bodies obey the laws of physics. A soul/consciousness DOES NOT EXIST.

>>5720114
>There is no reason to believe in it at all because it has no effects, no evidence and no explanatory value.
So what about Brogly Boam that >>5719980 posted about?

>>5720103

If you believe anything single or grouped thing that exists to be 'conscious' then all things are conscious, study their behaviors as such

#'litenment

Penny please

>>5720113
>>5720114

lol, so you guys are trying to tell me you don't actually see or hear things? 'cause that is what experience is. I don't give two shits whether you want to call it "qualia" or anything else, it's a simple fact of life: people have experience. there is a certain difficulty associated with this subjective experience being inaccessible to third parties in the usual way, but claiming it's spiritual hogwash because of this is a ridiculous dogma. and this experience has also typically been called "consciousness". of course it's not the spiritual uberconsciousness that is united and holds all the answers or whatever else is claimed for it, but it most certainly serves a real function in human (and probably most of animal) behaviour.

the only way you can ask for more evidence is if you claim you guys don't actually have experience. but if you can prove that, then, please, lol, do so.

>>5720129

you dense motherfucker. the modern definition of consciousness IS NOT A MOTHERFUCKING SOUL.

Nobody gives a shit about soul, it's about the raw fact of people having experience. nobody's claiming anymore than that. fuck.
yes, I mad.

>>5720146
Perception is a physical process of measurement. It can be and has been explained physiologically and it has nothing to do with qualia/soul/consciousnes/subjective experience/dualism/spiritualism or whatever /x/ shit you claim it to be. Please learn basics of biology and stop posting untestable and unfalsifiable nonsense claims on /sci/.

I had a bet this thread would have 404'd by now.
Oh well. Come easy, go easy.

>>5720153
>the modern definition

It fucking has no definition in science. It has not testable or observable effects and isn't needed in any explanation. Science deals with what can be observed and measured. Non-interacting hokum is not subject of science and belongs on >>>/x/. Are you really that scientifically illiterate or do you think this kind of retard trolling is funny? In both cases stop posting please.

>>5720153

for all motherfuckers holding onto mythical definitions of "consciousness" and then claiming "THAT'S NOT REAL". YES, THAT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT REAL.

but it is not what I and thousands of others (and quite a few of them are scientists) are talking about. for additional proof of "consciousness" being a legit thing in science (just not in the motherfucking dualist sense of the word), see, this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/search?site_area=sci&y=0&fulltext=consciousness&x=0&submit=yes

or this:
http://www.jneurosci.org/search?fulltext=consciousness&submit=yes&x=16&y=9

or whatever.

>>5720155


I'll just assume you're a troll :j

>>5720159

see
>>5720165

>>5720129

>has nothing to do with metaphysical or spiritual dualist bullshit

Correct! That's why neuroscientists don't use consciousness as being synonymous with soul. There are internal processes, mediated by action potential, that don't directly correspond to behaviors and those are collectively called consciousness. They can be measured with fMRI or EEG.

Unless you're also saying that a soul is really the electric potential produced by fluxing ions...Then a soul would be real and still measurable. Learn definitions better.

>>5720094

science...

TRUE...

LULZ....

>>5720165

Captcha: useful depopons

>>5720165
"Loss of consciousness" is a commonly used term in anesthesiology. It is a bad choice of words because it has nothing to do with a soul/consciousness but actually refers to the transition from awake to asleep.

>>5720185

see:

>>5720165

>>5720185

no shit, sherlock.

>>5720171
Why the fuck am I a "troll" for knowing biology? 0/10

>>5720175
>That's why neuroscientists don't use consciousness as being synonymous with soul
They don't use it at all. They stick to observable and testable phenomena and don't waste their time with metaphysics and dualism.

>There are internal processes, mediated by action potential, that don't directly correspond to behaviors and those are collectively called consciousness
No, they are not. They have their own names and there is no need to rename them by using spiritualist or dualist vocabulary. Stop trolling please.

>>5720189
That's the post I was replying to, idiot.

>'explain quantum mechanics' descends to quantum wooo and spirit paranormal bullshittery
Whodathunkit?
/x/ please go.
Please.

>>5720197

Really? Because you are doing a really shitty job.

>>5720195

lol, you're a "troll", because you keep spouting that nonsense about "scientists not using term "consciousness"" and then go on how all talk about consciousness has to do something with metaphysics or dualism. well, guess again, "biologist" (I actually sort of am in the same camp, studying neuroscience and all), that definition is only actual for religious nuts and, apparently, you. the scientific community has moved on to a more useful definition ages ago.

once again, I can only refer to my previous post, that shows hundreds of articles with "consciousness" in the title. see
>>5720165

>>5720200
It's not my fault that you don't understand science.

>>5720209
You are simply wrong. There is no useful definition of it in neuroscience. A dualist/spiritualist concept has no place in science. Science deals with observable phenomena.

>>5720209
>appeal to the masses

Reported

>>5720239

science is what scientists do
we have already established
that working scientists do use the word,
and therefore it must have a place

You personal philosophical prejudices are irrelevant.

In short, you are wrong.

>>5720239

you've failed to read again and again.

if you're not a troll, then I feel sad for you.
If you're a troll, 7/10. reasonably mad.

>>5720273
Brony dude discussing the same thing on /x/ and /mlp/ with the same arguments about consciousness, dreams and imagination.
>hurr imagination not real durr!

>>5720273
Science means applying the scientific method. The scientific method works on the basis of physically observable phenomena. Untestable hokum is not science and has no place in science.

>>5720283
Try harder. Your shitty troll attempt failed.

>>5720283

I almost feel like it's a bot.

>>5720294

THE scientific method?

You mean like Roger Bacon's??

LOLZ

Wheres my Thomas Kuhn........

>>5720296
Please stay on /x/ or /mlp/. Maybe there your irrelevant non-science drivel is welcome.

>>5720299
>philosophy

>>5720296

On /mlp/?!??!?!

HOWLS OF DERISIVE LAUGHTER!!!

>>5720273
I'm trying to tell you that this guy is just a persistant troll. because of this faggot many cool threads on /sci/ have 404ed, sometimes because somebody mentioned consciousness in a thread about biology, neurology or even physics (not even quantum, bro)

>>5720302

>infantile cartoon

>>5720304

I've seen his work before.

Dat Autism....

>>5720307
>Plato's Sock Puppet

>>5720304
I'm neither a guy nor a troll. Your accusations are not justified. You must be mistaking me for a different person.

>>5720307
lel

>>5720301
I wouldn't go there, someone complained about you before from many other threads. Guess where he came from. Nice try, though.

>>5720328
WTF are you talking about?

>>5720327
I'm not calling you a troll, I'm telling you that you are now arguing with one who has been there for a long time already. That person just won't reason, go back to the main topic and keep the thread interesting.

>>5720325

You know, I can actually see my Tripname.

>>5720344
Oh, you meant to say the person who defends his belief in a consciousness is a troll? Yeah, probably. I wish he stopped promoting his /x/ nonsense on /sci/.

>>5719949
>have you ever seen a cat

but isn't that the point?

Consciousness Troll frequents /mlp/

oh the Humanity!!!!

>>5720364
He should stay there and leave /sci/ alone. If /mlp/ wants to discuss souls, I don't care. But shitting up /sci/ with /x/ content is unacceptable.

>>5720367

You know /mlp/ is the gateway to furfagdom.

>>5720037
>consciousness

plz go
>>>/x/

>>5720296
How would you know this if you yourself did not browse those boards?

>>5720376
>implying I care

I have no reason to go there.

>>5720377

my conscience says I should stay here

>>5720389
0/10

>>5720383
and you stay here, so clearly your consciousness must exist and be correct!

>>5720393

You scoring system is bad.

>>5720396
>incoherent gibberish

>>5720398
0/10

>>5720393
2/10

good fallback position, but thats it

>>5720400
>anything but gibberish
>this thread

nopenopenope

>>5720400

The only problem with that is I know something about your opinion that you don't.

>>5720405
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5720416

And yet you felt compelled to share it with me.
That's evidence of something.

>>5720395
THIS. Coherent, simple and neat.
10/10

On the other hand, there are many hypotheses that make this coherent, but they are just hypotheses so far, right?

Y'all are forguttin' 'bout Wigner's friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend


...bitch

>>5720484
As nice as my captcha:
bath eureka

anyone ever read Robert Anton Wilson's trilogy by the same name?