/sci/ - Science & Math

And if our perception isn't based on some energy, it obviously can't be contained in the universe. That wouldn't really work, would it?

>>7179999
define how you mean energy, use math. if you can't use math to describe what you are talking about then its bullshit and doesn't belong on /sci/ (because it sounds like bullshit)

qualitative discussion is going to be ignored.

>>7180347
I'm sure you well know what I mean by energy. The mathematical definition of energy isn't needed in this discussion, it's superfluous. Energy is energy. If you don't know what energy means, then kindly look up what it means in physics.

>>7179999

We eat food, it gets turned into sugars, we burn those sugars for energy.

>>7179999
So, you want to know how transferred energy gets translated into perception?

Okay.

Sight:
Waves of Light with E = (hc) / λ (Energy = Planck's Constant times the speed of light divided by wave length) and further λ = h/p (p is the momentum) so E = pc. The light hits certain cells in your eyeball, transferring the momentum to the cell giving it some extra energy, the extra energy is sent as an electrical signal down nervous pathways to be decoded in the brain similar to how television signals work (though it is a bit more complicated, that is the basic picture of sight)

Sound: Similarly, Soundwaves have a specific energy E = pu where u is the specific velocity of the medium. The soundwaves travel through your ear canal until they hit certain bones in your head and transfer kinetic energy which is then decoded by your brain.

Touch: (Specifically hot/cold) Energy is transferred following thermodynamic rules from hot sources to cold sources through kinetic interactions between the molecules/atoms or by giving off photons at which point the sight analogy above applies, except it is being decoded purely as heat rather than wavelengths. The higher the temperature of an object the more energy have, and therefore when you touch them, the atoms of the object bounce harder off of the atoms in your skin. Pressure follows the same rules, except instead of the energy of the individual atoms, the sensation depends on the total density of atoms in the object (more generally, a fluid) Pressure is the feeling of your butt in a seat, and the seat pushing back against your butt, or the feeling of being underwater, the higher density of water (when compared to air) and the water compresses your body a tiny bit.

energy is not well defined m8

>>7180914
The question is more about the energy that is directly behind what we sense - when I observe an object and my brain processes a picture of it, where is the energy making up that picture? Surely the picture can't be merely zero-energy "information" because there is no physical medium existing for that in the universe.
Am I perceiving the very same energy that is burned from sugars I've eaten?

>>7181010

The picture in your imagination? That's your brain firing off the same braincells involved in vision, yes the energy they use is from sugars in our blood. "Perception" is a mental process, our sense organs simply supply information for our brains to construct our "perceptions". This si why you would have no way of knowing if you were a brain in a jar, being fed digital information in place of sense information. What "you" would "perceive" would be exactly teh same as what "you" "perceive" right now.

>>7181028
Can I observe my vision and rationally think "this is all energy"?

>>7181326

You can observe your brain while it is thinking, using something like an fMRI machine, tho ofc again that image would be a reconstruction in your brain. You don't "see" with your vision, your eyes feed raw data into your brain, and it is your brain that constructs the images you "see".

>>7181326
Yeah

>>7181367
>You don't "see" with your vision, your eyes feed raw data into your brain, and it is your brain that constructs the images you "see".
Yes, that's how I see with my vision.

>>7181754

stop trolling the man

>>7181764
I'm not trolling the man, what makes you think I'm trolling the man?

>>7181754

actually I get the feeling you're not trolling and just having a hard time getting this, so let me break it down for you: your concept of vision? trash it. you don't see. you're only picturing the pictures your brain is making from the information it is receiving from the eyes, and you are picturing those images because you have no choice but to. your body keeps your brain alive, your brain keeps you alive, and while it's receiving energy and oxygen from the body it will keep you conscious and feed you all the sensory input it will

so in a way yes, you see what you see because of the energy from the sugars you've eaten

>>7181772
>you don't see. you're only picturing the pictures your brain is making from the information it is receiving from the eyes, and you are picturing those images
That's what I call seeing. I have no trouble understanding the mechanism. My questions aren't understood at all. I give up.

>>7181778

read the rest of the post, I think I covered what you're confused about

>>7179999
>Can there exist anything that has no energy?
Yes, zero degrees Kelvin is a thing.

>If not, then where/what is the energy that allows for the existence of our sensorium?

Our brain and nervous system uses chemical energy from our food.

>Is it just spread out all over the brain as electrochemically stored energy?

It's carried by the blood to every part of the body, continuously.

>How is that energy so precisely pieced together for the observer that, for example, the visual field appears as a completely uniform entity?

The uniformity of our vision is an illusion, most of what you "see" is just your brain filling in the blanks.

>Surely our consciousness is contained in the universe?

Like everything else is? Our consciousness arises from the interactions of our braincells, its an emergent property of our brain.

>>7183066
>The uniformity of our vision is an illusion, most of what you "see" is just your brain filling in the blanks.
This is the part the questions are most related to. When the BRAIN is picturing vision, where/what is the energy that makes up the picture? When the brain is "filling in the blanks", it has to transfer energy in the precise way that results in us "seeing" something. Since that energy is seemingly scattered non-uniformly in the brain, how can it piece together a uniform image? How can our visual field exist one way when its energy exists another way? It's like an object existing in a different configuration than its atoms/molecules.

>>7179999
The universe has 0 net energy.

>>7184584
The brain doesn't have 0 net energy.

>>7184563
>How can our visual field exist one way when its energy exists another way?
No instrument exactly reproduces the field it is detecting in the output. There are things like noise and error corrections. The same thing applies to the brain. It's more amazing that the output is so close to reality.

There are a lot of parallels between brains and computers. That's because they're pretty much the same thing. You would think by intuition that the brain doesn't "use" any energy, but the same applies to computers. An ideal computer doesn't use any energy, it's the fact that circuits have resistance that they use so much power. The brain, too, "uses energy" when thinking. It's not a 0 energy system.

>>7184613
>No instrument exactly reproduces the field it is detecting in the output. There are things like noise and error corrections.
Further in the chain, at the very moment when the brain has processed a given picture for itself to view, there'll be the picture in terms of the physical happenings in the brain and the picture that is observed. I'm asking how these can differ. How can we perceive something that has no DIRECT and exactly equivalent physical form existing? How can the observed picture exist?
An object can't exist in a form differing from the exact configuration of its particles, spacetime can't disobey its own exact curvature, etc. Why can our perception differ from its physical medium?

How would it be?

Well, /sci/, how is it?

>>7184563

When you stick a pin in your arm, your brain uses chemical energy to "feel pain" as a reconstruction of the information your arm is sending it. The sensation of the pin in your arm IS this pattern of brain cells firing. Likewise, when you see something, your brain uses chemical energy to "form an image" as a reconstruction of the signals the eyes are sending it. The image in your head IS this pattern of braincells firing off. We experience it as a visual phenomena, but its the same exact chemical-powered brain activity that produces the sensation of pain, just in a different part of the brain.

>>7185057
so everything we get from the world is chemicals and electricity in us ?

>>7186574
Not them.
Yes. In the same way that photography can be described as "just pixels." What they described can be applied to you seeing a delicious sandwich. Your stomach and gut sending you the sensation of hunger is just chemicals and electricity. The mental link between that sandwich and the ones your grandmother made is just chemicals and electricity. The feeling of longing or entitlement for that sandwich are just the same. It can all be caused and explained by chemicals and electricity. That does not detract from its deliciousness or make it any less significant in your mind.

>>7184669
>How can we perceive something that has no DIRECT and exactly equivalent physical form existing?
Because that's the only way that you can perceive at all. In the same way that a camera will take a picture that doesn't exactly match reality (It wasn't really that dark, that isn't actually blurry and fuzzy, it picked up some IR light that wasn't really in the visible spectrum, etc,) your brain has to do a lot of tricky shit to perceive anything in the first place. Of course it's going to differ from what you're actually looking at.

>>7179999
any form of information at absolute zero

>>7186574

The signals we receive from the outside world can be in numerous forms, such as photons hitting our eyes or sound waves hitting our ears, but the first thing that happens to this information is that it gets converted into electrochemical signals in the brain. It is these internal signals that you experience, modelled (hopefully) after the sense data hitting your senses from "outside" but ofc not necessarily corresponding to anything actually "real": The images you see when looking at a delicious sandwich are made of the same exact brain patterns you see when DREAMING about a delicious sandwich, and they are experienced by you in the same way, as a visual representation of a sandwich.

>>7186605
>your brain has to do a lot of tricky shit to perceive anything in the first place. Of course it's going to differ from what you're actually looking at.
The question is NOT asking why our perception differs from what is being perceived. It is asking why our perception differs from what physically exists inside the brain as a representation of what we're perceiving.
For example, there is a crude and distorted mapping of our visual field in the occipital lobe. In a study a gorilla's occipital lobe was imaged when there was a target pattern in its field of vision. The target pattern was clearly identifiable in the image, albeit fairly scrambled. (Sadly I couldn't find the study at this time)
Since there's a scrambled version of our visual field inside the brain, how come our perceived vision is not scrambled? Our perception is necessarily the exact interaction going on in the brain, yet seems to differ from it.

>>7186733

The image in your brain is holographic, its not just a straight flat painting like a photo, it preserves additional information which makes the pattern seem distorted, but your brain experiences this apparently distorted pattern as a 3-dimensional image.

>>7186738
>but your brain experiences this apparently distorted pattern as a 3-dimensional image.
Does it require "reconstruction" of the information contained in the pattern for the brain to be able to perceive it as a 3D image or is the pattern in itself all there is to it? If it requires reconstruction, where is the final reconstructed image located?

>>7186923

The pattern is the image. The thinking about the image is different parts of the brain that fire off via a kind of chain reaction from the image. Different parts light up in response to different patterns, so you might respond differently to a picture of tits than to a picture of gore, but this is mostly preconscious "thought" that may or may not enter your awareness.

When you thin about the image later, or even when you dream about it, the same exact pattern in your brain will re-emerge, exactly as though you were seeing it (more or less, our memories are actually fairly unreliable reconstructions from "clip art" rather than the photographs we generally think of them as).

>>7179999
Energy doesn't real. It's only useful as an accounting placeholder.

>>7184584
Prove it.

>>7186932
What if I ingest a copious amount of LSD and start perceiving what seem to be images of more than three dimensions? How does the 3D pattern inside the brain support that?

>>7189475

Well obviously you CAN'T see 4d shapes, even if you think that's what you're seeing. LSD interacts with the brain in a very complex way, it can certainly distort signalling in the visual context leading to hallucinations, but it can also interfere with other brain circuits too, leading to transcendental and "otherworldy" experiences of a type more usually experienced during sleep.

>>7189479
>Well obviously you CAN'T see 4d shapes, even if you think that's what you're seeing
How can a 3D shape pass through itself without intersecting?

>>7187997
which makes it real in a sense you retard.

>>7189547

I don't know what, if anything, this means. Mathematically? Logically? Conceptually?

>>7189560
Mathematically. It's a fairly poor description, though. A Klein bottle will "pass through itself without intersecting" and it's possible because the Klein Bottle is 4D. Can ANY 3D object do that? I'd think not.

>>7189475
There is no 3D pattern in your brain. Your retinas are 2D surfaces.

I've tried LSD and the only visual modulation it does is that it animates all surface textures(with some depth modulation sure) with synesthesia.

Also there's no holographic 3D shit going on in your brain, that poster is a crackpot. There's legitimate attempts to reconstruct visual activity with what you see and it requires heavy processing which wouldn't be needed if you could just lift the neuron activity image out of your visual cortex.

>>7179999
>If not, then where/what is the energy that allows for the existence of our sensorium?
Glucose oxidation, generates ATP, used to generate differences in neuron plasma membrane's emf, engenders electronic communication

>>7189570

I don't now that is relevant. We don;t see in 4d, our brains are wired for 3d only. Mathematically you can do all kinds of things, but most of them can't be experienced as visual images.

>>7189547
>How can a 3D shape pass through itself without intersecting?
Fucking what?

>>7189573
>I've tried LSD and the only visual modulation it does is that it animates all surface textures(with some depth modulation sure) with synesthesia.
That is a minuscule fraction of what LSD can do. Besides if this is all you got, you might have had some psychedelic research chemical.
>Also there's no holographic 3D shit going on in your brain
There IS a pattern in the visual cortex (don't know the exact name of the region) that's a direct mapping of the visual field but appears distorted when imaged from outside the brain. A target pattern in a gorilla's visual field was clearly identifiable when its visual cortex was imaged. Perhaps some anon knows the link to the study?

>>7189579
This is a Klein bottle modelled as a 3D object, thus it's intersecting. It won't intersect in 4D.
The geometry my brain was putting out on approximately 300 micrograms of LSD was NOT intersecting, yet the surface passed through itself like the Klein bottle does. If my brain can't process 4D images, please explain to me how a 3D object can avoid intersection when passing through itself.

>>7189573
How much did you take?

3D closed eye visuals blew my mind when I was on 450 micrograms

>>7189612

It's a trick or illusion. Your brain CANNOT into 4d, no matter how much LSD you take.

>>7189633
> Your brain CANNOT into 4d, no matter how much LSD you take.

As someone who has eaten a lot of LSD and smoked a lot of DMT, i'll second that. People who claim to see extra dimensions on hallucinogens do not appear to know what "dimensions" are 100% of the time when I ask them to elaborate.

>>7189612
Because it's still 3d at every point in the picture? There are never four planes intersecting, you are acting as if the very object consists an additional plane. Holy duck you people are stupid

>>7189593
>A target pattern in a gorilla's visual field was clearly identifiable when its visual cortex was imaged.

That's
>one study with one target pattern.

There's visually evoked responses used as a more or less standard in neurology and there's FMRI and I've never heard of patterns being matched to neurons.

I know there was some study suggesting what you advertise but I only ever saw a screenshot of two pictures of it and never the study itself. Try google scholar, I'm too drunk and disinterested to google.

>>7179999
No, does e=mc^2 ring a bell?
As for the rest go fuck yourself you dumb piece of shit.

>>7189645
Just what is wrong with your brain? I guess you aren't autistic enough to render 4D even with DMT.

>>7189633
You seem ignorant. There's no way for it to be a "trick or illusion" when it's such a clearly observed phenomenon. There is no visual ambiguity to it. It's the same as you observing your environment in any normal situation.

>>7190010
Let's assume there is no pattern that matches the visual field. Where's our vision? That's right, it's nowhere and that's impossible.

Go on /sci/, tell me how a 3D object avoids intersection when passing through itself. Also tell me why you think it's impossible for the brain to render in >3D.

Well /sci/, I don't see any valid answers, I guess you aren't capable of this?

>>7192148
>What is encoding and decoding?
We don't see patterns of tiny images on a hard-drive platter so we can't save photos?

how many unique synapses can exist in the brain? is there any model for predicting what configuration leads to what sensory input/ouput?

>>7193068
>Also tell me why you think it's impossible for the brain to render in >3D.

Simple: It's architecture doesn't support it. We think in 3d, that's it. You can demonstrate this for yourself: Imagine Flatland, a world with only 2 dimensions. Note how you can't help but see Flatland as a plane INSIDE 3d space. You can't make yourself "think" in 2 dimensions any more than you can in 4, your brain simply doesn't work that way.

>>7192115

I don't thin you now what an illusion is. Have you ever seen a hologram? A 2d image that nonetheless "seems" 3d? It's a trick, the image is 2d, your brain fills in the blanks.

>>7193310

Between 10^14 and 5 × 10^14

>is there any model for predicting what configuration leads to what sensory input/ouput?

Predicting, no. But the regions of the brain have been mapped out empirically, to a fairly great level of detail and precision.

>>7183066
>Zero degees kelvin
1.a particle at zero kelvin still has kinetic energy (uncertainty principle) and 2. It still has other forms of energy, at least mass-energy.

>>7186733
>For example, there is a crude and distorted mapping of our visual field in the occipital lobe. In a study a gorilla's occipital lobe was imaged when there was a target pattern in its field of vision. The target pattern was clearly identifiable in the image, albeit fairly scrambled.

The image isn't scrambled in the brain. The image is scrambled by the way we scan the brain. MRI is low res and isn't reading individual neurons directly, just blood flow. Also, the occipital lobe is not where the experience of seeing is according to some (Koch for example), though it does contain high grain information (in V1).

>>7193279
Just how stupid can you be? The hard-drive platter isn't perceiving anything.

>>7193457
So if we had a (hypothetical) perfect imaging technique, would we be able to see our exact visual fields from outside the brain?

>>7193515
And could this possibly be possible in the future, at least somewhat?

>>7193475
And your neurons fire electrical impulses, their arrangement doesn't matter, their interconnectivity does. There's no magic eye that looks at the pattern of firing or synapses.

>>7193832
Message to all WARNING --- ANONYMOUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UQpoI0guBs

>>7193515
>So if we had a (hypothetical) perfect imaging technique, would we be able to see our exact visual fields from outside the brain?
Yes, if we could read the output of most of the relevant neurons.

Other than the scanning problem, another problem is we don't know exactly where the "neural correlates of consciousness" are yet. The visual cortex may not be where our sense of vision is (according to Christoph Koch). Though if we read the neuron output in the visual cortex, we'd probably get a close approximation of what we're concious of visually.

There is a very interesting caltech course on the neuroscience of consciousness on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pApWYdwdQ4k).).

>>7193830
>And could this possibly be possible in the future, at least somewhat?
I don't know.
The latest idea is of something called "neural dust" which would read neural output and transmit it using ultrasonic signals to sensors outside of the brain.

>>7179999
/sci/ should be ashamed this thread made it so far

>>7194511
Kindly explain what the problem is. How is the question not valid? Why are you so aggressive?

>>7193832
>neurons fire electrical impulses, their arrangement doesn't matter, their interconnectivity does
That's absurd because their "interconnectivity" can't form the visual field anywhere. Since we see the visual field like we do, it must exist (somewhere) in the exact form we see it in, otherwise we'd be perceiving something that doesn't exist. If that exact form isn't in the brain, there are no other options left and it won't exist at all.
If you think it's possible for us to perceive like we do because the "information" is there due to the interconnectivity of neurons, you're thinking our perception is based on something non-physical. How could the universe contain something that isn't physical?

>>7194511
>the cool kid of /sci/ showcases his opinion

Please delete this thread
Nothing to do with science

>>7195477
Explain how this has nothing to do with science. The study of mechanisms behind perception are science and the study of the behaviour of energy is science.
What is your problem? Are you a pretentious /sci/ence purist who demands that every topic needs to be rigorously definable using mathematics, etc?

>>7195477
Well?

I don't think space involves energy, but it definitely exists or else the universe would have no place to be in.

>>7196438
Surely space has some structure to it? Surely space isn't non-physical?

>>7194679
>Since we see the visual field like we do, it must exist (somewhere) in the exact form we see it in, otherwise we'd be perceiving something that doesn't exist.

If you insist on this absurd line of thinking: it exists in a virtual space. It's all fucking data signals, the processing and signal manipulation depends on connectivity and functional relationsships, not on physical 1:1 mapping.

>>7179999
The energy in your brain comes from external sources. Energy that your body was created to detect with what are called senses are pieced together in your claustrum to form what you experience as consciousness.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html#.VS6zlb0o7qA

>>7189612
Because that's what you *thought* was happening, because you were on brain-altering drugs. If you were to see in 4d, it wouldn't appear to go through itself or intersect at all, it would simply go around in the 4th dimension, like you can jump across the board in monopoly rather than sliding across it by going around in the 3rd dimension.

>>7196618
>If you were to see in 4d, it wouldn't appear to go through itself or intersect at all
Yes, this was what was happening, please don't misinterpret the poor wording "going through itself", I was underlining the point that it didn't _intersect_, which it should have done if it had been 3D geometry I was observing.
There is no way to express the observed geometry in three dimensions.

>>7194679
>If you think it's possible for us to perceive like we do because the "information" is there due to the interconnectivity of neurons, you're thinking our perception is based on something non-physical. How could the universe contain something that isn't physical?
Just as you say, the universe does indeed "contain" information, right?
What I think the OP is asking and /sci/ not getting is simply how it can be explained that the generation of our subjective experience doesn't seem to use any energy in itself.

>>7196574
>it exists in a virtual space
Would you say the virtual space is contained in the universe?

>>7179999
Admit it you got rekt by this guy

>>7180914


Do you practice kung fu?

>>7197003
It's contained in the sense that it can be extrapolated from they way the neurons are connected.

>>7198472
If it's a matter of connections between neurons, is there any valid reason to deny the possibility of 4D perception in specific circumstances? What prevents the neurons from connecting in ways that allow that for the observer?

>>7196557
I've asked /sci/ many times what space exactly is, as a phenomenon, but all I get are non-answers because it appears to be an impossibly hard question. How does one even study space?

Though when you think about it, if space was in any sense physical, and involved energy, it'd mean infinitely increasing energy since space is expanding, which is silly and unlikely.

>>7198570
I think it's sort of like asking what "force" really is, it can't be defined in a deeper way, just in terms of itself. That's what you get at the most fundamental level (that we know of).

>>7198570
>if space was in any sense physical
Space(-time) has the attribute of curvature so how could it be non-physical? Something has to be there to curve.

>>7198570
The problem is that once you get down to asking what something, exactly, is you have started entering the realm of philosophy.

And /sci/ knows exactly jack shit about philosophy.

>>7196941
>that the generation of our subjective experience doesn't seem to use any energy in itself.

How do you know?
This is an honest question. In what way does it seem that the generation of our subjective experience uses no energy?

>>7198644
Well strictly speaking I don't know, but I've never heard of anyone accounting for spirit generation in energy equilibrium equations and the like :P

>>7198665
Well, can we at least agree that wherever experience comes from, the brain probably has something to do with it?

Well, the brain uses energy.

On what basis do you assume that none of that energy is going to the generation of subjective experience?

>>7198675
>On what basis do you assume that none of that energy is going to the generation of subjective experience?
Not *directly*. The subjective experience itself doesn't burn or use up energy besides what the neurons etc. already do. That's pretty common sense I'd say. Of course subjective experience is somewhere in the information flow between neurons which uses chemical energy etcetera, but that's not the point.

>>7198791
>The subjective experience itself doesn't burn or use up energy besides what the neurons etc. already do

But it IS what the neurons already do.

>>7179999
Existence is a complicated concept, but there can of course in some sense exist things with no energy or physical existence at all, such as numbers.

To physically exist, I think a thing would have to have energy, yes. I can't think of any counterexamples.

>where/what is the energy that allows for the existence of our sensorium? Is it just spread out all over the brain as electrochemically stored energy? How is that energy so precisely pieced together for the observer that, for example, the visual field appears as a completely uniform entity?
Surely our consciousness is contained in the universe?

I'm not 100% sure this even makes sense. I think you may be equivocating between different senses of "exist" here.

Computation uses energy. End of story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

>>7198798
>But it IS what the neurons already do.
Yes I know, I'm not claiming otherwise, just trying to clear up what OP actually means. The neurons of a philosophical zombie would presumably use exactly the same amount of energy.

>>7198810
>I'm not 100% sure this even makes sense.
>etc.
/sci/ seems to be having lots of trouble understanding this.

>>7199061
Now, which scenario do you think is more likely:

1. You have clearly laid out your idea but more than fifty people have nonetheless totally failed to understand it.

2. You have communicated your idea very poorly, such that it is very hard to understand.

3. Your idea is hard to understand because it doesn't actually make logical sense.

Will a processor of any type (including the brain) use up more energy when it's in a state that is essentially a feedback loop?

>>7199077
I'd say it's
>1.
but surely
>more than fifty people have nonetheless totally failed to understand it
is not the case. Still, the number of posters who don't understand English is surprisingly large.

>>7199102
There's a unique-posters count at the bottom of the page; 56 different people have posted in this thread.

>>7199151
Yes? The number of posters who haven't understood the question still isn't even nearly 50.

>>7198558
That's certainly possible, people have made games/computers puzzles that rely on 4-D geometry and people seem to do fine.

Go on.

>>7179999
>Surely our consciousness is contained in the universe?

When you read this line sci, you should know you're getting trolled by a pothead.

Also OP tell me how a computer computes and how it uses energy to compute and how it perceives that information. Next tell me how information stays stored in a flash drive without consuming any energy. Then fuck off.

>>7201905
You're making a fool of yourself by having the question fly over your head and then proceeding to spew unrelated shit. You should be ashamed.

>>7179999
Quantum foam. It doesn't have any energy as a sum but it can influence matter.

>>7180895
If you know what energy means, give us a definition or move on.

>>7203184
Why do you need the definition from me?

>>7203143
No you're making a fool of your self by going 'woah thoughts are like metaphysical maan, they don't need energy'.

The question is phrased so poorly that it's trying to imply it's own answer. Everything I said is relevant to the topic and if you understood how any type of computer worked, you'd know why the question is fucking stupid.

>>7204152
You've got to be a deliberate aggravator.
I asked the question because I very strongly think that thoughts and perception HAVE TO use energy. There is nothing in the phrasing that would suggest otherwise. Also in every subsequent comment I've posted, I've made it apparent that I'm asking the question because I want a clear physical basis for perception.
And you think computers are relevant here? They're not because they aren't conscious and can't perceive anything. An analogy between the brain and a transistor-based computer is rarely a rational one.

I don't want to accept the notion of a virtual space containing our perception in the exact form that we perceive it in. Why would our consciousness as a sole entity be so unique that it has its own "virtual space"? The concept seems just too metaphysical. Please try to explain how it's possible for such a thing to exist.

Bump.

>>7204486
This is the fucking problem right here, your question requires thoughts, perception and consciousness to be individual, wholly unique metaphysical entities. Which there is zero supporting scientific evidence of. Everything we know points to animals with brains and nervous systems being nothing more than complex input output machines. When you get to small enough animals like insects, their behaviours are simple enough to be modeled by computers.

Before asking your dumb ass pot head questions, prove that consciousness is an entity of itself.

>>7206277
When I observe an object, there is either a direct physical mapping of it on a surface in my brain or an indirect physical mapping of it in the connectivity of neurons or both.
In the latter cases, how do you avoid perception being in a way detached from its physical medium? I'm talking about the precise form of perception that we experience as the perceivers. If it's a bunch of connections that don't themselves physically build up any of the observed geometry (or other form of perception) inside the brain in a direct manner, how come we perceive it that way? There is no other possibility than it being an entity of its own that emerges from the neurons' connectivity. This is something that I don't want to accept because as we know, only physical things exist in the universe. It's not enough if the neurons are physical, the product of their functioning (our perception) should be physical just the same. There shouldn't be a discrete entity of consciousness, just like you implied.

Bump.

>>7206378
>direct physical mapping on a surface
This is a pretty big assumption, only sight is kind of partially mapped on a portion of the brains surface as shown by optical implants and even then I think that was an adaptation of the brain to the way they attached the electrodes.

>indirect physical mapping
This is what it is, just like in a computing machine.

>precise form of perception that we experience as the perceivers
Here it is again, you are assuming that our consciousness is an entity and that it is seperate from perception which is also an entity.

What do you define as a precise form of perception? Because it is anything but precise, before your brain even begins to register fine details from your senses, they go through parts of the brain that quickly search through the incoming information and associate patterns with known physical phenomena. For example if you were to quickly take a glance at a room and then turn around, you might not remember specific colors or textures but you would remember familiar objects like tables, chairs, windows etc. This is because your brain processes information in a parallel manner and there are multiple pathways from the areas that process senses to the areas that are used for thought, some pathways are faster than others.

Also how do you explain memory, imagination and what happens when you day dream? Your external senses are blocked out and your brain begins recreating sensory data from memory which science has shown is not stored in an organized manner in the brain.

>something that I don't want to accept
Language like this has no place in science.

You have zero background in what you are asking and are making a shitload of wrong assumptions; if you really cared and weren't just here trolling then you would have done SOME kind of research into neural networks and artificial intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QfPkHU_36Cs#t=337

Watch at 5:30

>>7206873
Cont'd.

Also read up on the chinese room thought experiment. If an operator inside a box is able to respond to your stimulus in a manner that mimics an intelligent being, how are you able to say that it is not conscious? How do you justify your idea of precise perception in the context of an intelligent machine? A machine that is able to learn works on reconfigurable circuitry; it's 'intelligence' has no coherent mapping in space and yet it uses energy to work. Rather, the flow pattern of energy is it's intelligence; why do you think it is any different from humans?

>>7181772
i hate thinking about this

like what everything I perceive is not even what really is. Pushing my fingers together, feeling that solid resistance, but it's really just repulsion

it disappoints me sometimes, our senses

>>7180899
And then we shit the leftover energy. Why can't people admit that shit exists? If we focus more on shit my theory is stupid dicks will stop making asinine assertions about there thoughts about perceptions relationship to energy. OP this is just an example of you trying to confirm your own perception of perception. At best it's a word like all the other words. Stop trying to confuse me dickbeans. I won't stand for it. Oh yea, what's a sensorium and where can I get one? Sounds fun

>>7196438
What does that mean? If you weren't observing the universe it wouldn't need to be. Duality is that the universe observes you right back, if it didn't the reason of your being wouldn't exist. People have a tendency to believe everything they learn is fact because it's source is supported and most will blindly accept that type of learning is truth. The laws of nature have a leg to stand on. Inertia is constantly overlooked because people like to think they understand something far before they've even grasp it so they can jump into something they'll aquire a loose understanding and so on. Ist law- nothing moves without an outside force acting on it. So what moves you. To say inertia is true and that we motion ourselves seems arrogant to say the least when we're aware of how little we actually know about who , what and where we are. Even more outrageous is how the laws that govern intrinsic value have no authority over the quantum universe. People argue about how their eyes work and their senses work to perceive their material world. Perhaps maybe this is just a great way for the much larger picture to observe and perceive itself and for some reason in this infinite expansion we like to believe it's about us. The eye does a job for the I. If you look up the range of what it sees, you'll learn it's a small percentage of what's actually present. Space isn't empty but individual perception is running on fumes. What's perceived as the emptiness around you are trillions of particles creating the force that governs life as we perceive. The paradox is the force doesn't abide to the laws it bestows.