/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9321311
The buffalo eat the grass, the lions eat the buffalo, and we poach the lions

so is the circle of life

>>9321311
>Does it mean that death is not an actual end of ones life, but a transition between different body constructs?

No and it takes an astronomical leap of ignorance to even remotely tie the two together.

Why is the science board on 4chan filled with retards?

Shouldn't they be posting shit like this on Facebook or something instead?

>>9321311
It is an interesting concept, but to try to find a suitable answer to questions about the nature of reality, consciousness, free will, death, etc. is more or less futile. I would argue that the little we can know about these things proves that they are unknowable in any sort of scientific sense. Also, you aren't going to find much sympathy for philosophy on a board dedicated to science and math, which is ironic because the two are both subsets of philosophy as a whole. Same can be said about more traditional philosophers though too, people are to invested in their tribalism to recognize the virtues and limitations of all different types of knowledge.

>>9321311
If you define life as the physical energy within your body then sure. That is a pretty retarded way to define life though, your consciousness will definitely cease to exist, just as it did not exist before you were born even though the energy that would become you did.

>>9321961
If you consider this drivel well founded philosophy then yes I have no sympathy for philosophy. This thing people do where they equate considering all ideas with actually deciding they all have equal legitimacy makes you almost as bad as people who have blind faith in their own school of thought.

>>9321988

>people who have blind faith in their own school of thought.

Ironic. But anyways, there are reasons for entertaining ideas like this, not that I'd say I necessarily believe it. We don't have anything close to a working model of consciousness, where it begins, where it ends, what types of systems facilitate it at what scales of reality, both in terms of time and space. If it comes down to information processing to the point of feedback, which seems as plausible as anything, then what other types of systems that we may or may not even have the tools to observe in any meaningful way might this be possible in?

You're right that we shouldn't blindly accept things, or even grant all theories equal footing, but it sounds like you have no notion of how little we actually know, and the incomprehensibly vast amount of possibilities that are no more absurd that your blind faith that the almost nothing you know can be trusted to represent the full scope of reality.

One thing that we do know is that every particle that comprises every atom exists in superposition, and those atoms comprise your body, your brain, and everything you've ever interacted with physically, and that somehow this spits out a consciousness. And without your own subjective experience of it, we would have literally no proof that it even exists.

>>9322165
>One thing that we do know is that every particle that comprises every atom exists in superposition

Prove to me atoms exist in reality.

>>9322173
It literally can't be done, so fair enough. Honestly, I think solipsism is fundamentally true, but to live the life we, or at least I, experience on a daily basis, it's pragmatic to assume that physical reality exists. So given that assumption, what we know about physical reality beyond that is still strange as fuck, and people that decide to ignore that aren't really giving their dogmatic trust in science as a tool for demystifying reality as much thought as they should imo. I'll restate that just because I'm making these arguments, it doesn't necessarily mean that I don't grant any weight to science as a tool for observing and understanding the universe.

>>9322165
I agree at some level actually, we obviously cannot say anything with any sort of absolute certainty. However I think you as well as OP still interpret this too far towards "everything is equally possible" Specifically I think you are too invested in the idea that consciousness is somehow different from the rest of the universe which I see absolutely no reason to think. You say we don't know much about the nature of consciousness, and in a sense we don't, it is a very complex system, but we do know a fair amount about the fundamental processes that govern it as well as the rest of the universe. To say that there is something about consciousness that transcends these laws is like saying we haven't checked every star so maybe there is a star made of solid gold somewhere, and while this is technically possible, I don't think one has to rely on blind faith to reject this as implausible.

>>9322206
I think this is a pretty unfair mischaracterization of what I'm saying. I certainly wouldn't say that everything is equally possible, and the ideas that I grant the most merit to are the ideas that reconcile with what we currently know about the natural world.

Now, I understand the frustration with people that hijack quantum mechanics in an attempt to legitimize ideas that don't actually fit with our understanding of it, but even a conservative interpretation of it rips some sizable holes in what people generally trust as indisputable proof of some sort of deterministic view of reality. But really consider this. Only particles with mass adhere to the laws of classical physics. Between any two distinct moments there are infinitely many distinct moments. At all moments, the most fundamental subset of particles we can currently observe, which make up all particles of mass, exist in superposition. The mass of the subset of particles that HAVE mass are determined by particles that exist in superposition. Mass is a variable that is at the whim of particles that don't obey the laws of classical physics. And this is the material that comprises our brains. And we still don't know that consciousness begins and ends with the brain. If I'm off the mark on any of this, I would earnestly like to know, so please correct me if I have it wrong.

I have very little in the way of actual answers about what any of this means, and I think much of those questions are fundamentally unanswerable. So sure, I'm willing to consider some strange ideas, but sofar as I can tell, none of what I'm willing to entertain is any stranger than the existence of consciousness, or even the existence of reality itself.

Until "consciousness" is precisely defined, physically detected, and modeled with a verifiable theory, such questions are unanswerable.

Also, the reasoning behind *all* belief structures is circular, including science, and one does well to remember that. That said, I'm a firm believer in science. I stop short of saying it (or anything else) is absolute truth.

cars are made from matter, matter is made from energy and energy can't be created nor destroyed according both to quantum and standard physics. Does it mean that disassembly is not an actual end of the car's functioning, but a transition between different states of functioning?

>>9322249
Ha, well if you reconfigure the material from the original car and use it to make another car, then literally yes.

>>9321311
If you took inorganic carbon, hydrogen, etc. and formed them into a cell capable of metabolizing and reproducing, I think everyone would agree you'd "created life".
Do the process in reverse, dismantling the cell into pure elements, and you've "destroyed life".

"Vitalism", the idea that living being have some special "essence", has been a dead issue for more than a century.
"Life" is the arrangement of the atoms. That's what counts.

>>9321311
Matter can be created and destroyed. The energy is neither created nor lost during either process.

When you put a fire out, combustion ceases, and the fire is gone. Same too for life when one dies.

>>9321311
New age cancer

>>9322165
>One thing that we do know is that every particle that comprises every atom exists in superposition
Wrong.

nothing in the universe is ever destroyed
is there god? absolutely

>>9322683
Genuinely curious here, can you elaborate?

>>9322652
This is just semantics, you're describing disassembly of matter into a more fundamental state of energy. What op is getting at is, and I've already made this point in this thread, that we don't know what consciousness is, where it begins, where it ends, what types of systems facilitate it, or what happens to it when the brain dies. We do know that the matter that we attribute it to can get dismantled or rearranged to more fundamental states, but no element of it actually ceases to exist, except possibly the subjective element, which we have no way of proving even exists in the first place.

>>9321311
There's an important concept you're missing. You're thinking of living beings as discrete objects or individuals. There is no individual except as an abstract idea. When your body dies it is merely the result of entropy in the system, the atoms that make up your body recombinate into other, simpler energy systems, eventually the atoms that made up your body will be spread around various different life forms and non-lifeforms. But there is no discrete individual that continues on after you die.

>>9322629
>"Vitalism", the idea that living being have some special "essence", has been a dead issue for more than a century.

Well, sure, but that's a strawman argument. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rational person interested in the subject of consciousness that thinks that biological life can't be explained mechanically. The actual conversation is focussed on how mechanical structures give rise to subjective experience.

>>9322249
People don't go to junkyards just to look at parts

>>9321311
Your life ends but you don't because you've always existed. You just happen to be lucky enough right now to experience your arrangement.

The one reason why /x/ is superior to /sci/ is that we don't neglect philosophy and spirituality which are two key factors in the universe next to other scientific pursuits.

>>9321311
If you define life as energy, yes, but that's retarded. A lump of coal has energy but you wouldn't say a lump of coal is a living thing.

>>9321311
the way i see this problem in my head is applying the golden ratio logic to it.
the virtual world, games, movies, stories and books all give a unique perspective of accessing another world from a base station.

lets use games as an example. we are the soul, the consciousness. the computer itself is the abstract outside extra dimensional bubble. the software and being in the world is the perceived reality. the monitor and other stuff are our senses.

i just use the fact that stuff likes to repeat itself throughout the universe and apply this to our other life.
its some abstract game.

>>9324423
It's not a strawman. Everybody has cognitive dissonance.

>>9321961
>dedicated to science and math,
but without philosophy, you cant even begin to understand math.

>>9321988
>it did not exist before you were born
thought experiment time
i made an true conscious ai
its in my pc
to control a body it wirelessly connects. for even better control to the brain itself use quantum mechanics. now theres no range limit either as well as instant transmission.
>b-but the body died
we cant fucking know if we are an antenna or what because we are still bumbling retards in the grand scheme.

>>9322203
for all intense and purposes i live in a bounding boxes reality
its all forcefields

>>9324620
more like everybody has multiple consciousness, at least 2 that form a bigger consciousness and usually neither are aware of this relationship but a glitch is this cognitive dissonance, as both brain hemispheres arent the same

ben 10 and alien x taught me this
the guy and girl inside alien x always argue but ben10 says fuck u and acts

>>9324622
Tell that to a mathematician lol

>>9324620
You literally are not engaging the concept that's being presented. Our lack of understanding of consciousness is well accepted even in the scientific community. Nobody here is saying that biology cannot be observed as a material phenomenon.

>>9324646
what? visualization is a form of philosophy, its just using parts besides words to think with.
thats how i always view math, through concepts transcribed in words that translate to imagery

i just saw an interesting 360 video of an artist rendering of a black hole. the universe turned inside out until you were outside of it, looking at it like a little bubble. this is where i am. find me

>>9324654
Dude, I'm agreeing with you, relax. Honestly, I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted the spirit of my initial statement. Maybe you'd disagree, but in my experience there's a bit of a dismissal of philosophy in the field of science and mathematics, which is ironic because science and math are both subsets of philosophy, with arches over them, as well as all other schools of thought.

>>9324652
But people don't have a neutral stance on this thing that little is known about. They default to a view that is outright self-contradictory.

>>9322238
>Between any two distinct moments there are infinitely many distinct moments
This is wrong. See Planck time.

>And this is the material that comprises our brains.
And our bones. And our roof tiles. And your phone. So what's the point? Quantum fizzy gets extra weird when it's in a brain but not when it's in a rock? Also most fizzyness disappears as soon as you group more than a couple of atoms together.

>And we still don't know that consciousness begins and ends with the brain
We pretty much do.

>>9324714
>They default to a view that is outright self-contradictory.

can you elaborate?

>>9324755
>This is wrong. See Planck time.
You don't understand planck time, it's a unit of measurement. What you're saying is like somebody that would say there aren't infinitely many unique points on a line between two distinct points because there are only so many inches to measure it with. It's a ruler to measure time, not time itself.

>And our bones. And our roof tiles. And your phone. So what's the point?

The material in our brains is the only thing we know is conscious, assuming you'll agree that consciousness exists, and that people have it. Believe it or not, you're the one being reductive in a retreat from knowledge you don't understand. Which is fair, I don't get it either, but rather than be fascinated by it's elusive nature, you'd prefer to dismiss it because it can't be observed materially. You can only observe the materials alongside which it occurs, which in no way necessitates it or explain how or why it exists. The best you can say is fizzyness with the wave of your hand and move on to simpler problems. Of course, this applies to the material world as well, but you apparently treat everything outside of the realm of classical physics with the same dismissal.

>We pretty much do.
And what exactly is a brain? And in what other systems within the universe can process information? And on what scale do they occur? And does consciousness exist in subsystems of the brain? And does it exist in supersystems within which the brain resides? Don't equate consciousness as a concept with the concept of your individual self as a separate entity from the rest of the pool of atoms within which it's saturated. Again, I'm not saying I know, but there's a decent chance that consciousness is a continuum.

>>9324407
My point was to show that the question OP asked does not logically follow from the first statement. Just because matter is made of energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, does not mean that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If the entire universe is rendered completely void of matter, then would you still argue life as it once existed can still continue in this matter less state?

>>9325211
Well that's sort of the question isn't it? Matter is just a permutation of energy, energy being a more fundamental thing than matter. But if Matter gives rise to consciousness, then it's fundamentally true that energy can give rise to consciousness. And to what extent can energy be organized in different ways that we don't know how to observe that might still give rise to consciousness?

If everything is energy arranged in different ways at different scales, and we know that consciousness exists (despite the fact that there's no reason that systems dictated by mere stimulus and response should have a subjective experience), could it be possible that all energy has something in the way of consciousness? There is literally nothing ruling that out other than the intuition facilitated by ego, which depending on your definition of it is a part of the brain that throws up borders between categories of things, and in turn separates our mind from our brain, our brain from our body, our body from the matter outside of it, etc.

Not to mention, our intuition that all interaction of energy is dictated by cause and effect is merely convenience. We know that those rules break down at different scales, but that the world we perceive as being a slave to cause and effect is made wholesale from building blocks that we know don't follow those rules. And we can only HARDLY observe that phenomenon in extremely controlled environments for extremely short times on an extremely small number of particles within a given experiment. What might that phenomenon look like if we take into account that it's happen all around and throughout everything at all times?

In general, I wouldn't argue that after the death of my body my consciousness will continue to exist in the same way, and I think that all practical memory of my life in this body will vanish, but memory is not the same thing as subjective experience, and it is possible that consciousness exists as a continuum.

>>9324874
People believe that consciousness can never be measured while also believing that it dictates behavior.

>>9326161
This might be pedantic but I'd say more people believe it influences behavior, rather than outright dictates it, but I'm not sure where the contradiction lies either way. If a particle is in superposition you can't fully measure it, but they comprise everything we know and interact with. Even if it does come down to something paradoxical, paradoxes exist in mathematics, and in nature, why is it so absurd to believe that a similar thing would exist with regards to consciousness?

>>9321311
matter exists is superposition, consciousness cannot observe superposition. Matter recognizes a higher form of consciousness.

>>9321311
I agree with your statement, but how the hell does does it lead to that question? No.

>>9326399
Can you clarify this a bit?

>>9321311
Yes. You become a lessened energy.
Sure, the animals that eat us get our carbon atom, but that carbon atom decays too. Eventually all will return to freezing cold. Then that cold will cause electromagnetic attraction. Then the crunch.

>>9324710
i agree with this statement. nothing to add, couldnt have explained better myself.

>>9326409
i dont think he can, seems like an idea thats hard to transcribe to words