/sci/ - Science & Math

There are two kinds of philosophers of science. The scientist turned philosopher and the philosopher turned crackpot.

>There is no such thing as philosophy free since but science whose end game is different than that of philosophy of science
"Science" is a word uses to classify a bunch of human enterprises related to the investigation of the material world. It intersects (obviously) with Philosophy in a subset of "science" called philosophy of science and on other subjects, mainly theoretical. But that doesn't mean "science" doesn't have activities and methods that don't concern themselves with philosophy, if you obviously aren't being a reductionist cuck who thinks any thing that has to do with thought and knowledge must be readily relates with what we call "philosophy" nowdays. I.e., a philosopher isn't going to aid those activities.

>>9739543
Every physical model has an implied ontology

>>9739547
Yes, that's why theoretical model will intersect with philosophy. That doesn't mean that all of science reduces to those questions. Some just take as fact and go from there, and that's done to investigate the implications and many other shit that uses those models.

>>9739543
idk what the context of the quote is because it seems like an obvious statement but my guess is it's addressing the scientist that fails to consider the philosophical underpinnings of why they're doing what they're doing in the first place, eg. doing science for "science's sake" (which honestly doesn't even make much sense)

>>9739553
>That doesn't mean that all of science reduces to those questions.

Oh definitely not, I agree. But in my experience it always pays off to at least be aware of the philosophical and mathematical assumptions underpinning the model you're using. Especially when they start to fail.

>>9739569
>>9739577
Yea I also agree, the problem is that I've heard a lot of people saying that science is literally just "applied" philosophy, something I think is a reductionism that is worse than scientific materialism, because it's trivializing a lot of fields into "monkey work", which anyone who's serious about those fields understands it isn't like that. But yea, I accept that philosophical considerations come naturally, especially when you enter abstract models like relativity and QM. Though usually, it's much better to work and know the entrails of the theory, to judge it philosophically. I.e., the classical idea that a philosopher was someone so knowledgable about some fields tht he couls further it or challenge it, but it obviously requires mastery of more high levek skills.

That’s true, there’s also a sense in “what’s the value of doing this” which - and I forget the guy who originally said this - science is unequipped to answer. This just seems like pedantry that people say to seem DeGrasse-smart though.

Or however you spell his name, not the show obviously.

>>9739527
Did Daniel Dennett say that? Honestly impressed that Daniel "DUDE CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T REAL LMAO" Dennett has the insight to say that. Thought he was as meme tier as NDT.

>>9739791
Consciousness isn't real. If you were a little smarter you might agree.

>>9739796
>brainlet that thinks the real is only that which can be numbered and measured
>brainlet that literally OD's on math and uses it to define everything around him

>>9739800
Is this your passive aggressive way of saying you think magic is real? It isn't. Evolution created the brain. If you were a little smarter you'd understand how that fact alone indicates consciousness is illusory. Hopefully you live to see how wrong you are in terms so concrete not even a moron could disagree.

>>9739821
>Evolution created the brain
And the universe created evolution. Stop thinking like a simpleton and you'll see the error of your ways, nigger.

>>9739828
>borderline retarded pol-rodent believes in magic
No surprise there

>>9739527
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Highly_Advanced_Epistemology_101_for_Beginners

>>9739841
Who said anything about magic you silly fuck.
You're a moron straw-manning himself to an imagined victory.

>>9739796
How is it not real? I'm experiencing it right now lmao. Ergo it exists. Literally tautalogical. Optical illusions don't mean shit, they occur within consciousness, as conscious experiences.

>>9739884
Making this argument proves you either aren't very insightful or you just haven't thought very hard. What do you mean "[you're] experiencing it right now"? How do you know what you're experiencing, let alone what its actual nature is? If consciousness were an illusion (which it is), you wouldn't find that out by asking yourself if it feels like an illusion, because that illusion is literally what you are. Your opinion on how it feels is less than meaningless.

>>9739895
You're drawing that conclusion based on perceptions (i.e. consciousness). You are implicitly accepting the existence of consciousness and using it as a basis to deny its existence. Absurd.

>>9739895
You're over thinking this. A simple yes or no answer from a subject suffices. You're simply taking the easy route and denying its existence and permeation throughout the fabric of reality because you currently have no ability to describe or define it in absolute terms.

>>9739884
>How is it not real? I'm experiencing it right now lmao. Ergo it exists. Literally tautalogical. Optical illusions don't mean shit, they occur within consciousness, as conscious experiences.
yes, its allegedly real for each one of us, but we have no way of proving it to others. you can o

>>9739913
>>9739911
>You're over thinking this. A simple yes or no answer from a subject suffices.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The brain evolved, it's made of the same basic constituents as its distant evolutionary ancestors which not even ignoramuses would claim are conscious. The brain is made up of neurons; as yet, no magical "consciousness" particle has been discovered. It's a physical system that takes in inputs and gives outputs. You have zero control over both of these things. You "feel" as if you do for reasons that are clearly above your capacity to understand, but this is an illusion. There is no free will. There is no consciousness. People are brains, are brains are organic computers. That's all they are. The ridiculously enormous complexity is what allows people to play "god of the gaps" and claim bullshit, but within the next century you'll be proven definitely wrong when computers can predict a human's next action or thought based on the current state of their brain.

>>9739942
I actually lean toward determinism, but even if my entire future were laid out in front of me, I would still believe consciousness exists. You're just telling me about some scientific models (in this case, evolution and materialism) which actually only exist as perceptions, and using them as "proof" that perceptions don't exist. Science presupposes the existence of consciousness and perceptions and their fidelity to the real world.

you can only know its real for yourself, you have no way of proving this to others, because conciousness means that someone is "experiencing" existence.

>>9739965
Right, I'm assuming the other person experiences something similar enough to what I experience, and I'm trying to convince them that "consciousness is an illusion" is a nonsensical statement.

>>9739942
>consciousness particle
lel who says it has to be a particle to be real. Space is defined as being real is it not?

The rest of your post is just a series of theoretical models that you extrapolate a series of bromide opinions out of.

>>9739973
yeah, the thing is as far as youre concerned everyone else could be a philosophical zombie, an npc, a machine that acts exactly as a human being but experiences nothing.

Even if you do believe you are experiencing conciousness you could convince yourself that it is an illusion, particularly if you talk about memories

>>9739791
Dennett is pretty based when he's not talking about consciousness.

Here he does a good job putting lawrence krauss on blast for his ignorance in regards to philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8

>>9739942
>but within the next century you'll be proven definitely wrong when computers can predict a human's next action or thought based on the current state of their brain.

I think youre vastly underestimating the computing power needed to emulate the brain perfectly and all of the possible variation of its inputs. You may get an aproximation but never a perfect infinitely granular simulation to the planck lenght which would be the only thing that would grant you perfect acuracy

>>9739997
There is no hard problem of consciousness, just delusional people who can't accept that brain matter is literally what people are despite all the evidence proving this definitively.

>>9739988
>the thing is as far as youre concerned everyone else could be a philosophical zombie, an npc, a machine that acts exactly as a human being but experiences nothing.
Nope, this is just wrong. This is along the lines of an illogical paradox like; does the set of all sets contain itself. Its a completely irrational premise.

You are aware, and you've evolved from the same reality and laws that bind everything around you. If you're aware, you can be 100% confident that others are aware as well. There is zero doubt about this, apart from the aforementioned philosophical tripe.

>>9740003
>If you're aware, you can be 100% confident that others are aware as well
I disagree, there could be something you're not seeing, we unerstand so little about conciousnes that it doesnt make sense to just assume everyone is. Maybe some people is and some arent.

Some people can hide emotions from you, you think they cant hide conciousnes!=!!?!?!?! alll of my has at you kind sir

>>9740003
Jesus, you're ignorant. You have a lot to learn from that "philosophical tripe" you're dismissing. Cringed.

>>9740015
Ignorant? lol seriously entertaining solipsism is equivalent to accepting a schizophrenics delusions as being tangibly real. Its a toxic and egocentric belief thats based on a childish simplification of reality.

>>9740031
He's right, you're wrong. That's the end of it. It doesn't mean we should live our lives as though it's the case, but he is objectively right. You could be a brain plugged into a simulation right now and there's even strong non-solipsist arguments for such cases. For example, the fact that we as a species seem to be well on the road to being able to do this ourselves: create artificial beings like us inside simulations.

>>9740046
None of that points to the non existence of consciousness. Which is the fundamental premise that is being argued here. If anything that points to it being a regular, undeniable feature. Particularly in our ability to recreate it.

Try again, brainlets.

>>9739942
What is your definition of consciousness?
Obviously its been pointed out that you can only correlate the quantitive findings with qualitative findings i.e you're right to say you can't dissect a brain and find the qualitative taste of chocolate cake - only the firing of certain neurons. Likewise, you can't find the ego or consciousness tucked away. However, the qualitative feeling of being a 'me' is felt and depending on your definition, I can with certainty say because I am feeling something which I call consciousness, it exists. Free will is not real, but for consciousness to exist, does free will have to exists? Depends on your understanding/definition of consciousness.

>In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."

>>9739537
This. All philosophers of science in my university are STEM graduates with a masters/PhD in philosophy.

>>9740002
There are two types of people.

Those who don't understand the hard problem, and those who don't think there is a hard problem. If you give an ounce of epistemic humility and try to understand what the problem is, I assure you you'll see it's not just people who believe in soul magic and made this argument up as a post-hoc justification.

You can think there is a hard problem and still be a physicalist about consciousness, but if you don't give that it at least poses a big epistemological problem for physicalism, then you've proven that you don't understand it.

>>9740747
>Those who don't understand the hard problem, and those who don't think there is a hard problem.
I agree

>>9740002
There are two types of people. Those who think there is a hard problem, and those who don't understand it. If you give an ounce of epistemic humility and try to understand what the problem is, I assure you you'll see it's not just people who believe in soul magic and made this argument up as a post-hoc justification.

You can think there is a hard problem and still be a physicalist about consciousness, but if you don't give that it at least poses a big epistemological problem for physicalism, then you've proven that you don't understand it.

>>9739895
>How do you know what you're experiencing
having any sort of experience necessitates consciousness, so no matter what it is that he's experiencing, as long sa he's experiencing something he's conscious

>>9739527
>>9739844
Lesswrong is a cult for cringelord autists

>>9739577
Note the sneaky language here that equates math to philosophy and tricks the replier >>9739612 to respond ignoring that, leading future people who have read the conversation and are not informed to conflate the two.
kys, keep this on /lit/

>>9740777
There is no problem. No one but brainlets cared “how” or “what” consciousness is. Grow up.

>>9740777
>Were all already dead and nothing matters, just me numbers!

lol you are boring as fuck.

>>9741109
>buries head in the sand
>"I don't see a problem here! Everyone else dumb but me!"

>>9740002
>t. p-zombie

>>9741558
So are you.

>>9741558
Everyone could be a p-zombie, dumbass. No one knows for sure.

>>9741508
There is no “urgency” or “problem”, sweetie. I win.

>>9741853
Except everyone knows they're not... Or at least says they're not... But that's just the sorta thing a p-zombie would say!

>>9739942
What/who is the illusion fooling tho?

>>9741079
Not an argument

>>9740000
>>9739942
Actually, we already have machines that can predict that you will, for instance, press a button, before you yourself are aware that you've made the decision to press that button. (It's also kind of an annoying machine to interact with.)

In these sorta of "discussions" though, you really need to narrow down the definition of consciousness first. For instance, someone who says "there is no consciousness", can't possibly mean to say they aren't having an experience.

>>9741939
iirc that machine just registered a blip of neuronal activity before the person consciously made a decision. That blip could be anything, and its never been conclusively defined to be the point in which a decision is made.

>>9742106
It's better than that - it's a point you can read before the decision is made and know what it's going to be.

Dunno if, in the end, it really has any bearing on consciousness or free will though. I suspect we'll have full simulations of human brains and still be debating this.

>>9742148
For the specific instance of pushing a button (whoppity fucking do) do we not actively relegate the randomness of it to the subconscious in the first place?

>>9739942

>>9739942
>There is no free will. There is no consciousness.
Saying there is no free will due to determinism is one thing, claiming you don't have an experience as a human being is quite another. Even if you claim it is an illusion of some sort, that's not enough for anything else in science - you still have to explain what causes that illusion.

>>9742214
Begs the question as to which part of you actually makes that particular conscious decision (not that the subconscious would be any less subject to causality than the conscious, so that's neither here nor there). I suspect it's a process that works both ways however. Similar to how, for instance, upon unexpectedly finding a large and overdue bill, the heart rate raises, even though the subconscious and hindbrain involved in that process couldn't possibly perceive the threat, while the conscious part that does has no direct control over the pulmonary response.

There's machines that can tell which of a set of objects you're thinking of, whether you've been in a partic;ar room before, and similar mind reading, and we can predictably create specific sensations, tastes, and sounds, by stimulating parts of the brain, but, so far as I know, it's the first instance of something that can tell you what action you are going to take before you're aware of it - essentially, read a thought before you have it. It's a primitive step, though, it's also a fairly old machine - as are all those others. I suppose it's only a matter of time before we have mind reaching machines used in court, hopefully with more science behind them than polygraphs.

>facetious webm unrelated, maybe