/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10880926]

What happens to our consciousness when we die?

[Anonymous No.10880929]

>>10880926
DMT

[Anonymous No.10880930]

>>10880926
It dies

[Anonymous No.10880962]

[Anonymous No.10880963]

>>10880926
you probably wake up somewhere else instantly

[Anonymous No.10880970]

>>10880926
Glowing text appears saying:
GAME OVER

[Anonymous No.10880973]

>>10880926
Consciousness is the software that runs on the hardware of your brain.

[Anonymous No.10880979]

>>10880973
You're thinking of the various functions that the brain performs. Consciousness is not a function. It is wholly inexplicable.

[Anonymous No.10880980]

>>10880973
>consciOSness
ah shit

[Anonymous No.10880987]

>>10880926
The skyrim introduction plays.

[Anonymous No.10880994]

it gets transferred to another body
if we live in simulation there's no reason for such a complex thing not to be reused

[Anonymous No.10880995]

>>10880926
While the prevailing idea has been throughout our intellectual history that it is anyone's guess really, recently quite a few people have begun to argue that it is an empirical question, i.e. what this philosopher of science argues here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

If you find yourself agreeing with the idea that what happens to our consciousness after we die is an empirical question, then these links might be of great interest to you:

Proponents of the idea that there is in an afterlife in light of all of this empirical data, or just introduction to this data in general:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/day-i-died/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwyVFW9kT8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnoIf2NwaRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5or66dI6akU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaFuJr0IE5k
http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/dp/159477451X/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594773564/
http://www.newforestcentre.info/uploads/7/5/7/2/7572906/science_and_the_afterlife_experience-_evidence_for.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0997560800/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826499236/
https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

Skeptical sources:

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799406/m2/1/high_res_d/vol25-no4.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799419/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no1.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799425/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no2.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799411/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no3.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experiences-Understanding-Visions-Afterlife/dp/019046660X/
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Afterlife-against-After-Death/dp/0810886774/
https://www.amazon.com/Dying-Live-Susan-J-Blackmore/dp/0879758708/

[Anonymous No.10880998]

>>10880926
Eternal return

Or you will wake up from this game back into the true reality where you can choose another game to play - this is what I think.

[Anonymous No.10881064]

I think it's really simple to derive an answer that is good enough.

Say you want to recreate your consciousness from one year ago. How would you do that? As far as we know, our consciousness is only the current weighting of our brains. In any case, you would need some sort of backup and rewire your brain to the desired state. I guess you could say our brain is only RAM, no storage.

[Anonymous No.10881073]

If we are just the universes way of observing itself then we are probably just a small piece of a collective conscience, the universe. We'll return to it when we die and when something else is born we'll be thrown back. If the universe loops or if there are infinite universes then we've probably all been through this an infinite number of times already and will continue forever.

[Anonymous No.10881082]

>>10880970
This.
Gamers know whats up.

[Anonymous No.10881099]

>consciousness thread
>deluge of /x/tards drawing conclusions from nothing
Every time.

[Anonymous No.10881119]

>>10880926
you wake up in a carriage, there's three other men beside you. The one on front of you says:

hey, you, you're finally awake. You were trying to cross the border right? walked straight into that imperial ambush, same as us, and that thief over there....

[Anonymous No.10881128]

>>10880926
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MsbSj6E8fg

[Anonymous No.10881130]

>>10880926
To put it simply, we have no fucking idea what exactly consciousness is other than a side effect/part of how our brains function.

Its very hard to study phenomenon because one its subjective to each person, no one else can come in and experience what you are and two you cant exactly fuck with it to see what happens because ethics. there are a shit ton of theories like it being an 'accidental' component of how our brains function to it being a quantum phenomena. At this point its more or less an open question.

[Anonymous No.10881135]

>>10880926
We either
1.) never di
2.) It starts over again as a new conscious observer.

[Anonymous No.10881139]

>>10880987
>The skyrim introduction plays.
Explain
>>10881128
>52:37 long
>Hits play "The first time I smoked DMT..."

[Anonymous No.10881145]

>>10881135
>2.) It starts over again as a new conscious observer.
The next question for that is who or what decides which consciousness you experience next. A related question is why do you experience the consciousness you experience. Why you instead of some other you. Maybe consciousness is one the same.

[Anonymous No.10881150]

majored in physics in college. from what I've learned there and elsewhere, you probably instantly awake as something else once you take the form of something sufficiently advanced enough for self awareness. There can only exist the concept of "after" death during your life, so all time goes out the window "after".

[Anonymous No.10881154]

>>10881150
>you probably instantly awake as something else once you take the form of something sufficiently advanced enough for self awareness
How many observers are there waiting to spawn in. What if a new spawn isn't immediately available. What if an observer isn't available for a new spawn. How does the waiting lobby work. What if the number of observers and slots aren't equal.

[Anonymous No.10881157]

>>10881145
>The next question for that is who or what decides which consciousness you experience next.
>Maybe consciousness is one the same.
you pretty much answered it there. It's pretty common to believe there is only one consciousness (i.e. God) that we get to, on some degree, take part in. If you believe the idea that consciousness is the fundamental building block of the universe, I think that's an easy enough conclusion to come to. As for
>A related question is why do you experience the consciousness you experience.
well this is probably where the physics of it comes into play, along with some psychology about the ego and how a sense of "self" is defined. This can be confusing, but basically it's what the egyptians were talking about when they said you have three "selves", mind, body, spirit (they use different terms but that kinda sums it up).

[Anonymous No.10881165]

>>10881154
Tensed words no longer apply here, so we can't really discuss meaningfully concepts like waiting and availability that imply a sort of timeline. Also there's no waiting lobby and no need to have hosts that you spawn into, that implies a false separation of material and we view as immaterial when in fact they're the one and the same (it all stems from consciousness).

[Anonymous No.10881179]

>>10880926
I should also note that anyone that wants to explore the concept of consciousness owes it to themselves to try DMT, like others have posted about in here. If only because it'll lift the veil on concepts that otherwise just sound like a bunch of bullshit. The confusing and seemingly contradictory language used in discussions about it are sort of inherent to the limiting capacity of language itself.

[Anonymous No.10881191]

A lot of the Eastern religions claim your soul will reincarnate again. The Tibetan Book of the Dead seems to say that you trip balls on DMT for about 40 days which wipes out your previous memories. And then incarnate again. The theory of the four elements in Hermetics and yoga teaches that consciousness is one of the four elements, so it is a fundamental property of the energy of the universe and can never be destroyed, but can change form, as the ego which filters your consciousness is always changing.

[Anonymous No.10881200]

>>10881191
The human birth rate is higher than the death rate. How does reincarnation reconcile this fact?

[Anonymous No.10881202]

>>10880926
All of your cosmic chums laugh at you for being such a loser in your simulation and tell you they were watching on the external monitor as you were fapping to weird porn.

[Anonymous No.10881208]

>>10881200
it doesn't, at least from what I know. my personal belief is you don't necessarily come back as a human right away, or even in this cycle of the universe. There's always of course a lot to be accounted for just based on the fact that we know so little.

[Anonymous No.10881213]

I don't know. Some claim there is a waiting list to incarnate. Also the intelligence of some animals overlaps with some of the lower human intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10881223]

when you die your consciousness ends. woo shillers are magicfags

[Anonymous No.10881227]

>>10881223
there are several issues with this thought process, it's probably the least tenable position on what happens.

[Anonymous No.10881234]

>>10880926
Whitehead's type of Panpsychism has a pretty great answer (Or my bastardization of it): "Your" consciousness in and of itself is a process, and once that process of change ends, you end. To think otherwise would be committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

[Anonymous No.10881236]

>>10881200
Where did you get the idea that reincarnation is limited to human only? It seems to be a very popular notion of eastern religion. However none of the eastern religion limits reincarnation to human only. Heck, in Buddhism you're even reincarnated as Gods. Every being is subject to reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.10881237]

>>10881227
>its probably the least tenable
sure bro, science is the least tenable and magic is the most tenable
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10881238]

You get stuck/frozen in the last instant of your life. You experience the moment of your death for what seems forever.
That is my guess.

[Anonymous No.10881239]

>>10880926
Hint: the Mediaeval thinking is the correct version

[Anonymous No.10881240]

>>10881237
>intentionally misconstruing what I'm saying
>>>/pol/

Science has very little (read: absolutely nothing) to offer on what constitutes consciousness and what happens after you die.

[Anonymous No.10881244]

>>10881240
yeah except the fact that we are animals and your “consciousness” shit would equally apply to cats or slugs or jellyfish.

i’ve never seen a cat spirit influence any of my results in the lab, so i conclude cats don’t have spirits in a physically relevant way. and neither do people unless you are a shill scientist. spirits and ghosts and invisible pink pony waifus have no evidence, so believing in them is stupid in the scientific sense

[Anonymous No.10881249]

>>10881244
>spirits and ghosts and invisible pink pony waifus have no evidence
never mentioned any of that
>shit would equally apply to cats or slugs or jellyfish.
the whole point is that it applies to everything. Not going to waste time explaining intro philosophy to what sounds like a STEM freshman. Let the dead bury the dead.

[Anonymous No.10881253]

>>10881244
>i’ve never seen a cat spirit influence any of my results in the lab, so i conclude cats don’t have spirits in a physically relevant way
That's literally a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the fact that you, personally haven't observed any results that it's true that consciousness is physically irrelevant. Consciousness you can know for a fact is relevant to humans because it's substantial enough that we report on the fact that we have it, it has physically effected our behaviour to that extent.

If the fact that you are conscious doesn't inspire to you at least consider something like Russellian dual-aspect monism you're just a waste of flesh and probably a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.10881259]

>>10880926
why do we need so many fucking consciousness threads. were getting nowhere with this, we arent finding out anything. these threads are just massive jerk off parties that i want to say belong on /x/, but really they are so fucking low quality they belong on reddit. looking at your one sentence capitalization and puncuation typing style and uninteresting image youre a shill. what the fuck do you benefit from posting threads like this? is it a way to keep the /sci/fags from seeking out other sources of paranormal information?

[Anonymous No.10881261]

>>10881249
the whole point is that it applies to everything. Not going to waste time explaining intro philosophy
ohhhhh panpsychism. i heard that a lot. is that what you are saying?

>>10881253
>monism
ohhhh okay a Ken Wheeler level brainlet who thinks “metaphysics” BTFOs real science. newsflash: metaphysics is as retarded as “gender theory”

>Consciousness you can know for a fact is relevant to humans because it's substantial enough that we report on the fact that we have it
i report that i have sexuality. does that mean it transcends natural science? protip: the answer is “no”

[Anonymous No.10881274]

>>10881261
you've already shown to engage in bad faith, I don't waste my time. If you actually wanted to learn and listen, fine, but you clearly don't. Enjoy your idealogical prison.

[Anonymous No.10881278]

>>10881274
haha BTFO, can’t even make an argument. i don’t expect you to, since arguing against science is for schizos and pseuds

good for you, now back to thunderbolts.info

[Anonymous No.10881279]

>>10881261
>ohhhh okay a Ken Wheeler level brainlet
Swing and a miss. Less Ken Wheeler more John Archibald Wheeler but please, keep talking
>i report that i have sexuality. does that mean it transcends natural science? protip: the answer is “no”
Who says that it does? It would be within reality, and thus within nature. But you were flat out wrong asserting it doesn't effect things when it patently does, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

[Anonymous No.10881291]

>>10881279
>John Archibald Wheeler
oh haha you learned “it from bit” from popsci, good for you
>it doesn’ affect things
what are you referring to? sexuality? of course it does. but that doesn’t mean it is some mystical death-defying thing. magic doesn’t exist anon, sorry

[Anonymous No.10881292]

>>10881249
Stephen Hawking couldn't figure it out either since he said the consciousness ends, comparing the mind to software on a computer whose components will fail eventually. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers"

[Anonymous No.10881300]

>>10881278
first step is understanding the emotional lash out you experience and resultant irrationality is the ego's attempt at protecting core beliefs. It's easier to sustain false notions than accept you may have had it wrong the whole time, and the ego tries to take the path of least resistance. It's lazy at best, cowardly at worst. Provide an argument and I'll respond, but you haven't done that, more than that, the way you're engaging is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling you're wrong because you wouldn't dare have something challenge you're extremely fragile worldview. cheers.

[Anonymous No.10881305]

>>10881292
neither could Max Planck who said he view consciousness as the fundamental building block of the universe. Lots of smart people have grappled with this problem, none have succeeded. It's still worth discussing if you (general 'you') have an open mind and speak in earnest.

[Anonymous No.10881307]

>>10880926
>implying death is physically possible
>implying you even had a continuous consciousness in the first place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF5dVjRgXeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

[Anonymous No.10881309]

>>10881292
what is your argument then?

it is clear that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. just molecules made of atoms doing a very complicated dance that is hard to model. or even impossible to model. if it’s impossible to model then you might get into philosophical discussions about that

but arguing it is some sort of paranormal or magical thing is just ridiculous. and your arguments are laughably incipid

[Anonymous No.10881314]

>>10881291
>oh haha you learned “it from bit” from popsci, good for you
Oh haha no, not quite. But I'm glad you have a flippant attitude towards one of the titans of 20th century physics. Going to shit on Von Neumann next? Wigner? Dirac? Heisenberg? Bohr? Which intellectual titan's opinion are you going to dismiss out of hand because you got a BSc with a 2.5 GPA and therefore, know better.
>what are you referring to?
Consciousness retard.
>but that doesn’t mean it is some mystical death-defying thing.
No no you're right, panpsychism, is something we can dismiss out of hand. Obviously consciousness magically emerges when things get sufficiently complex (even though there's absolutely no reason for that to happen), any day now like a rabbit out of a hat Alpha Zero, Clever Bot and Stockfish will all get together and take over the world.

You fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.10881318]

>>10881305
>hurr durr a scientist from 120 years ago didn’t know stuff, checkmate atheists
Bohr and Schrodinger were buddhist shills. their opinions regarding that were relegated to the historical dustbin. just because woo from the past existed doesn’t make woo true

[Anonymous No.10881323]

>>10881314
lol you don’t even have an argument do you. just some woo shit and then ad hominem.

care to state what you actually ARE arguing? i’d be curious

[Anonymous No.10881326]

>>10881318
>Everyone smarter than me is a shill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ
Haha guess Ed Witten is a fucking tool so much for your Superstring revolution Mr Smartguy here comes ANON to tell you that it's all just a big misunderstanding. And obviously we should take ANON more seriously than titans because he posts on /sci/ with the kind of confidence that only the Dunning-Kreuger effect can instill.

[Anonymous No.10881333]

>>10881326
what about what Witten said supports your side? as far as i know, Witten says he is jewish only in tradition but holds no mystical/religious beliefs. sounds like he agrees with me really

[Anonymous No.10881336]

>>10881323
Simple, consciousness is not easily reducible to matter, emergentist programs are doomed to fail and cannot face up to the Hard Problem of consciousness, and everyone who is serious about making an actual explanation must at least consider that at the very least, something like dual-aspect Monism or Whitehead's metaphysics explains the currently inexplicable, if that fails a possibly more radical solution like idealism or dualism might be necessary.

[Anonymous No.10881339]

>>10881336
Or you know it could just be that the idea of conciousness is an illusion

[Anonymous No.10881342]

>>10881339
Go to bed, Dennett.

[Anonymous No.10881343]

>>10881333
He's a Mysterian, he's arguing that while the neural correlates of consciousness will be better understood, what causes consciousness, and consciousness itself as a phenomena, will not be explained. He's essentially suggesting that the current programme of attempting to explain consciousness through material interactions will be unsuccessful but isn't committing to saying that another approach might be successful.

The takeaway though, is that he thinks the current paradigm for explaining it is inadequate. We don't have to be as conservative as him when he says that he doesn't think it will get solved at all.

[Anonymous No.10881344]

>>10881336
>hard problem
>monist
>whitehead
are we arguing science of the “discipline of who said what when”
you telling me some retard philosopher said something means nothing to me. i have a collection of atheist scientist quote memes i could post, and i’m not even an atheist (i’m an agnostic).

“philosophical proofs” of literally anything are retarded

[Anonymous No.10881347]

>>10881343
oh so you’re speaking for Witten now? i require a source instead of your bullshit

[Anonymous No.10881349]

>>10881339
You know idk just deny you exist bro haha it's easy. Illusionism should be banned, illusionist philosophers should be defunded forthwith, and the ridiculous charade should be put to an end. I'm 100% with Galen Strawson on this one.

[Anonymous No.10881356]

>>10881344
*science or not “science of”

[Anonymous No.10881359]

>>10881339

[Anonymous No.10881366]

>>10881349
There is no clear definition of a conciousness. This is like the argument of "what life is". An interesting question but practically useless. When you can come up with an actual definition for what conciousness is that meaningfully differntiates it from a set of chemical reactions in a vial then you can argue about whether it is real or not.

Until then, and hell even after you do that, there is no reason to give a fuck about this question beyond mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.10881367]

>>10881344
I can't believe you posted this without considering suicide. You haven't even addressed any of the arguments, you've just said "W-w-well I could quote someone!". If you aren't aquainted with philosophy of mind, don't even bother to enter a conversation about it.
>>10881347
From the video itself
"I tend to believe that consciousness will be a mystery"
"So I tend to believe that biologists and perhaps Physicists contributing will understand better how the brain works, why something we call consciousness goes with those workings will remain mysterious, perhaps I'm mistaken. I have a much easier time imagining how we'd understanding the big bang even though we can't do it yet, than I can imagine understanding consciousness."
Verbatim.

[Anonymous No.10881370]

>>10881318
enlighten me on what hawking understood about consciousness that planck didn't and how he knew what he knew. I'll wait

[Anonymous No.10881378]

>>10881339
But WHAT is perceiving the illusion of having consciousness?

[Anonymous No.10881382]

>>10881366
ya it's not like pondering consciousness has ever led to anything important like who needs science or literally the entire fucking western mode of thinking amirite hahaha that kinda mental masturbation is for the brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10881384]

>>10881366
>There is no clear definition of a conciousness
What it is like to be something, not simply to behave as though that proposition is true.
The absolute STATE of running into a definitional spiral because you can't explain the only thing you can be 100% certain of.
>Until then, and hell even after you do that, there is no reason to give a fuck about this question beyond mental masturbation.
You have this absolutely mysterious phenomena, and it's literally the one thing you can know exists with absolute certainty, and yet you cannot explain it at all. You don't think that such an enduring mystery is worthy of study? You don't think that solving that problem won't bring out a whole useful field? You're not even the slightest bit concerned that our best theories leave out that, and not even the slightest bit interested what knowledge could be lurking under it?

Think of the practical implications of knowing for a fact that, say, panpsychism is actually the case. You'd have practically confirmed immortality of a sort, you'd know for a fact that on a fundamental level there'd be "something that it's like" to be literally everything. What if an even more radical idea like idealism were the case? You'd confirm that we were in some other great being's imagination, maybe there's some way to usefully tap into that that's not chanting and magic, actual technology that we can't even imagine.

[Anonymous No.10881389]

>>10881349
>Galen Strawson
That guy is all right.

[Anonymous No.10881390]

>>10881344
>philosophical proofs” of literally anything are retarded
yup this is it, the dumbest post on /sci/ I've ever seen. fucking lmao
inb4 "WhEReS Ur ArgUMeNT duuuur" as if anyone could remotely attempt to engage with you on an intellectual level and think you'd actually understand.

[Anonymous No.10881393]

>>10881366
Life is more easily defined as "there is no definition and there is no line between life and non-life". Pretty straightforward. Consciousness, on the other hand, is much trickier.

[Anonymous No.10881397]

>>10881367
>From the video itself
>"I tend to believe that consciousness will be a mystery"
>"So I tend to believe that biologists and perhaps Physicists contributing will understand better how the brain works, why something we call consciousness goes with those workings will remain mysterious, perhaps I'm mistaken. I have a much easier time imagining how we'd understanding the big bang even though we can't do it yet, than I can imagine understanding consciousness."
>Verbatim.
okay, so witten says we need to do more work on figuring out consciousness. and he is suggesting it is going to be completely mundane physics work with no woo. so i win, right?

[Anonymous No.10881399]

>>10880926
Our consciousness forever ceases to exist. Any other answer is a cope.

[Anonymous No.10881400]

>>10881390
>MUH "PHILOSOPHICAL PROOFS" REEEEEEE

name one thing a philosopher "proved" which turned out right. and no, copping out and claiming math counts is not allowed. name one actual philosophy (not math) thing a philosopher EVER "proved" i'll wait

[Anonymous No.10881401]

>>10881393
"there is no definition and there is no line between conciousness and non-conciousness"

See I can opt out too, and look it made illusions!

[Anonymous No.10881402]

>>10881366
>muh mental masturbation
Spoken like someone who only cares about getting his daily fap in and little else. Once you grow up, you will realize there is actually NOTHING else to care about.

[Anonymous No.10881403]

>>10881397
>okay, so witten says we need to do more work on figuring out consciousness
That's literally the opposite of his position, he's a mysterian. What he's saying is that our functional understanding of the brain will get better, but our understanding of consciousness will be nonexistant.
>and he is suggesting it is going to be completely mundane physics work with no woo. so i win, right?
Except actually read it you retard. When he tells you that he would have an easier time explaining the big bang than consciousness, does that sound to you like he's suggesting mundane physics will be all that's required? He might as well be screaming that a paradigmatic shift in understanding will be necessary, but he's not even that confident, he doesn't think it's likely we'll ever solve the problem to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10881404]

>>10881400
>a-a-actually there's math so that doesn't count.

literally proved yourself wrong in the same sentence you tried asking me to prove you wrong that's some golden level brainlet shit right there.

And on that note, I think therefore I am is a philosophical proof which I know to be true because I think. Checkmate bitch get out.

[Anonymous No.10881407]

>>10881401
But that's where you're wrong. You can argue there are gradations of consciousness, which there are. And you can even say that electrons are conscious, which you would be correct in saying. Therefore, your whole statement is correct. The only reason consciousness is trickier than life is that it is much more difficult to accept that electrons themselves are conscious too.
>Life is nothing more than an electron looking for a place to rest

[Anonymous No.10881408]

>>10881397
physics is never going to explain the Hard Problem of Consciousness, ever. No matter how well we understand the brain and the mechanisms that allow us to experience consciousness in the manner we do, it will not explain how an experience in and of itself is at all possible. If you're claiming to know something literally no one else on the planet knows, please, by all means, go get your nobel prize

[Anonymous No.10881411]

>>10881403
kek.

first of all, let me teach you about witten. witten is a guy who has been the front-man in telling us that string theory is promising to give a be-all and end-all Theory of Everything.

second, he is firmly in the camp of "sane" people who don't go all Maharishi at the drop of a hat. he has a Jewish tradition going, and even there he says "i only am jewish because of tradition, i literally laugh at people who believe in mystical shit"

i can back this up with sources if you need.

you are completely memeing, with 99% confidence. maybe you are being earnest, there is a 1% probability of that, but literally thinking Witten is pushing quantum newage woo is like so outlandish it is laughable. witten BTFOs newagers every day, that's what based real physicists do

[Anonymous No.10881413]

>>10881407
Panpsychist? I think a more radical solution is necessary, Panpsychism suffers from the combination problem, Dualism from interaction problem, right now I'm veering towards Idealism but I have no strong commitments.

[Anonymous No.10881414]

>>10881404
>can't name one actual philosopher "proof"
>goes ad-hominem instead
good work schizo

[Anonymous No.10881417]

>>10881414
yeah you forgot to read the rest of my post where I named a proof. It was Descartes. This must be embarrassing for you :/

[Anonymous No.10881418]

>>10881408
the issue isn't about the "hard problem". it's about _subjective_ facts. people can always argue subjective shit, at least until we can brainscan them to the nanometer level. assuming magic woo exists is retarded/muh religious tradition REEEE-level

[Anonymous No.10881421]

>>10881418
it literally _is_ the issue. do yourself a favor and at least read the fucking wiki article on it, better yet, read a book.

[Anonymous No.10881422]

>>10881413
You need something stronger than either panpsychism or dualism but I mean what else is there? You're not committed to idealism but that's the only other game in town.

[Anonymous No.10881423]

>>10881417
what did Descartes prove? pretty sure he got calculus and geometry pretty wrong

anyhow it is irrelevant. Descartes came before based Newton. if you have to go back to LITERALLY BEFORE PHYSICS to find a single philosopher who got anything right, your argument is pretty retarded, especially since presumably the thing your favorite philosopher got right was actually what we'd now consider math or physics and NOT philosophy

[Anonymous No.10881424]

>>10881417
oh yeah and inb4 "that's not a proof duur""
>proof: tthe cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

[Anonymous No.10881428]

>>10881411
>first of all, let me teach you about witten. witten is a guy who has been the front-man in telling us that string theory is promising to give a be-all and end-all Theory of Everything.
Absolute kek. I should believe the great ANON over the world's greatest living Physicist because the most intellectually ambitious project in all of the subject's history (String theory) spearheaded by a man who despite having no undergraduate (Or postgraduate for that matter) education in pure mathematics won a fucking Fields Medal because said ambitious project might not actually deliver?

If String Theory collapses around him he would still be the greatest living Physicist, and one thousand times the credibility of the Great ANON.
>but literally thinking Witten is pushing quantum newage woo is like so outlandish it is laughable
I don't, I know for a fact, and showed you for a fact, that he is a Mysterian about consciousness and clearly believes that the current paradigm is wrong. Whether or not that resolves to some kind of a Quantum-physics related Penrose or Wigner scenario is immaterial. He FACTUALLY does not agree with you on this you little turd. And you can watch the whole video through, as many times as you want, until you realise you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.10881430]

>>10881421
the hard problem is totally subjective. it's not a real problem one could solve. that's what i'm saying. at this point in history that particular problem boils down to what english majors can argue most eloquently in natural language; it has no bearing on hard science whatsoever

[Anonymous No.10881432]

>>10881423
careful with all that backpedalling you'll run into something if you're not looking.

[Anonymous No.10881433]

>>10881423
>Single Philosopher who got anything right
Wittgenstein and Saul Kripke just to name two.

[Anonymous No.10881435]

>>10881428
wow, very impressive. you are doing a really good job at shilling for newage woo by making false claims
>he [Witten] is a Mysterian about consciousness
okay, you assert this twice without a single source.

i know for a fact that he isn't, and you are plainly pushing bullshit. any anon who can use google can check your shit, and they should, because you are shilling absolute falsehoods


seriosly, what is going on? i've been on /sci/ for a while and nobody has ever tried to push falsehoods this hard. is this an /8ch/ thing? are they coming to /sci/ to push their incel crap now?

[Anonymous No.10881436]

>>10880926
In the very room and on the very spot where we die, we shall be judged in an instant, even before those around us are sure that we are really dead. We are in the habit of imagining something like a court trial to take place in the judgment of God. We see Almighty God seated on His throne; our angel and patron saint giving their testimony about us—good or bad—and then we hear the Judge pronounce sentence. This takes place, but not in the way we imagine, for God needs no witnesses: He knows all. The soul during our earthly life does not see its own condition; but when it comes into the bright light of God's presence, it sees in an instant its own state and knows what its sentence will be. It goes immediately to its reward or punishment. This judgment at the moment of our death will settle our fate forever.

Every day you can make a preparation by examining your conscience on the sins you have committed; by making an act of contrition for them, and resolving to avoid them for the future. You should never go to sleep without some preparation for judgment. But above all, try to become better acquainted with your Examiner—Our Lord Jesus Christ; try by your prayers and good works to become His special friend, and when your judgment comes you will be pleased rather than afraid to meet Him.

[Anonymous No.10881438]

>>10881430
Just actually kill yourself. If I have to watch one more feeble misunderstanding of the Hard Problem I swear to God I'll take a flamethrower to Daniel Dennett and any other pussy who's too much of a bitch to face up to what's staring them in the face.

[Anonymous No.10881442]

>>10881435
>okay, you assert this twice without a single source.
"I tend to believe that consciousness will remain a mystery" This statement, and variations on it, are repeated so many times throughout the video that I have to believe that you're deaf, mentally retarded, trolling or some combination thereof.
>i know for a fact that he isn't,
I know for a fact you're a lying sack of shit who can't accept what's right in front of your face and that might also explain the trouble you have with consciousness lmao.

I want you to walk to the nearest wall and smash your skull into it often, don't worry, you're a p-zombie, you have no consciousness to lose in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10881443]

>>10881438
the irony of him killing himself is he'd actually understand the problem as he goes out

[Anonymous No.10881444]

>>10881438
good argument bro, real high level

[Anonymous No.10881445]

>>10881444
>>10881390
> inb4 "WhEReS Ur ArgUMeNT duuuur" as if anyone could remotely attempt to engage with you on an intellectual level and think you'd actually understand.

just needed to reiterate that here.

[Anonymous No.10881446]

>>10881444
You wouldn't understand a high-level argument "bro", that's why you should never ever enter any Philosophy department. Fuck I can just imagine you smugly thinking you have perfect understanding as they look on, completely astonished by how absolutely feeble your little mind is and how incapable you are of understanding the slightest nuance.
>>10881443
No he wouldn't, he's a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.10881447]

>>10881442
i said already that witten is clearly saying it is something (like high temperature superconductivity) that needs more research using normal science. if any noon thinks this 8ch douche has a point, then watch what written actually said and he clearly denies the woo this brainlet is shilling

[Anonymous No.10881448]

>>10881445
and, in case you ask for an argument even for this and it's pointless to waste my time:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

[Anonymous No.10881449]

With enough organization the hard problem becomes an easy problem. It's only "hard" because of emergent phenomena. I know Gödel's incompleteness theorem says that any one logical system cannot be completely consistent but not even the human brain comes close to exhausting all the logical configurations possible in whatever base logical system the universe operates on.

[Anonymous No.10881451]

>>10881446
>enter any philosophy department
haha okay we got you pegged now. the innumerate philosotard who thinks word games are better than science

[Anonymous No.10881452]

>>10881447
>i said already that witten is clearly saying it is something (like high temperature superconductivity) that needs more research using normal science.
No he fucking isn't. In his own fucking words, he believes it will remain a mystery.
If the problem were as trivially easy as you were making out, or as mundane, he wouldn't suggest that the difficulty of the task would be greater than constructing an explanation of the big bang or string theory.

LISTEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE TALKING.

[Anonymous No.10881453]

>>10881448
and in case you're too lazy to read
>Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one—kind of like a recursive Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument. It is worth noting that being fractally wrong can be handy for the losing side in a public debate, since you are likely to leave your opponent looking baffled and unable to deal with each level of wrongness.

[Anonymous No.10881454]

>>10881423
Descartes is most famous for demonstrating that something (you) is in existence, rather than nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.10881455]

>>10881452
he thinks it will be a mystery for a little while longer than other problems. so what? witten knows better than to buy in on MUH MAGIC

[Anonymous No.10881456]

>>10881449
jfc how many of you completely miss the point of the problem.

[Anonymous No.10881458]

>>10881451
>haha okay we got you pegged now. the innumerate philosotard who thinks word games are better than science
Nevermind that Philosophy departments produced Russell, nevermind that foundational works of logic (A branch of Philosophy) underpin Godel's work, nevermind that Whitehead and Russell graduated as wranglers at Cambridge. Never fucking mind that modern particularly analytic Philosophy and mathematics are joined at the hip, nevermind that one of the greatest modern Philosophers in Kripke was a maths prodigy, just run your mouth like a retard because you can't understand any Philosophical arguments you listen to and you mistake your ignorance for some kind of flaw.

The bug is in your head zombie, end your simulation right this second.

[Anonymous No.10881459]

>>10881454
descartes is most famous for the cartesian plane. “i think therefore i am” is philosotard sophistry

[Anonymous No.10881461]

>>10881451
I majored in physics. I can assure you I'm more familiar with science than you are, but that's beside the point, you have a complete inability to understand the points he's been making, or a willful ignorance in the face of them.

[Anonymous No.10881462]

>>10881456
Then help me out. Just a little, I swear I'll shut up if I still don't get it.

[Anonymous No.10881467]

>>10881455
>he thinks it will be a mystery for a little while longer than other problems. so what?
That is NOT what he fucking said, do you ever listen? He said "REMAIN" a mystery, not "Well it'll be a mystery for a while and then some neural correlates will explain it haha", and he specifically states that he believes that understanding the functional aspects of the brain will NOT lead to an understanding of consciousness. So take the man at his word rather than speculating.

[Anonymous No.10881468]

>>10881458
you have to wonder why so many mathematicians throughout history were also philosophers and vice versa

[Anonymous No.10881470]

>>10881458
oh okay, you list a bunch of useless crap. how about Einstein or Bardeen or de Gennes or Polyakov or Anderson or Gell-Mann or Feynman or Higgs or Coleman who all thought woo should be discarded out-of-hand?

you know, people who actually know physics

[Anonymous No.10881473]

>>10881459
The main aim of philosophy was to abolish sophistry. Your calling it that is childish

[Anonymous No.10881474]

>>10881462
It's not about finding a correct logical configuration to "solve" the problem, and it's definitely not about a lack of empirical evidence (which other posters have said). It's an inherent inability to solve it regardless of those solely because it _is_ fundamental, the most fundamental thing. It's impossible to explain the problem in other terms because of that. We can further our understanding of the universe and ourselves through an exploration of the problem, but it won't become easy or solvable. Ultimately, understanding that is the gateway for pretty muc all non-continental philosophies.

[Anonymous No.10881475]

>>10881467
bad english comprehension. he was just saying it’s a hard problem that later science can address. rewatch the interview. witten has NEVER supported woo

[Anonymous No.10881478]

>>10881470
>Incompleteness theorem
>Useless crap
Also
>Einstein
You mean the guy who believed in Spinoza's God? What about Wheeler who believed in a Participatory Universe or Heisenberg who was a Platonist or Schrodinger who was an outright mystic, or maybe Wigner who posited that consciousness causes the wave function collapse.

We can name drop if you want, I think I've got more nobel prize winners than you though.

[Anonymous No.10881482]

>>10881459
The main aim of philosophy was to abolish sophistry. Your calling it that is childish.

[Anonymous No.10881483]

>>10881468
Because they're joined at the hip, if you're an actually good mathematician and not a trained monkey, you have the same faculties that allow you to reason at a high-level verbally (And introduce novel symbolic reasoning systems besides)

[Anonymous No.10881486]

>>10880973
Nope, matter requires conciousness to exist. Without an observer there is nothing. Conciousness is the hardware, matter is the software, obviously.

[Anonymous No.10881487]

>>10880926
I always thought of it like this-
Consciousness is the product of the perfect mix of chemicals in the brain, right? So, when your cells return to the Earth, those chemicals do as well, and are used for nutrients and shit for plants. Parts of you, parts of everything, are infinitely recycled, and the same is true for bits of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10881488]

>>10881478
>muh god
>muh ancient nobel prize winners
it doesn’t matter. even the physicists who believed in the christian or jewish (or muslim/japanese/hindu) god’s didn’t espouse woo. you have not a single quote that supports “muh ghosts”

[Anonymous No.10881489]

>>10881475
He says literally no such thing, and you know how bad of a liar you are? At the end of the interview he specifically says that he doesn't think our understanding will get better, he suggests our disquiet with quantum mechanics will "aquire new dimensions". Point to literally any point in the video where he suggests it's a soluble problem. I know you can't because no such statement exists lmao.

[Anonymous No.10881491]

It probably is some state of mental oblivion. Probably the most freedom one will sense. Returning the matter you are, without the strain of conscious thought.

>>10881200
There's probably many, many more souls than people.

They were waiting in line forever, the pop boom we did is a boon for them since it means shorter wait times.

[Anonymous No.10881492]

>>10881488
Ah, of course, I forgot I was dealing with the great ANON, when his bold strategy of name-dropping physicists fails because, obviously most of the great physicists disagree with his bullshit remarks, he bravely retreats acting as though he isn't a giant hypocrite to name-drop and lean on the credibility of great physicists and then pretend that credibility doesn't extend to others.

[Anonymous No.10881493]

>>10881491
However, I like observing the universe consciously, so I'll go with it until I have to materially break down once more.

[Anonymous No.10881495]

>>10881474
So the hard problem of consciousness is hard because it's hard

[Anonymous No.10881498]

>>10881489
let’s take a step back. your argument is what exactly? that witten believed in consciousness woo? like chakras and qi and shit?

stop trying to troll with sophistry. just think about it. witten is a physicist. do physicists often say “oh, wait, here physics doesn’t apply because uh... spirits and ghosts, so that’s an exception to the ToE, so okay, skip that”???

you’re an 8ch shitlord, that’s what. fuck off to wizchan.org and leave non-ironic posters alone

[Anonymous No.10881512]

>>10880926
In another universe in which particles arrange themselves into a pattern similar to me, will I experience that iteration of me, or am I doomed to only exist as this iteration of myself over and over forever.

[Anonymous No.10881513]

>>10881498
>let’s take a step back. your argument is what exactly? that witten believed in consciousness woo? like chakras and qi and shit?
My argument is precisely that 1) Witten is a Mysterian, he believes it will remain a mystery and he believes it's an intractable problem and 2) As a part of his Mysterianism he believes that explaining the functioning of the brain in terms of its functioning is a kind of category error. Which is clear from the interview because he explains explicitly that he believes understanding the brain's function won't explain consciousness
>do physicists often say
I don't have to speculate! He has given his opinion on the matter in explicit terms. He couldn't have been more crystal clear. Throughout this whole argument your case has amounted to "I reckon Witten thinks..." when reckoning is absolutely unecessary! He has explained his opinion, and he didn't turn around and say "Actually guise I was completely mistaken haha the brain's function will explain it like 20 years tops :)"
>you’re an 8ch shitlord, that’s what. fuck off to wizchan.org and leave non-ironic posters alone
>shitlord
Not even going to start. You're an honest to God idiot who should never have been trained in maths, you can fuck around with it like a kid fucks around with toys but in the end the reasoning and logic of it is beyond you. This is why you're never going to be significant. You deserve your irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.10881517]

>>10881513
explaining the functioning of conscousness in terms of the functioning of the brain is a kind of category error*

[Anonymous No.10881521]

>>10881513
okay, now i see. your argument is based on making up shit you put in witten’s mouth. which in fact he’a said basically the complete opposite since 1980.

classic shill tactics.

anons, if you have any doubts then please watch the primary source videos. this dude is for sure making shit up, or else he’s a schizo

[Anonymous No.10881522]

consciousness is /sci/s kryptonite. i never thought i would live to see the day when scientists were made to eat humble pie

[Anonymous No.10881527]

>>10881521
>okay, now i see. your argument is based on making up shit you put in witten’s mouth. which in fact he’a said basically the complete opposite since 1980.
Haha now I see your argument is based on putting the exact words that he actually said in his mouth and respecting that, being a genius, he actually meant them and wasn't just having an enormous lapse of judgement.
>anons, if you have any doubts then please watch the primary source videos. this dude is for sure making shit up, or else he’s a schizo
I'll do one better, I'll link it so anons scrolling can see how full of shit you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

[Anonymous No.10881530]

>>10881527
oh okay, act like he agrees with you and hope anons believe that without listening to what he said.

more shill tactics.

witten hates woo, face it brainlet 8ch tourist

[Anonymous No.10881534]

>>10881530
>Okay act like he agrees with you
I don't need to act like fucking anything, it is a fact that Ed is a Mysterian. I'll post liar's Kryptonite once again because anyone scrolling can literally just watch the vid and draw their own conclusions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

He repeatedly affirms his commitment to the idea that it will remain a mystery throughout the entire video.

[Anonymous No.10881535]

>>10881534
no, bad comprehension. he acknowledges it is a tough problem that we haven’t solved and the solution is not foreseeable, but clearly he is not promoting woo

[Anonymous No.10881539]

Nothing, lol. Death is the last thing. I only exist as long as the neurons in my brain continue to live. When they die, all electrical and hormonal activity stops and I am no longer. End of the road.

[Anonymous No.10881541]

>>10881535
>no, bad comprehension. he acknowledges it is a tough problem that we haven’t solved and the solution is not foreseeable, but clearly he is not promoting woo
Bad comprehension? "I tend to believe it will remain a mystery", "I can't imagine it not being a mystery unless there were some modification of the laws of physics that's relevant to understanding the function of the brain, and I think that's very unlikely" specifically on that, he goes in specifically to talk about that in terms of quantum mechanics applying to us, and names Penrose, but like he says earlier in the video, he finds such a modification unlikely.

So for clarification, he doesn't believe that explaining the functioning of the brain will explain consciousness, but he also finds a modification of the laws of physics unlikely, thus he commits to a Mysterian position and suggests it's just an intractable mystery.

[Anonymous No.10881550]

>>10881541
he is literally the leader of string theory. that is in itself a modification to the “laws of physics”

your pro-woo interpretation of what he said is for sure wrong. witten is very down-to-earth. if your reading of him leads to “muh magic consciousness deepen chopra shit” then you just misinterpreted him

[Anonymous No.10881554]

>>10881550
*deepak not “deepen”

[Anonymous No.10881559]

>>10881550
>he is literally the leader of string theory. that is in itself a modification to the “laws of physics”
"that's relevant to understanding the function of the brain, and I think that's very unlikely"
Are you actually deaf? Are you blind too?
>your pro-woo interpretation of what he said is for sure wrong
Mysterianism isn't pro-woo, it's pro-nothing. He's taken the respectable Wittgensteinian position that whereof one cannot speak one must be silent.
>if your reading of him leads to “muh magic consciousness deepen chopra shit” then you just misinterpreted him
Even if he was you obviously wouldn't know because you haven't listened to him at all! He could be talking about Godzilla for all you know. I'm starting to think that either you're only aware of what he said because I'm quoting him and you're too nervous to actually watch the video because you're scared I'm right, or that you opened it for 5 seconds, got shit scared I'm right, and have been speculating on what he thinks because God forbid you take him at his work you UNSPEAKABLE retard.

[Anonymous No.10881561]

>>10881559
at his word*

[Anonymous No.10881565]

>>10881559
i read what you said and it reads like a desperate 8ch anon trying to keep his shill going.

you don’t speak for witten and you don’t know shit about physics. “muh consciousness” is literally a way to identify physics brainlets. and you certainly fulfill the brainlet criteria

[Anonymous No.10881572]

>>10881565
>you don’t speak for witten
It's a good thing Witten speaks for Witten, clearly, over 4 minutes, repeating the exact same point with crystal clarity elcudiating exactly why he thinks it's an insoluble problem.
>“muh consciousness” is literally a way to identify physics brainlets. and you certainly fulfill the brainlet criteria
You have fucking embarrassed yourself. Anybody who watches that video can know in the introductory SECONDS of the video that you're wrong and I'm right, and if they stay for the full 4 minutes they can learn in detail just precisely how wrong you are about Witten's opinion, as Witten actually gives his opinion.

I'd encourage you to kill yourself, but fuck it, living in such a tiny mind as yours must be hell on fucking earth. The longer you're trapped in your meat prison the better, live to a ripe old age. You don't even have to worry about dementia as you have no faculties to diminish in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10881577]

>>10881572
ah hah, great arguments. so high IQ.

actually you’re retarded and made no argument. nothing witten said there or anywhere else promotes consciousness woo.

[Anonymous No.10881578]

>>10881577
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10881580]

>>10881578
buttblasted

[Anonymous No.10881682]

>>10880926
You got to heaven unless you are a degenerate, non-Christian heathen.

[Anonymous No.10881715]

>>10880926
nothing. we aren't even conscious. we react based on a cause and effect system, same as everything else in the universe.

[Anonymous No.10881810]

>>10881715
>we aren't even conscious.
bitch wot

[Anonymous No.10881885]

>>10880963
this, we cannot perceive time while dead.

[Anonymous No.10881975]

>>10880926
Metempsychosis and eternal recurrence.

[Anonymous No.10881984]

>>10880926
Conciousness is a property of processing, when the brain ceases to be able to process information "concious" simply stops being an fitting description for that brain.

[Anonymous No.10881997]

>>10880926

[Anonymous No.10882046]

>>10880926
you go back to being as you were before you were born

[Anonymous No.10882075]

>>10881810
refer to my last post.

[Anonymous No.10882173]

Trick question. Nobody dies in their own perspective.

[Anonymous No.10882174]

>>10880926
You return to Source.

[Anonymous No.10882177]

>>10882173
You have to eventually. Every animal continues until it has no means to do so. When there's no timestream to get kicked over to, you are returned to the source. Perhaps earlier if desired by the Source.

[Anonymous No.10882182]

You live your life again, but backwards, then forwards again, etc

Source: it was revealed to me on an LSD trip

[Anonymous No.10882271]

>>10880973
Meaningless drivel to hand wave away a problem.

[Anonymous No.10882417]

>>10881307
This is much similar to Max Tegmark view

[Anonymous No.10882500]

>>10881486

[Anonymous No.10882518]

>>10882182
How do you know you're not going backwards right now?

[Anonymous No.10882522]

>>10881449
Agreed man...

[Anonymous No.10882536]

>>10880998
Think not, for those exist that know.

Real life exists within this game as a trope.

(Warframe)

I am Inaros.
Nice to meet you.

[Anonymous No.10882540]

>>10881073
Why doesn't anyone know?
^ Followup question

[Anonymous No.10882548]

>>10881139
There are good reasons that anytime anyone asks questions about consciousness, someone mentioning smoking DMT comes in.

DMT allows you to move to a layer below the universe you are currently residing in.

Essentially, it's a temporary method to gain near absolute perception, that crosses reference frames.

For DMT "getting high" is actually a mechanical way to force your consciousness in or out of this universe, it's not "lul your brain is inhibited like you're drunk"

No. DMT, literally, is a mechanism for your consciousness to phase in and out of space-time.

[Anonymous No.10882558]

>>10881139
>>10882548
On that note, mainstream science won't figure that out.

They look down their nose at doing drugs.

But drugs alter perception, which is a part of consciousness. <- Bingo.

Does science understand consciousness? No.

Is mainstream science afraid of endorsing research into things that alter perception, AKA DRUGS? Yes.

Why?. <- Religion

So, if you're a true science fag. Drugs, from a logical standpoint, are one of the few tools we actually have available to probe the behavior and structure of consciousness.

Most cognitive neuroscience people want to just jab nano wire probes into people's brain tissue. No thanks, just give me a drug that naturally occurs in living organisms, please.

Anyone that has truly smoked AND experienced a real DMT trip will tell you.

It probably really is a way to send your consciousness in and out of space time.

There is nothing else like it. It's like the difference between being alive and dead, sentient or not.

[Anonymous No.10882650]

>>10880926
Nothing

[Anonymous No.10883385]

>>10880926
there are only two places it can go anons

[Anonymous No.10883392]

>>10880979
>You're thinking of the various functions that the computer performs. Programs are not a function. They are wholly inexplicable.

[Anonymous No.10883398]

>>10881486
I hope for your sake that this is bait.

[Anonymous No.10883400]

>>10880926
Most likely not. The chances that you would recombinate into another form before the heat death of the universe are small.

[Anonymous No.10883406]

>>10883385
is there anything more cringe than anime bible-thumping memes?